how do fast canon & nikon 50's compare?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
5:06 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
i'm not just thinking about sharpness or which one is 'better' but rather how would you compare the look of one lens to the other.

i am thinking of the canon 50/1.4 and the nikon 50/1.4

obviously this question goes to those who have used both lenses.

joe
 
There was a thread sometime ago started by Rafael about this, with example photos.

The Canon is like a single-coated CV Nokton 50/1.5: sharp to the corners and general purpose all the way up to f1.4. Nice bokeh wide open, tiny edges in the bokeh circles from f2-f4, great afterwards. In a way a very clean look, could be a fast modern SLR lens.

The Nikkor is like the Canon 50/1.5 that you know, Sonnar look. But sharper close up and wide open, and a bit of disturbing bokeh under certain conditions (like leaves, etc.). "Glows" the Sonnar/Nikkor glow at f1.4, more so than the Canon 50/1.5. Vignettes wide open at medium and far distances, so you have to close it just a bit to avoid this. Very sharp and nice f2 and up. Contrary to what you sometimes read, I haven't had any issues at f8 or so .... Dante says it goes "down-hill" from f2.8 and up, but I cannt confirm that.

Hope this helps,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmmmmm...I've owned the Nikkor since forever but only started using it last year. I think I want the Canon because of a preconceived misconception that the Canon lens may produce better results wide open with light sources in the frame. On the other hand, Jeffery Smith of New Orleans has proclaimed the Nikkor as the "sharpest among all of his old 50mm lenses." He may own more of those than Frank.

I've never laid eyes on the Canon. I can say without fear of contradiction that the Nikkor is most solidly built and quite compact for a 50/1.4 lens. It is about 2/3 the size of my Leitz 50mm DR Summicron. The extra close focusing ability is something that I need to take advantage of.

However, since I don't get out enough to use the Nikkor after dark, I'm content for now. Besides, I swore off buying stuff for 2007. As a result, at least 3 Canon 50/1.4s & a Canon 35/1.5 lens have passed me by recently.

I'm no help. As usual.
 
A comparison between Canon 50/1.5 and Nikkor 50/1.4 that Randy once did:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/2196281

Lot's of Nikkor photos, showing the "glow":

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33446

One of my favorite Nikkor 50/1.4 wide-open shots:

64938697-L.jpg


My favorite wide open Canon 50/1.4 shot:

106248437-O.jpg


Roland.
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
The Nikkor is sharper wide-open. Like Dante, I believe that Nikon went all-out to get sharpness with the lens wide-open and close-up.
Click to expand...

Maybe it depends on the samples I own, Brian, but I respectfully disagree.

Here are some pictures of my Nikkor and test photos:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/2196270

The Nikkor focus plane "smeares out" when going from f2 to f1.4. And my Nikkor is
sharper at f2.8 than at f2.

At f1.4 my Canon is clearly sharper in the center and corner to corner -
the flat focal plane nicely reduces in thickness. At f2 and in the center,
the Nikkor wins wrt sharpness. Not that this behavior
matters much in a portrait situation, the Sonnar look and center punch
gives Nikkor portraits a nice and sharp 3D look, also wide open. Due to corner to
corner sharpness, however, I can safely use my Canon wide open
for landscapes, the Nikkor I can not.

Roland.
 
I hope this doesn't degenerate into a Nikon vs. Canon thing.

I don't own the Nikkor 50/1.4 (but I do own the Canon 50/1.4), but think any differences between the two lenses are probably due to their different optical designs. Maybe this thread should be labeled, "How does a fast Sonnar-based lens compare to a fast Gauss-based lens?"

Jim Bielecki
 
Mackinaw said:
Maybe this thread should be labeled, "How does a fast Sonnar-based lens compare to a fast Gauss-based lens?"
Jim Bielecki
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is reason to own both.

Nice photos, Brian.

Roland.
 
... and I don't own either. I like the Canon 50/1.2 a lot. At 1.4, it is sharp.

Raid
 
Mackinaw said:
I hope this doesn't degenerate into a Nikon vs. Canon thing.

...

Jim Bielecki
Click to expand...
No Jim,
we are nice around here, we politely show the Canon people the door:D
Just kidding folks, I just posted in the Canon forum.

Kiu
 
I agree w/you, Roland. And I think a lot has to do w/sample variation.

I have 1 Canon 50/1.4 Lens & have owned 5 of the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S's. I still have 3 of the Nikkors: 2 black-finished examples in Nikon RF mount (had another in chrome which I sold to back alley Joe w/the S2) & 1 in LTM (had another which I sold a few years ago).

All 3 of the Nikon RF examples I've owned have been softer than the Canon @ f/1.4, whether close-up or @ a distance. The LTM Nikkors have been a little sharper than the Canon in the center @ f/1.4, again @ various distances, but are softer towards the edges.

While the glass on all of my Nikkors look clean & clear to the naked eye, the chrome Nikkor & the older of the 2 black Nikkors are noticeably softer & have more "glow" wide-open than the other black Nikkor (or either of the 2 LTM Nikkors)--not a huge difference, but definitely noticeable. I know this is a very small sample & I haven't done controlled ruler/chart tests like others, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nippon Kogaku improved their quality control over time & perhaps devoted more attention to the LTM models (maybe because they were more of a specialty item?). FWIW, I've noticed a similar variation between my 6 T-coated 50/1.5 Sonnars (3 W. German, 3 E. German), though it doesn't seem to have any relation to chronology or which factory they were made in.


ferider said:
Maybe it depends on the samples I own, Brian, but I respectfully disagree.

