Hacker
黑客
David Murphy said:Despite this rational and grounded diatribe, I'd kill to get a Konica 60mm F1.2 or a Zunow 50/1.1
Or a M-Hexanon 50mm f1.2!
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
kevin m said:Who am I to believe, Roger, you, or my lying eyes?
Perhaps you had two bad copies, but my 50/1.2 is about as flare-resistant as my pre-asph. Summilux 50.
Bad copies ?.....I've had two, Roger's had two, Ivor Matanle's had several,- was Canons quallity control on a par with fsu?, - their other offerings of the period seem to discount this!. Some of the shots from this lens (and the .95 'dream') that have been posted are 'pleasant', - plenty look like they were taken with a Holga, or Lomo!, but if that's what you like - fine!!. Personaly, I can't see the point in scewing something the size of a drain pipe on to my camera, when a cheapo fsu etc, would give similar results! - but that's just my view!, - like I said...'one man's meat...........' I'll now hurry back to the fall-out shelter!!!
Cheers, Dave.
PS, even my recently aquired '7' body,-tho a nicely specified camera,- is a bit too bulky and heavy for my ageing hands!, and is next for a move, - interested party's, watch the classifieds or PM !
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,kevin m said:
Lovely pic. I am duly amazed. What was the film stock (not that it should matter)? Lens shade shouldn't matter. Admittedly it's quite high key; the pic I'm thinking of, among my own, is a Gothick pile against the sky. I'll try to find that, and another.
I assume there was no fill flash?
Cheers,
R.
gdi
Veteran
Roger Hicks said:
Roger,
Do you have any samples for comparison of your 0.95 vs the Noctilux? It would be interesting to see - the only ones I have seen on the net show the 0.95 as a little sharper dead center, but noticably softer at the edges (and of course it is faster!!
). Obviously the canon has less contrast and vignetting - but it could be called the coma King.
Thanks
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, no, I've never owned an f/0.95 and apologize if I gave the impression I had; I have only had the f/1.2 (two of my own, plus seeing the results of friends' pics). The f/0.95 is pretty much a 'stretched' version of the f/1.2 and I have only seen friends' pics -- sometimes as direct comparisons with the f/1.2, where it is basically the same, but worse.gdi said:Roger,
Do you have any samples for comparison of your 0.95 vs the Noctilux? It would be interesting to see - the only ones I have seen on the net show the 0.95 as a little sharper dead center, but noticably softer at the edges (and of course it is faster!!
Obviously the canon has less contrast and vignetting - but it could be called the coma King.
Thanks
Only one friend, the late Colin Glanfield, directly compared the f/0.95 and the Noctilux, and the f/0.95 did not come out well. He was a good technician and an excellent photographer. Other friends have had the f/0.95; all regarded it as a 'collecfor' lens, not a user, where the extra 1/2 stop over the f/1.2 was not worth the hassle, expense and lower quality.
It may be interesting that all this began 30+ years ago for me, when old lenses were rarely treated with the reverence they receive today. They were also a lot newer, and hence in much better condition for the most part: the Canons were 10-20 years old, not 40-50. I've also tried (I think) all the Leitz screw 50s except the Anasigmat and Hektor; again, they just weren't that valuable in the early 70s.
At that time, the f/0.95 was regarded essentially as a curio, and an f/1.2 as a cheap, fun lens with fairly indifferent quality. My first f/1.2 came with a camera for thirty quid, maybe $80, in the 70s, and the second was maybe twice that, again with a camera, in the very early 80s. By the early 90s, a good clean-up cost more than the lens was worth.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
I've had some very good results with the 50/0.95. Bought one for home, one for work. Like most Canon lenses, the 50/0.95 and 50/1.2 are subject to haze building up on the surfaces on each side of the aperture blades. This can corrupt the image. On the 50/1.2, I've seen oil seep into the balsam of the cemented pair behind the aperture. This lowers contrast. So you will see a wide range of experiences with this 50 year old lens. I suspect the reputation of these lenses, as well as the Summarit, has suffered due to not aging gracefully. I've got two Summarits bought for under $140 that are favorites. The before-and-after CLA shots were a world apart.
gdi
Veteran
Roger Hicks said:
I did assume your use of the lens had contributed to your opinion that it was significantly inferior in every way to the Noctilux.
I hope to find a direct comparison (in addition to the one I mentioned above) of the 2 lenses. I have used the 0.95 for a few weeks (off and on) and find my results on film very good. And in comparing to other's Noctilux shots, do not find it lacking for the situations in which I have used it. I may end up with the Noctilux, but I'd like to compare the 2 objectively prior to the outlay, so a rental may be in order....
