Canon LTM how good is canon, 50mm1,4lenes .

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
J

jerkmam

Member
Local time
5:36 AM
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
32
how good is the canon 50mm1.4,/zeiss sonnar new 50mm1.4/leica f1.4 50mmornokton 50mm1.4 .Iam looking for,shaepness good contrast and l,detail in the dark shadows
 
I can speak for the Nokton. It's a first rate modern and fast 50mm lens with good build quality, great contrast and detail. I've used several Canon 50's, but not the 50/1.4. If the 50/1.4 is like the other Canon's you will also have a very good lens at a modest price. I can't afford a Summilux 50mm F1.4 (now at least), but I would venture a guess that it's better than all the others on your list in the qualities you're looking for (possibly the Nokton and Sonnar and will outperform earlier Summilux models). Leica glass is very, very good -- I've never seen a poorly made or misaligned lens from Leica. It's also very expensive, particularly for recent serial number lenses.
 
The Canon 50/1.4 is a first class lens. It is as good as the Canon 50/1.8 [which is awesome], but it has a 1.4 max aperture. I recently got my first 50/1.4 Canon, and it is a lens that I do not plan to sell ever.
 
The Leica Summilux APSH is probably the best of the four lenses. Up to you if it is worth many times the cost.

The Canon 50/1.4 is a very fine lens, very comparable to quality SLR 50/1.4 lenses of the 1970's and 1980's. Very compact, very light.

The Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 is not a general-purpose lens. It's a lens with a look, a particular resolution pattern wide open that falls off in sharpness to the corners, with a distinct look to out-of-focus areas. It also has focus shift when you stop down, which makes it tricky to use.

The Nokton 50/1.5 is a bread and butter lens. Nothing stunning, but incredible value. Some mentions of harsh out-of-focus areas.
 
Unfortunately I can't speak to the other lenses, but I've recently purchased the summilux pre-asph (the e46 version). It has a lovely build, it's contrasty on center wide open and does quite well stopped down... my copy focuses right on. I paid $1150, significantly more than the voigtlander and the canon -- I justified the expenditure in the Leica's build quality. I'm sure all the lenses mentioned will be excellent performers for general photography -- hand holding and fast film are the great equalizers in my mind.

Good luck in your decision,

Jim
 

Attachments

  • F1000025.jpg
    F1000025.jpg
    181.6 KB · Views: 0
Broke said:
Unfortunately I can't speak to the other lenses, but I've recently purchased the summilux pre-asph (the e46 version). It has a lovely build, it's contrasty on center wide open and does quite well stopped down... my copy focuses right on. I paid $1150, significantly more than the voigtlander and the canon -- I justified the expenditure in the Leica's build quality. I'm sure all the lenses mentioned will be excellent performers for general photography -- hand holding and fast film are the great equalizers in my mind.

Good luck in your decision,

Jim
Click to expand...

Nice shot of the foliage -- really shows what a classic Summilux can do.
 
raid said:
The Canon 50/1.4 is a first class lens. It is as good as the Canon 50/1.8 [which is awesome], but it has a 1.4 max aperture. I recently got my first 50/1.4 Canon, and it is a lens that I do not plan to sell ever.
Click to expand...

Raid took the words right out of my mouth. An excellent, excellent lens.

example:
 
Last edited:
Good lens and I will post some pics later when I scan them that I have taken with my new 1.4. I also have a Voigtlander 50/1.5 SM and for sure I am pleased with both.
Joe
 
In terms of performance/price ratio, and weight-size, the best buy of this bunch is probably the Canon 50/1.4. If size don't matter, go for the Nokton.
 
I am just now trying to decide which to sell ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61277 )- the Canon 1.4 or 1.5 Nokton.

I think the Canon is sharper and the boke is a little nicer, but they are very close, The CV has better contrast by a bit. And if you don't have the hood on either there is little size difference, from what I can judge - the CV is a little fatter.

Here is a comparison I just did to help me decide. The CV is on the right - this is just a quick screenshot from LR with both wide open...
 

Attachments

  • CV-Canon-WO.jpg
    CV-Canon-WO.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 0
Raid -- In your opinion, is there any reason to prefer the Canon 50/1.4 over the 50/1.8 other than the extra 1/2-stop of aperture?

So far I'm using a Canon 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 on my R-D1, and loving them. I've got a VC Nokton 50/1.5 coming in the mail, but the old Canon lenses are capturing my heart....
 
The Canon lenses both 1.4 and 35/2.8 are very very sharp. I really prefer them over the VC lenses and I have them both in 1.5 and 35/2.8. I guess I should trust the VC lenses more but after getting the Canons I was sold on the 50 year old glass. I really need to get out and shoot more though but I have to make a living and on the weekends its tough, sometimes as its so hot in Houston. But then winters are more mild and I should think of that.
Joe
 
Ah c'mon Joe... when my parents were alive and living in Tucson, all I heard was "...out West, it's dry heat!"

Not so here in the Washington DC area.
 
kermaier said:
Raid -- In your opinion, is there any reason to prefer the Canon 50/1.4 over the 50/1.8 other than the extra 1/2-stop of aperture?

So far I'm using a Canon 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 on my R-D1, and loving them. I've got a VC Nokton 50/1.5 coming in the mail, but the old Canon lenses are capturing my heart....
Click to expand...


Not really; the 50/1.8 is superb and it is a bargain lens to buy.
 
Then I'm going to look for a 50/1.8 for compactness and to share 42mm caps with my 28/3.5 -- ah, the throes of sudden-onset GAS....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom