Fast 50mm M9 options without breaking the bank?

[Roger Hicks]

Current C-Sonnar. I have one. I sold my f/1.5 Nokton because I always used the Sonnar in preference. Objectively the Canon f/1.2 is a joke compared with either (I have one of those too), but you may like the look. I had an f/1 Noctilux on loan for a year from a kind friend, but I found it too limiting (zero depth of field. huge, heavy, and too much money tied up). After f/1.4 or f/1.5 the extra speed is of limited value.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thanks Erik. Wow that looks really good.

About the f1.4 shot. The 'glow' from the left lady with the darker jacket. Is that typical? How is the sharpness towards the corners. To bad my summarit doesn't look that good at f1.5. (great at 2.8 though)

Well, that "glow" is no glow, she is just out of focus. At f/1.4 the dept of field is wafer thin. I focused on the face of the other lady.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I had an f/1 Noctilux on loan for a year from a kind friend, but I found it too limiting (zero depth of field. huge, heavy, and too much money tied up).

How can money be tied up in a lens that you had on loan from a kind friend? That must be the money of the friend. Do you also have unkind friends? Must be ...

Erik.

 

[Roger Hicks]

How can money be tied up in a lens that you had on loan from a kind friend? That must be the money of the friend. Do you also have unkind friends? Must be ...

Erik.

Dear Erik,

If I'd broken it, I'd have felt morally obliged to pay for it. Also, I was considering buying it off him: either that or a Thambar. He almost never used either, hence the very long loans. I bought the Thambar...

Cheers,

R.

 

[raid]

The original Voigtlaender Nokton 50/1.5 was a masterpiece of a lens in craftsmanship and in performance. It still is one of my all time favorite 50mm lenses today. Not all old lenses are inferior to modern lenses.

 

[raid]

It is not the type of 50mm lens; it is the photographer.

 

[filmtwit]

You might look at the 50mm f1.1 Sonnetar

 

[Keith]

As much as I am a huge fan of the C Sonnar it's the last lens I would recommend for wedding shooting wide open. When you have time to deal with the focus shift it's all good but in the heat of a wedding the missed shots due to missed focus would be a negative experience.

 

[Richard G]

As much as I am a huge fan of the C Sonnar it's the last lens I would recommend for wedding shooting wide open. When you have time to deal with the focus shift it's all good but in the heat of a wedding the missed shots due to missed focus would be a negative experience.

Absolutely right advice. I would stick with f2 maximum aperture. You can't check critical focus of the C Sonnar or any very fast lens on the M9 LCD screen. Use the Summicron and ISO 640 and 1/60th. Or use flash.

 

[x-ray]

Well, that "glow" is no glow, she is just out of focus. At f/1.4 the dept of field is wafer thin. I focused on the face of the other lady.

Erik.

Here's a little calculator you might want to check. http://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

I'd say it was shot at about 20 ft. At 1.4 and 20 ft you have over 4 ft of sharp focus. Wafer thin at close distance but not that far away.

 

[bayernfan]

it depends what you want out of a lens wide open, i suppose. if you want clinical sharpness/contrast, the summilux asph sounds like the answer. the nokton 40/1.4 would also be pretty excellent if you use the 35mm lines.

personally, f/2 is the widest aperture i want to use with a 50mm lens, anything wider and the DOF is too thin and just does not appeal to me. are you ok with the way an image looks shot at f/1.4?

my absolute favorite 50mm is the summicron collapsible shot at f/2.8.

here's a random sample from an M8 RAW2DNG file:


sip by Mendocinos_Villain, on Flickr

 

[Erik van Straten]

Here's a little calculator you might want to check. http://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

I'd say it was shot at about 20 ft. At 1.4 and 20 ft you have over 4 ft of sharp focus. Wafer thin at close distance but not that far away.

The distance to the point I focused on was about 2,50 m, about 8 feet. It is shot with a 50mm, not a telephoto lens! DOF is about 25 cm, from wich 15 cm is behind the point of focus. So the lady in front is outside the DOF. The lens is in perfect order.

Erik.

 

[Richard G]

I can't think of anything on which I could advise Erik that he doesn't already know. I just look at his photographs.

 

[Roel]

Sorry I was off the grid for two days. Thank you very much for all the responses and examples.

To be honest I am not sure which route to follow. I like my 50 summicron, have it for 20+ years and don't want to part with it. On the other hand if I would gain a stop and still have the look with a summilux v1 than that is very interesting.

I could also just start with the summicron and a flash when the light is to low.

Will have my 40mm checked to see where the problem lies. It could be the lowlight addition for my 35 and 50 cron.

One other route that might be possible is maybe the new VC 35 1.7. which would give half a stop in the 35 range and have a bit less 'paper thin' focussing than the fast 50ties. I have seen really nice images of the lens. Maybe nicer than the 35mm f1.2.

 

[Richard G]

I've read on the photonet wedding forum some good pros who reckon they could do a whole wedding with just a 35 1.4. I had a version 2 Summilux and loved it, but a black Summicron is so much lighter. I just can't see that the extra stop in a 50 with the M9 is so necessary. Your thinking on making your fast lens a 35 seems good, but 1.7 hardly moves you wider much at all.

 

[Scrambler]

Perhaps its heresy, but wouldn't a newer Leica that coped with higher ISO be the better commercial option? Then you get the extra stops on all your existing lenses?

Failing that, I'd consider RAW development and "push processing" the M9 for higher ISO to get the extra stop.

And if all else fails, I'd think about a Sony 7s to get quite a few more stops on all your lenses for less than a quality f1.4 lens. Only use it when you have to...

I have an old f1.5 Sonnar - and with Sonnars the high speed costs in definition though I love the look. I have the f1.4 Canon - and I think it's a great lens - you can always increase contrast in post. But the unavoidable cost is already discussed - paper thin DoF. And for anything other than tripod use and nearer eye focus its hard to see a real benefit to going that shallow in DoF. Just did a test ("bokeh") shot earlier today focusing on a plant in the garden - and the leaves nearest me are out of focus. Probably 4-6 inches difference between point of focus and clear OOF. But the camera was on a tripod and the plant was slow on its feet - it's not the same as you are doing.

 

[Roel]

Took my 40mm 1.4 Voigtlander to a tech guy and some of the internals were loose (and the 35mm had lens separation...grrr). Will wait and see what the VC 40mm performance will be after the repair. It is nice small and light so it could be a good solution.

In the mean time i will keep on looking for a good option in the 35 or 50 range based on all of your remarks. Thanks everybody!!

 

[TRIago]

You have the best. Use it. Also, create your own light if you have to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jazzwave]

Get Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar or Jupiter J3 50/1.5 Sonnar.

You will get pleasant wedding and portrait shot, with good bokeh and rendering
The image signature of Sonnar is different with your Cron or VC.


regards
~ron~

 

[mgrinnan]

I got a scratched up Elmarit 50/1.5 for around $300, fortunately it had been CLA’d. I’d say it’s an excellent lens, but haven’t shot it on a digital body. If you want a vintage look, I’d get one of those or maybe a Jupiter-3.