Thanks
gdi
Veteran
NB23 said:
Exactly Ned! There is an amazing collection of twig bokeh shots posted all over the web to prove this point. I think you street shots demonstrate the strengths of the lens nicely...
Ororaro
Well-known
Lord Fluff said:
Yes and no... That's the only shot that I can't distinguish 100% but I'm leaning towards the summilux.
kevin m
Veteran
Ned, the sarcasm was meant as humor, so I wouldn't expect it to be taken too seriously. :angel:
kevin m
Veteran
Hi Roger, it was Fuju NPZ, no fill flash. I did bring up the face a bit in PS.
I was surprised by the lens myself because I've seen some mediocre results on the web. I can't do a back-to-back comparison with the 50 Summilux anymore because I sold it, but the Canon has a very similar look, IMO, with a very 'neutral' rendering of OOF areas that I find pleasing.
It's off getting a CLA right now to get rid of the sticky 50-year old grease.
tomasis
Well-known
Hexanon looks to be a such nice option. Too bad that those are too few to be reasonably priced though.. but those seem to be faaar much better than that canon C R A P Sorry. The next best after Noctilux is simply Summilux or Sonnar if you'd like and can afford. It is that all there of my bold opinion based on my eyes If you write Noctilux on any low light Canon, it will not sell anyway.
I love Kevin's stubborness and maybe I'm that too. His image shows low contrast of Canon lens which remind me of my Jupiter 3. I never seen such low contrast of any lens as Jupiter's. I suppose it is good for digital sensor. I rather use a bad russian copy than very awful plastic piece from canon
Sorry. The next best after Noctilux is simply Summilux or Sonnar if you'd like and can afford. It is that all there of my bold opinion based on my eyes If you write Noctilux on any low light Canon, it will not sell anyway. I love Kevin's stubborness and maybe I'm that too. His image shows low contrast of Canon lens which remind me of my Jupiter 3. I never seen such low contrast of any lens as Jupiter's. I suppose it is good for digital sensor. I rather use a bad russian copy than very awful plastic piece from canon
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
tomasis said:His image shows low contrast of Canon lens which remind me of my Jupiter 3. I never seen such low contrast of any lens as Jupiter's. I suppose it is good for digital sensor. I rather use a bad russian copy than very awful plastic piece from canon
Ok - well, how you can judge the contrast is a mystery to me. You don't know what process he went through. Maybe he reduced contrast in scanning, or other post? Until you're looking at untouched slides - in a controlled setting, making a judgment on the internal and overall contrast a lens exhibits is just silly.
And it's a big hunk of metal. No plastic to be found. If you haven't used the lens, don't tout it's "faults."
Is a nocti? No. Is it a Hexanon or a Lux? No. Is it a decently performing low light lens, especially for less than $400. Hell yes.
tomasis
Well-known
rogue, fine, I just wanted to bash Canon, no matter how stupid it sounds I can really blame on size, weight, design, not only optics quality. It goes downhill when Canon stopped to copy Zeiss, tooo bad because I'd like to try the excellent japanese manufacturing when they copy the german design Plasticty is just another expression about japanese cars from year between 1980-1990 Blame all that on my european roots
Regarding Kevins picture, look at the picture carefully. the face doesn't have same contrast as her hands too example. it is good proof that it is too sensitive to backlit scenes. almost I'd like to call flare or so.
I can really blame on size, weight, design, not only optics quality. It goes downhill when Canon stopped to copy Zeiss, tooo bad because I'd like to try the excellent japanese manufacturing when they copy the german design Plasticty is just another expression about japanese cars from year between 1980-1990 Blame all that on my european roots Regarding Kevins picture, look at the picture carefully. the face doesn't have same contrast as her hands too example. it is good proof that it is too sensitive to backlit scenes. almost I'd like to call flare or so.
Last edited:
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
tomasis said:
He stated that he bumped up the face in Photoshop. It's not proof of anything of the kind.
kevin m said:
kevin m
Veteran
As I said, I brought the face up in PS. I shot it that way intentionally to see how the lens handles flare, otherwise I would have used a flash or fill of some sort.
Flare is stray light that erases detail. Look at the edge of her hair in front of the backlit window. There's a five stop light difference there, but no bleeding of light to speak of. The pic actually proves that the Canon - at least my copy - is quite resistant to flare. I had the Summilux 50 and it performed about the same. Certainly much better than the Summicron 50 in the same light, which would give you a nearly unprintable negative.