Here are some pictures of my Nikkor and test photos:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/2196270

The Nikkor focus plane "smeares out" when going from f2 to f1.4. And my Nikkor is
sharper at f2.8 than at f2.

At f1.4 my Canon is clearly sharper in the center and corner to corner -
the flat focal plane nicely reduces in thickness. At f2 and in the center,
the Nikkor wins wrt sharpness. Not that this behavior
matters much in a portrait situation, the Sonnar look and center punch
gives Nikkor portraits a nice and sharp 3D look, also wide open. Due to corner to
corner sharpness, however, I can safely use my Canon wide open
for landscapes, the Nikkor I can not.

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I've had two Canon 50/1.4's and thirteen of the Sonnar-formula Nikkors (I sold one).
All were clean and shimmed properly. To my eyes, in these photo's the Nikkor looks sharper wide-open and
close-up than does the Canon. Same camera and same roll of film. Camera was set in the shade, fairly heavy
tripod, shutter speed was topped-out.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

first of all: I'm not a Canon guy. I am only loyal to LTM and M mounts,
and consider them universal - by now brand independent. :) :angel:

2nd, it really depends on what you shoot: I agree that portraits (great pictures
that you posted, BTW) will "look" sharper with the Nikkor, even wide open;
the Sonnar 3D quality - which is why we love them.

But there is no way a Nikkor (50s or older) can have more corner
sharpness than the Canon double gauss design. I often use the corner
look to identify the Sonnar in a picture - and it works.

In the end this sharpness only matters for certain applications (like
landscapes). And for others, exactly like your pictures, the Nikkor
is nicer because the center is more important.

And, BTW, the Cn 50/1.4 has significantly more corner sharpness than
the 50/1.2 at 1.4.

Roland.
 
furcafe said:
While the glass on all of my Nikkors look clean & clear to the naked eye, the
chrome Nikkor & the older of the 2 black Nikkors are noticeably softer & have more "glow"
wide-open than the other black Nikkor (or either of the 2 LTM Nikkors)--not a huge difference,
but definitely noticeable. I know this is a very small sample & I haven't done controlled ruler/chart
tests like others, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nippon Kogaku improved their quality control
over time & perhaps devoted more attention to the LTM models (maybe because they were more of a specialty item?).
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

thanks.

I am convinced that Nikkor did modifications, Brian mentioned that, too,
and that my older lens is likely different from the lens that was compared
to the Summilux in the 90s. Would love to hear more about this.

BTW, attached, from left to right, the lens diagrams of the Summilux pre-asph v2, the modern
CV Nokton and the Canon 50/1.4. They speak for themselves.

Best,

Roland.
 
I have enough 50mm lenses

I have enough 50mm lenses

Blasphemy, I know.

The other reason that I am not hot-to-trot for the LTM Canon 50/1.4: Last year I finally accquired what may be the lens bargain of bargains in today's market. The Canon 50/1.4 S.S.C. lens for my Canon EF slr body. $50. All I can say is WOW!

No, I didn't answer joe's question either. I did answer my own: I have a quite sufficient number of 50mm lenses. 5 to be exact. Konica-Canon-Canon-Nikkor-Leitz. I think that's enough for one person. :D
 
i was not necessarily looking for formulas or a treatise on edge sharpness but the information is good mone the less.

what i was looking for was a feel for the lenses, what you thought about the images that you had taken with them.
is one more 3d than the other, does one flare more.
even though i don't shoot colour i have noticed that i like colour images from sonnar lenses more so than other lens types. i'm not sure why...

impressions, feelings whatever...

joe
 
Brian,
Both the SLR and "Olympic/Millenneum" versions of the 50/1.4 have a flat rear element, which differs from the diagram you posted. I have a gut feeling the Olympic/Millenneum lens uses a variant of the formula for the SLR lens, but it has a much closer film-to-flange distance, and this seems to result in a slight performance boost.
 
I find the Canon very flare resistant, Joe. You owned it once, didn't you ?
And now you own the Nikkor. What do you think about the two ?
 
venchka said:
Blasphemy, I know.

The other reason that I am not hot-to-trot for the LTM Canon 50/1.4: Last year I finally accquired what may be the lens bargain of bargains in today's market. The Canon 50/1.4 S.S.C. lens for my Canon EF slr body. $50. All I can say is WOW!
Click to expand...

Heh. Got mine for $12. Needed to invest in a spanner to clean the blades, but that's actually really easy on that lens so it was a great deal all the way around. And, oh yeah, that is a major WOW lens - it's by far my favorite SLR lens.

Regarding Joe's origional question, I don't know though with a bit of luck someday I'll find out. In the meantime I need to find either a Canon 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 for silly cheap :angel:

Oh, BTW, Brian, thank you for that scan of all those lens diagrams. Very interesting bits of information there.

William
 
>>Between the two of us, we had F2.05 pointed at the Winnie Mae!<<

I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Did you get a chance to figure out whether Kiu's 5cm/1.1 needs to be adjusted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom