Leica LTM Leica Summitar 50mm f/2 v Canon 50mm f/1.8

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I've never heard about distortion in the 1.4...


Curious about what Bingley said about the 1.8 being sharper than the 1.4 (I assume Bingley meant both at f1.8)
Is there consensus about this?

Also, from the photographs I see, the 1.8 seems to be more prone to that special 3D-like look than the 1.4.
What do you think about both lenses in this respect?
 
There are tradeoffs for speed. The Canon 1.8 was a normal speed lens, anything faster than that will have more aberrations. I'm not sure what kind of distortion sanmich was referring to, Barrel, Astigmatism, or what. But it's very difficult for a lens design to be very fast, and have no optical issues, compared to a F2 or so lens.
 
Without having owned a Canon 1.8, I would say that if you want faster, go the 1.4. It's a nice lens. But the faster film is better again. You don't need DSLR ISOs - they are shooting through f5.6 lead pipes. 1600 ISO makes your Summitar equivalent to a Noctilux at 400. 3200 gets you another stop again. With 3200 ISO and f2 you should be able to handhold anything you can focus on. Going to 1.4 just makes your focusing job harder.
 
goamules said:
There are tradeoffs for speed. The Canon 1.8 was a normal speed lens, anything faster than that will have more aberrations. I'm not sure what kind of distortion sanmich was referring to, Barrel, Astigmatism, or what. But it's very difficult for a lens design to be very fast, and have no optical issues, compared to a F2 or so lens.
Click to expand...

barrel distortion
 
having and still own both lens ..

they are different ..
I mostly use Summitar for the characteristic it gave
in F2-2.8 it is classic and swirly
in 2.8 to 8 sharp and smooth

for canon 50 1.8 ..
it is a good lens
1.8 and 2 ? no much different .. minimal differences
but the character .. well.. just like any other lens
nothing special... quite sharp in 2.8 above
not very sharp wide open at 1.8 but not giving any signature look


Sincerely
William
 
I used to own both lenses, but i kept the summitar and sold the canon :bang:

IMO canon 50/1.8 is the better lens of the two. My copy of the canon serenar was tack sharp and has flawless chrome. It did fetched me a good price in a local forum in Singapore :p Wide open, Summitar has this swirly bokeh that could be to your liking, but to me, i would say it gets abit too distracting at times. In the end, the summitar sleeps in the dry cabinet most of the time as i prefer the canon's sibling, the 50/1.4 over it.

And since canon lens is the younger of the two, it is more common and cheaper to buy a good condition canon lens than the summitar.

Maybe it's time you cash in on your Summitar? ;)
 
I have both lenses. The Canon may be better suited for color photography. Most importantly, make sure that neither lens has internal haze. The Canon lens is cheap, while the Summitar can command a higher pice. Some models have more blades than others. Both lenses are well built.

I would compare minimum focus distance and bokeh too.
 
I had them both. Sold them to get the Zeiss M 50mm Planar f/2. But then I didn't have a 50mm for my IIIf.

I liked the Canon 50mm f/1.8 better and bought another copy (last version in black) for my IIIf. I will never sell the Canon 1.8 again (I hope!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom