GAS - Canon 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 for my IIIf?

[bean_counter]

Hi,

GAS attack is hitting me hard; rather than blowing the budget on my lust for an old M and a Summicron, I'm going to try a Canon lens for my IIIf.

My usual lens is a coated Elmar 50/3.5. Nice classic lens and makes for a small package, but I need(?) something faster/sharper.

Is it worth ponying up the extra $$ for the 1.4 vs the 1.8?

 

[jlw]

Either is a very nice lens. My experience is that the f/1.4 is very, very slightly sharper, but you'd be hard pressed to see the difference.

If you don't need the extra 2/3 stop, you can save some size and weight by going with the f/1.8 version.

 

[wlewisiii]

For your use, I'd suggest an early chrome Canon Serenar 50/1.8 or 1.5 lens. Either is more compact and both are excellent performers. I really enjoy my Serenar 50/1.8 lens.

In the end, you can't really go wrong with any of the Canon lenses.

William

 

[dexdog]

As already stated, both are great lenses. Personally, I would go with the 50/1.8. It is significantly smaller than the 50/1.4, which IMO would be too big on your IIIf.
Also, you can probably pick up a nice chrome or black 50/1.8 for less than $150, while the 50/1.4 would be about $250 to $300. The 50/1.5 would be a good choice too, but would also sell in the price range of the 50/1.4.

 

[Bingley]

I agree w/ Dexdog. The small size of the 50/1.8 makes it great for travel and inconspicuous shooting. Sample:

 

[Xmas]

You blue tacked the rubber glove to the door?

Noel

 

[Bingley]

Not a rubber glove. It's the hand of the person holding the door open. Interesting suggestion, though.

 

[MichaelHarris]

Here's a recent picture I shot with a Leica and the Canon 50 1.8:

 

[aizan]

the nikkor 50/2 is also great, but largely ignored.

 

[wlewisiii]

Have you considered a 50 mm f1.4 Nikkor as another fast option.I can assure you, its a superb performer.

This is, of course, very true. The only thing I'd remind you of is the very different optical footprints that Canon & Nikon lenses have. It is a very subjective thing but I have found that Canon & Zeiss get along well as do Nikon & Leica. So his suggestion is especially good from the perspective of making sure you like the look of Canon or Nikon before spending your coins. I, personally, prefer the Canon/Zeiss look so that will, inherently, color my opinions. Please keep that in mind.

William

 

[bean_counter]

Thanks for all of the replies - it REALLY helped. I watched fleabay a little, then found a "bargain" grade, reasonably priced chrome 1.8 at KEH.

Now, the wait for the UPS truck....

 

[wlewisiii]

I believe you'll be happy with it. It's a wonderful lens & KEH's idea of bargain is almost always wonderful 😀

Good luck & good light,

William

 

[payasam]

I had a Serenar 50/1.8 for 17 years and was entirely satisfied with it.

 

[rover]

Thanks for all of the replies - it REALLY helped. I watched fleabay a little, then found a "bargain" grade, reasonably priced chrome 1.8 at KEH.

Now, the wait for the UPS truck....

I saw that one yesterday, and if I did not already have one......

It is a nice lens, as the others are that were mentioned. Had you decided on any of these I am sure you would have been satisfied.

 

[lasamo]

Is Canon Serenar (L)50 1.8? Isn't it 1.9? Or is there another Canon Serenar(L) 50 1.9 with 1.8? I am wondering about it.

 

[payasam]

Lasamo, the Serenar 50 I had was f/1.8. There may have been a 50/1.9 too, can't say.

 

[dexdog]

Canon made both a 50/1.8 Serenar rigid lens, and the 50/1.9 collapsible. The collapsible bears a strong resemblence to the same vintage leica collapsible summitar, IIRC