Canon 50/1.2's have long had the rep of not being sharp lenses from day one. You can follow their not so great reputation wide open in the "too hot to handle" column of the old Modern Photography if you like. That is not so say some copies are sharper than others. That not so great Canon 1.2 opinion is also shared by Tom A, who has shot with most every available Leica mount lens.
I looked at your Konica 50/1.2 shots. Sorry, but they showed me nothing special. No way would I have sold your set of 28, 50/2, and 90 Konica M lenses just to get ONE fast 50/1.2 Koni lens, but that's me. Your loss in versatility trading 3 lenses for only one is HUGE. But if you are happy with it, great. To each their own.
Stephen
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, you and Tom A may have your opinions, which I respect, yet I have seen plenty of photos from Canon 1.2 lens that prove otherwise. But I suppose its a matter of taste.
As far as my pics from Hex 50/1.2 go - what exactly "special" did you expect? I'm sure you have seen pics from these lenses before, so it's not like it'd draw any differently. But if you need a good sharpness, nice bokeh and 1.2 - its one of the best I've seen/used. At least to me. I sort of agree with you - selling other Hexanons may not be a wisest descision, but I prefer 50mm fast lens, so - works for me. But do you think Nokton 50/1.1 is "special" enough to trade those lenses for it? If so, why? Or is any lens for that matter? What about one camera-one lens idea?
newsgrunt
Well-known
I guess there are probably two camps re: fast 50's, those who get them for the 'bokeh' and others for the speed. I'm in the latter group and am after available darkness use more than character of the OOF areas but that's me. I actually find the swirly look of some of the Nocts quite hard to take. It's like the large format crowd and their petzval lenses 
I also see a somewhat similar thing happening with the 5D MkII. For the time being everyone is shooting video with it wide open because it's novel and previously unattainable unless one had deep pockets. This will pass as I'm already hearing people bemoan another video shot at 1.2
I also see a somewhat similar thing happening with the 5D MkII. For the time being everyone is shooting video with it wide open because it's novel and previously unattainable unless one had deep pockets. This will pass as I'm already hearing people bemoan another video shot at 1.2
After the way you carried on about it and just kept on carrying on about it, I was expecting to see more of what all that praise was about. Ok, its different from the Nokton and Noctilux. Better? Not so fast. To me that is a matter of taste, especially when cost is factored into the equation.
One camera one lens? Its good for a learning excercise, but mostly practiced by people saving up for more lenses.
Stephen
Krosya
Konicaze
I think I already told you - its sharp, it has a great bokeh and it is well built - thats what all the praise about. I think, and some Hexanon users here agree, that Hex 50/1.2 rates somewhere between Summilux 50 pre-asph and Asph - as far as sharpness, bokeh, signature go - NOT something I can say about the 50/1.1, btw. Cost - its not THAT much more than Nokton. Plus if you talk cost - Nokton 50/1.5 is a far better deal than 1.1 one. So, to me its not a valid argument. Taste - sure - everyone likes different things. I tried to like 50/1.1, but somehow it just didnt do it for me. I had high hopes for it, yet it didnt happen. Maybe if Hex was not an option - I'd actually get Nokton 1.1. Or if it was ASPH and focused closer. Like CV 35/1.2. But as things are Hex is a much better choice, IMO.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I think you are pretty fast in your judgement. It will take quite some time this new 50mm f/1.1 will prove all its virtues, like all great lenses did in the past. My conclusion now is that it is a very good, fast lens that is really an addition to the palette of lenses that rangefinder-photographers can use. As such the use of this lens is a challenge. I wish the users of this fine, new instrument a lot of succes.
Erik.
Last edited:
leicashot
Well-known
And this is another thing I dont like about this lens - if this is wide open - I could get the same look with any 50/2, or 50/1.4 lens. When I buy a superfast lens, I want DOF to be MUCH narrower, but thats me.
