Steve Karr
Film tank shaker
Ok, before you roll your eyes and Huff! Is there anyone who has both lenses & has images to compare ? I know Leica's are SOOO great and Canon's have mixed reps, But ... I love buts... image wise what's common & what makes them "Look" different. Not build quality, or jewelry factor, but picture making value.
Please don't Hate on this, I and others I bet would like real images to prove anything said.
Thanks!
Steve
Please don't Hate on this, I and others I bet would like real images to prove anything said.
Thanks!
Steve
Alpacaman
keen bean
Well played.
From what I have heard, the canikon super fast lenses do not give the same performance stopped down as the noctilux, although I cannot speak for all of them of course. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on that. And I am not really sure who would buy a noctilux just to stop it down either.
Edit: Off topic, just followed the link on your sig, some fantastic stuff in there!
Neare
Well-known
Bokeh is great on both, the canon is a lot softer, less contrasty etc.
It's what you pay for. The Nocti is one of those lenses you own just beacuse you can really.
It's what you pay for. The Nocti is one of those lenses you own just beacuse you can really.
I've used a friend's 50/1.0 Noctilux, and it is much sharper wide-open than my Canon 50/1.2. Most of my fast lenses are sharper than my current 50/1.2 and one I sold a few years back.
It would perhaps be best if you defined the "look" that you want. If it is for a soft portrait lens, great Bokeh, the Canon 50/1.2 will work out well. If you want a fast, sharp lens- look to the Noctilux or the new 50/1.1 Nokton.
My Canon 50/1.2, wide-open on the M8, high-ISO (2500?, i need to look at the original), ~1/8th second.
This lens is made out of two parts lenses, rear module from one, front section from another. But it is comparable with the "whole' lens that i had before. Not bad for $90.
It would perhaps be best if you defined the "look" that you want. If it is for a soft portrait lens, great Bokeh, the Canon 50/1.2 will work out well. If you want a fast, sharp lens- look to the Noctilux or the new 50/1.1 Nokton.
My Canon 50/1.2, wide-open on the M8, high-ISO (2500?, i need to look at the original), ~1/8th second.
This lens is made out of two parts lenses, rear module from one, front section from another. But it is comparable with the "whole' lens that i had before. Not bad for $90.
Last edited:
Mablo
Well-known
I don't have an opinion on Noctilux but I've noticed that my Canon 50mm/1.2 is so soft on corners that I must crop them away when shot in daylight and using apertures like f/4 or larger. You don't notice the softness in lowlight photos though so I don't mind.
smile
why so serious?
extremely nub question
extremely nub question
please advise what Canon f/1.2 u are talking about?? there are different types of them around the internet
just interesting
extremely nub question
please advise what Canon f/1.2 u are talking about?? there are different types of them around the internet
just interesting
Neare
Well-known
The ltm version
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I like the 50 1.2. Wide open it is soft, but I can buy super sharp, fast lenses all day (and own several). I specifically like the Canon because of the look of photos shot with it. If sharp results with the lens opened up are your goal, look elsewhere. The latest Noctilux or the Nokton 1.1 would be a better choice. Stopped down, the Canon 50 1.2 is a good, if heavy for a RF lens, normal lens. YMMV
fbf
Well-known
I would throw hexanon 50/1.2 and 60/1.2 into the group to fillup the huge price difference.
Nokton48
Veteran
The original Noctilux was an F1.2
I'd like to see that one tested side-by-side against my Canon F1.2
I like my Canon alot and use it constantly.
And I have three other 50mm lenses, when I want sharp.
I'd like to see that one tested side-by-side against my Canon F1.2
I like my Canon alot and use it constantly.
And I have three other 50mm lenses, when I want sharp.
mfogiel
Veteran
Apart from speed difference and max sharpness diference, there are 2 differences that count most in my opinion: flare resistance and bokeh. The flare resistance of the Canon is extremely low, and you get flare even from white objects reflecting the sun, not to speak of light sources in the lens' field of view. The other difference is in bokeh, and the Canon has a beautiful "sonnar type" bokeh, while the Noctilux has a very "Old Leica school" articulated and sometimes swirly bokeh.
kevin m
Veteran
I've used a friend's 50/1.0 Noctilux, and it is much sharper wide-open than my Canon 50/1.2. Most of my fast lenses are sharper than my current 50/1.2 and one I sold a few years back.
It would perhaps be best if you defined the "look" that you want. If it is for a soft portrait lens, great Bokeh, the Canon 50/1.2 will work out well. If you want a fast, sharp lens- look to the Noctilux or the new 50/1.1 Nokton.
My Canon 50/1.2, wide-open on the M8, high-ISO (2500?, i need to look at the original), ~1/8th second.
