Fast 50 for any situation

[Applet]

Hi,
I currently use a Canon P with a Jupiter-3 as my go to rangefinder, while I love that lens, there are situations where I get worried that it won't perform well. Using a hood is not an option 😛.

What lenses do you recommend for a fast 50 that I can use when I don't want to worry about anything?

The lenses I've been looking at is the Canon 50 1.4 LTM and the Voigtländer Nokton 50 1.5 LTM. The Nokton is a modern lens with modern coatings, so it should be able to handle most situations right? How well does the Canon 50 1.4 stand up against the Voigtländer? The Nokton seems good, but it's a bit pricey. Any other recommendations?

Thanks! 🙂
Stefan

 

[chathaway]

...nothing by way of recommendations, but I love your two choices given what you've written...neither the Cannon nor the CV will let you down, but you always have to worry a little...

 

[Wulfthari]

I think ALL vintage and modern lenses SHOULD be used with a hood, the vintage ones more, of course.

The J-3 is a good lens and I think it's more or less a flare resistant as the Canon 1.4, I would expect the Nokton to achieve better performance but I appreciate Cosina sells it with a hood.

 

[02Pilot]

What are your specific concerns about the J-3 not performing well? Why exactly is using a hood not an option? The J-3 is a Sonnar-type lens, which is remarkably flare-resistant by design, but a hood certainly won't hurt. What characteristics are you looking for in a fast 50?

 

[Applet]

Thanks for the responses! 🙂 I just don't like carrying a hood around (and dislike the added size of the camera if mounted). Thus I always end up not bringing it.

Well, my Jupiter-3 have not been adjusted for focus on the P (but it's pretty accurate) and is missing a few screws (this is a problem). This makes me worry about the focus shift and accuracy and whether it will break on me in situations I can't grab one of my other lenses or cameras. So basically I want a more reliable lens with maybe a bit higher contrast and sharpness wide open. I have always just assumed that the Canon 50 1.4 and Nokton was a lot more flare resistant. But if the difference is not that great, I guess that point is moot.

Maybe I should just give my Jupiter-3 some love and sent it in for a service, have it adjusted properly and have the missing screws added? I do like that lens, but it makes me worry while out shooting sometimes... 😛

EDIT:
Do you have any recommendations on where to send the lens for service? Preferably in the EU (I live in Sweden). What can I expect in cost for a complete overhaul of the lens?

 

[bobby_novatron]

I own both the J-3 and the Canon 50/1.4, and I think the Canon 50/1.4 is a better lens. The J-3 is good, the Canon is better. The overall construction, quality of materials, etc. of the Canon is subjectively better IMHO. You can feel it in your hand: the Canon feels very well-made, the J-3 feels more 'cheap'.

That being said, what is the performance difference? I think the Canon has slightly better flare resistance and overall image quality than the J-3, but the difference is not huge. Is it worth it to spend the money? That is up to you. 🙂

When I looked at the construction of my Jupiter-3, I noticed that the internal metal housing is not coated to reduce internal reflections. This seemed odd to me.

I think you would find a good Canon 50/1.4 would be an excellent match to your Canon P, and you wouldn't have the focus errors of the J-3. The Soviet lenses are known for having a slightly different registration than other LTM glass.

For J-3 service, the only place I can think of is Fedka in USA. But even then I am not sure. Perhaps other members would have better suggestions.

Here is my Canon 7 with 50/1.4, just so you can think about it a little more. 🙂

 

[bobby_novatron]

And to show I'm not totally biased, heres a vote +1 for the Jupiter-3.

This is a photo I took with the Jupiter-3 with my rangefinder, using Lomography 100 film. The aperture was set at F2, I think. Very nice rendering.

 

[bobby_novatron]

Applet -- I don't know if you have already seen these reports, but this guy does a good job of reviewing these 2 lenses.

http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2012/10/20/50mm-jupiter-3-f1-5/

http://aperturepriority.co.nz//2013/05/28/the-japanese-summilux-canon-50mm-f1-4-ltm/

 

[FrankS]

RF Canon 50f1.8

Cheaper, smaller than f1.4, and fast enough.

 

[bobby_novatron]

RF Canon 50f1.8

Cheaper, smaller than f1.4, and fast enough.

What Frank said. Almost any lens faster than F2 is going to be soft or problematic somehow wide-open.

The Canon 50/1.8 is a great little lens. A sleeper, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[02Pilot]

All things being equal, you're not really going to go wrong with any of those lenses. If the J-3 needs service (and you're not willing or able to do it yourself), then sending it off probably isn't a bad idea in any case. A few other things to remember about the Jupiter: it's a Sonnar, which means that focus shift is always going to be there, even if the lens is perfect - it's a function of the design - and the look of images from it are going to be different than the Planar-type Canon (I don't know what optical formula the Nokton uses, but I suspect it is closer to the Canon than the Jupiter). For me, the deciding consideration is the look of the photos - you have to decide what your priorities are, then decide what you need to get there.