> I never seen such low contrast of any lens as Jupiter's. I suppose it is good for
> digital sensor. I rather use a bad russian copy than very awful plastic piece
> from canon
You must have a really bad example of a J-3. And I guess that you have never handled a Canon RF lens.
For low-contrast, you really should try a vintage Leica lens sometime. The Summarit is low-contrast, as is the Summar. The Summitar is somewhere in the middle. The Summicrons progressively gained contrast with each new version, but all are higher than the older 50s. The coated Elmar is "in the low-middle", small and light, but is slow.
Personally, I prefer the Collapsible Summicron.
But if I want speed, I use my Canon 50/0.95 on the Canon 7 or the Canon 50/1.2 on the Canon P.
> digital sensor. I rather use a bad russian copy than very awful plastic piece
> from canon
You must have a really bad example of a J-3. And I guess that you have never handled a Canon RF lens.
For low-contrast, you really should try a vintage Leica lens sometime. The Summarit is low-contrast, as is the Summar. The Summitar is somewhere in the middle. The Summicrons progressively gained contrast with each new version, but all are higher than the older 50s. The coated Elmar is "in the low-middle", small and light, but is slow.
Personally, I prefer the Collapsible Summicron.
But if I want speed, I use my Canon 50/0.95 on the Canon 7 or the Canon 50/1.2 on the Canon P.
tomasis
Well-known
my bad, kevin, why the h*ll could you bring up the face in PS? It is really unfortunate that you got that lovely face ruined Why did you bring modified image here to prove flare resistance? Satiric humour is that. I see that are so many bad Canons copies circulating likewise Jupiter. That shows high quality of Canon, not Why has one to spend Noctilux money to find a good example of Canon? Time and money waste after all.
Brian, you bet that I never gonna touch any of those Canon lenses in my life even future eight lives. After a glimpse on the lens turns of me already. Simply impractical lens of that ridiculous design which owners of Canon 1ds MKII would not mind of. You think that one got to try lens before one badmouhts about that. But my god we are just talking about lenses of the same Sonnar design including scretched ones. One exception is Canon 50/1.5. I hope this is consistently better that russian copies if it is too difficult to get an old Sonnar with LTM mount. Half stop difference is no big deal especially when perfomance of 1.2 is not good and you get much larger size and weight included.
For low contrast, I tried Industar-22. I did fall in love for this. Much nicer lens than I expected. Uncoated Elmar is probably not that difficult to copy. When I look at images, rendered by industar, I wandered back to 1920. What characteric lens, wow! I gonna to try all lenses which you did describe above, as planned. At least, I don't have worry about bad examples from Leitz if I make to be sure that they are free of haze, fungus
Why did you bring modified image here to prove flare resistance? Satiric humour is that. I see that are so many bad Canons copies circulating likewise Jupiter. That shows high quality of Canon, not Why has one to spend Noctilux money to find a good example of Canon? Time and money waste after all.Brian, you bet that I never gonna touch any of those Canon lenses in my life even future eight lives. After a glimpse on the lens turns of me already. Simply impractical lens of that ridiculous design which owners of Canon 1ds MKII would not mind of. You think that one got to try lens before one badmouhts about that. But my god we are just talking about lenses of the same Sonnar design including scretched ones. One exception is Canon 50/1.5. I hope this is consistently better that russian copies if it is too difficult to get an old Sonnar with LTM mount. Half stop difference is no big deal especially when perfomance of 1.2 is not good and you get much larger size and weight included.
For low contrast, I tried Industar-22. I did fall in love for this. Much nicer lens than I expected. Uncoated Elmar is probably not that difficult to copy. When I look at images, rendered by industar, I wandered back to 1920. What characteric lens, wow! I gonna to try all lenses which you did describe above, as planned. At least, I don't have worry about bad examples from Leitz if I make to be sure that they are free of haze, fungus
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fair enough -- and thanks again. Either you're a Photoshop genius or the right 50/1.2 is better than any I've ever seen. Or possibly both...kevin m said:Hi Roger, it was Fuju NPZ, no fill flash. I did bring up the face a bit in PS.
I was surprised by the lens myself because I've seen some mediocre results on the web. I can't do a back-to-back comparison with the 50 Summilux anymore because I sold it, but the Canon has a very similar look, IMO, with a very 'neutral' rendering of OOF areas that I find pleasing.
It's off getting a CLA right now to get rid of the sticky 50-year old grease.
Cheers,
R.
Tomasis- yes, I think someone should try out a product before evaluating it. Anything else is just badmouthing out of sheer ignorance. Which is what you obviously feel at ease doing.