The Canon is decently sharp in the center at full aperture, with soft corners. If it's been cleaned, it's not that susceptible to flair, either, in my experience.
This lens is made out of two parts lenses, rear module from one, front section from another. But it is comparable with the "whole' lens that i had before. Not bad for $90.
That's not a very good example of what the Canon is capable of wide-open. This is wide-open with a CLA'd copy shot on Kodak BW400CN:
Here's another on NPH 400:
And here's another on an R-D1:
kevin m
Veteran
For reference, here's a shot wide-open, minimum focus. Focus was on the "O" of "Wisconsin":
...and here's a crop of the same shot:
...and here's a crop of the same shot:
Neither of my samples of the Canon 50/1.2 are perfect, I wish they were. The first had a damaged coating, and my current one has some haze on the rear element. I am not sure why the Canon lenses have such a big problem with damaged coating and etched glass, but more than half of them that I have owned or worked on have problems on the surface just behind the aperture. Canon started using a new type of low-dispersion glass with the Black lenses, starting with the 50/1.2. It allowed faster lenses to be made with fewer elements than was possible without it. The 50/1.2 is 7 elements in 5 groups, the 50/1.4 is 6 elements in 4 groups. But- the glass appears to be more susceptible to etching. This problem does not seem to occur on the chrome lenses.
A bad case looks like this:
A clean example will perform better than mine, but the trick is finding one. They are rare, and few in between. Canon must have corrected the problem in the 1960s, neither of my Canon 50/0.95's have problems. Both of them have perfect glass. My black 50/1.8, 50/2.8 and 50/1.2 all have varying degrees of problems. I disassembled the 50/1.4, cleaned it of haze, and it seems Okay. Coating damage and etched glass is expensive to correct.
But sometimes having F1.2 is worth while, even if the glass is not perfect.
A bad case looks like this:
A clean example will perform better than mine, but the trick is finding one. They are rare, and few in between. Canon must have corrected the problem in the 1960s, neither of my Canon 50/0.95's have problems. Both of them have perfect glass. My black 50/1.8, 50/2.8 and 50/1.2 all have varying degrees of problems. I disassembled the 50/1.4, cleaned it of haze, and it seems Okay. Coating damage and etched glass is expensive to correct.
But sometimes having F1.2 is worth while, even if the glass is not perfect.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
My copy was damn near mint. I think that makes a big difference with this lens.
raid
Dad Photographer
I compared both lenses in the past with 20 other 50mm lenses for RFF.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Here is are a couple in Camera Jpgs from M8 and canon f1.2/50 using a Hoya R72 filter (720nm).
Sorry for low reso flikr-ness
I don't have the Fast leica but I do have this Canon as well as the Hex f1.2/50. The canon has a pleasing form factor and gets the job done with character. The hex to me is more modern.
Sorry for low reso flikr-ness
I don't have the Fast leica but I do have this Canon as well as the Hex f1.2/50. The canon has a pleasing form factor and gets the job done with character. The hex to me is more modern.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
My Canon 50/1.2, wide-open on the M8, high-ISO (2500?, i need to look at the original), ~1/8th second.
This lens is made out of two parts lenses, rear module from one, front section from another. But it is comparable with the "whole' lens that i had before. Not bad for $90.
I wish my M8 would shoot that good at * iso 2500*......I'm sure I have a sensor/banding problem, I'm sending mine back to LEICA to get a new sensor, mine has developed hot pixels too and has also been filfthy since day one......with only 13,000 or so clicks, I think that may have missed my camera, when it came down to the early cameras fix.....
The Canon f1.2/50 I have is pristine *like new* and is one of the last ones built 1967, I think it shoots amazingly well and while I never was a fan of the Noctilux in any of it's versions and the Nokton bokeh isn't flattering either, the Canon is a real hit by me, especially shooting in real film *iso 100/400* and since I shoot PinUps ala 1960's style the softness and "look" that the Canon gives fits right in with that desired "vintage" dreamy feel.
(my models really like this lens).
One of my favorite shots with my lens.........1967 Canon f1.2/50 on my M6 ~ *ISO 400* Kodak film ~ no post processing
Enjoy
Tom
Last edited:
I would advise anyone buying a Black Canon lens to be able to inspect it before spending a lot of money on it. Tom's late run lens with mint glass also is anecdotal evidence that the problem was corrected later in the run.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Yeah....I would dig one of those "all black" lenses too, (JUST FOR THE STEALTH LOOK ON MY M6) but I think that they were mostly all pre 1960 build runs???
I really think in the case of the f1.2/50 Canon, the "later" production lenses were better shooters than the earlier ones.......
Tom