 

[ferider]

Any other recommendations?

Well, the Nikkor 50/1.4 of course. Smaller than the Canon, very sharp f2 and up, more flare resistant, smaller, and can be modified to focus down to 0.7m on your P.

The LTM Nokton is just too big for my taste, and mechanically questionable (gets to wobble easily).

Roland.

 

[Applet]

Thanks a lot, very good links and input. 🙂 The Nokton seems to be out of the picture.

I really do like the rendering of the fast 50mm Sonnars, it's the reason I got the Jupiter-3 in the first place. I would rather not downgrade in speed since I'm used to having the f1.5, even if f1.8 and f2 usually is plenty of speed. The Nikon 50 1.4 LTM seems like a lovely lens, but also quite expensive and hard to come by? My impression is the same with the Canon 50 1.5, that it's a bit hard to come by in good condition? I'd rather not have to begin with sending the lens of for CLA...

Do I get it right that if I send of my Jupiter-3 for service, it should focus as good as a Canon 50 1.5 or a Nikon 50 1.4 and have about the same flare resistance but of course still with the worse build quality?

bobby_novatron, your Canon 7 looks great with that Canon 50 1.4 🙂

 

[uhoh7]

I think the Canon 50/1.4 would be a great contrast and alternative to the Sonnar, and it should be better on the edges.

Here at f/4:


L1001696 by unoh7, on Flickr

and wide open, both on M9:


L1001683 by unoh7, on Flickr

And don't be distracted by the v1 vs v2 choice, they are the same optics, main thing is to avoid haze. The aperture priority article shows incorrect schematic for type 1.

 

[splitimageview]

if you want to just buy a lens that's for sale now, you'll pay the going retail rate. If you are patient deals come along...the Canon f/1.5 is probably easier to find at a bargain price than the Nikkor. But don't forget that if you buy a nice copy you'll get your money back when you sell. They are not going to depreciate.

f/1.4 or f/1.5 Sonnars generally will lose contrast and have flare wide open, but it goes away at f/2. If you don't mind 'glow' they can be shot wide open, but if you want contrast they are really f/2 lenses.

 

[Applet]

As it feels at the moment, I'll probably start by looking into where I can get the Jupiter-3 adjusted and serviced, and start looking for a affordable Canon 50 1.4 as a "no nonsense" alternative. Then I can bring the Jupiter-3 when I want that sweet Sonnar goodness and the Canon 50 when I just want that good predictable performance 🙂

If anyone have any suggestions of where I could get the Jupter-3 adjusted and serviced, I'd really appreciate it.

 

[bobby_novatron]

Thanks a lot, very good links and input. 🙂 The Nokton seems to be out of the picture.


Do I get it right that if I send of my Jupiter-3 for service, it should focus as good as a Canon 50 1.5 or a Nikon 50 1.4 and have about the same flare resistance but of course still with the worse build quality?

bobby_novatron, your Canon 7 looks great with that Canon 50 1.4 🙂

Thanks for the compliment Applet. I think the Canon lens+body are a great combination.

About the Jupiter-3 service: I think the focus issue is something you would discuss with the repair technician. The lens can probably be adjusted to various 'registration' tolerances.

If you are feeling brave, the aperture priority guy has a .PDF about how to do your own Jupiter-3 CLA. In the 3rd .PDF document he discusses the focal length adjustment, and shows how to adjust it to various tolerances. Exactly the info you need.

http://aperturepriority.co.nz/50mm-jupiter-3-f1-5-information/

 

[Applet]

Yes, those guides are great, I used one when I relubed the Jupiter. The problem is that I do not have the proper equipment for adjusting the lens. I'd need either a digital rangefinder or some good focus-screen set up... I did try a while back to estimate how off my lens is by placing a focus screen (for my Canon 5D) at the film plane in my Canon P and using a "jewellers magnifier", but it was still very hard. I feel like technician with the right equipment could do a much better job than me.

But yes, maybe I'll give it another try before sending it off somewhere 🙂

 

[Monochrom]

I´d recommend th 50 1.8, better than the 1.4, smaller, cheaper and doesn´t have fcous shift.

 

[Bingley]

What Frank said. Almost any lens faster than F2 is going to be soft or problematic somehow wide-open.

The Canon 50/1.8 is a great little lens. A sleeper, as far as I'm concerned.

+2. The 50/1.8 is a superb optic. I got mine cleaned by Sherry several years ago and it's a sharp all round performer. Much smaller and lighter than the 50/1.4.