You want a 50/1.1 lens to have narrower DOF??? Well buy a 0.95 then, cause you're not gonna get any narrower than these two lenses....except the Noctilux which creates an illusion of narrower DOF due to the abberations in OOF areas. Your argument isn't clear.
leicashot
Well-known
I think that the Nokton 50/1.1 doesn't have a strong signature, but remember when a Nokton 50/1.5 is shooting at 1/30 suffering from camera shake and/or subject movement, the Nokton 50/1.1 is shooting at 1/60 sec and getting a sharper shot.
On the other hand, while the 50/1.5 is shooting at ISO 2500 and getting a ridiculous amount of noise/grain, the 50/1.1 is shooting at ISO 1250 and getting a sharper image.
I don't know about you guys but nothing else matters when you don't get the (sharp) shot. Sorry but an image that suffers from subject blur or camera blur (unintentional) is useless, regardless of 'lens signature'.
Put simply: if these two lenses were the same price/size/weight, people would probably take the 50/1.1 (cause why not?), therefore only people who will use and/or see value in the gain of an extra stop will appreciate and pay the extra for the 50/1.1.....and never look back.
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, other 50/1.2 lenses seem to have narrower DOF wide open - Canon 1.2 and Hex 1.2, which makes me wonder if Nokton is true 1.1 lens. Or maybe Hex is faster than 1.2, or something.
leicashot
Well-known
I guess until we see a 'direct' comparison, we won't know. They look pretty similar to me. Infact from different samples I've seen, the Hex and Nokt look very similar, and priced accordingly, infact at bargain prices compared to the Leica equivelents.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I dont understand the discussion here! The Nokton 50 f1.1 is a superb fast "standard" lens. It is sharp wide open (sharper than a Noctilux 50f1.0 by a fair margin), very reasonably priced for a lens of this caliber, extremely flare resistant etc, etc. When I need a fast lens, I am looking for a lens that behaves like a top quality lens (be it Nikon,Leica,Canon,Konica or Cosina) - it has to give me an image that is sharp enough to print with a rendering that I like. I am not interested in bokeh, character etc - I want the resolution and sharpness/contrast.
I have owned and used 1/2 dozen Noctiluxes - none worked for me. I had the 60f1.2 Hexanon, impressive and considerably better than the Noctilux 50f1.0 - and i have a Canon 50f1.2 which I could use if I want "character" or "flare" or various denomination of weird "bokeh".
I haven't had enough experience with the Hexanon 50f1.2 Hexanon or the new 50f0.95 Noctilux to warrant an opinion on either one - but for my use - The Nokton meet my expectations - No, correction - it exceeds my expectation for a fast 50!
I want my lenses to do what I expect - I really dont want any surprises (bad or good). I am probably not overly "picky" about lenses - most do what I want them to do - and that is to deliver a sharp image when I want that - be it @ f1.1 or f8.
I shoot black/white, I shoot medium speed films and within those parameters I haven't seen anything from anyone else that comes close to the Nokton at the moment.
I have owned and used 1/2 dozen Noctiluxes - none worked for me. I had the 60f1.2 Hexanon, impressive and considerably better than the Noctilux 50f1.0 - and i have a Canon 50f1.2 which I could use if I want "character" or "flare" or various denomination of weird "bokeh".
I haven't had enough experience with the Hexanon 50f1.2 Hexanon or the new 50f0.95 Noctilux to warrant an opinion on either one - but for my use - The Nokton meet my expectations - No, correction - it exceeds my expectation for a fast 50!
I want my lenses to do what I expect - I really dont want any surprises (bad or good). I am probably not overly "picky" about lenses - most do what I want them to do - and that is to deliver a sharp image when I want that - be it @ f1.1 or f8.
I shoot black/white, I shoot medium speed films and within those parameters I haven't seen anything from anyone else that comes close to the Nokton at the moment.
leicashot
Well-known
I think Tom (as usual) has put the nail in the coffin. The fact is, find a brand new 50/1.1 that's better and cheaper than the Nokt, then buy it. Prefer something else, for whatever reason, buy it. Sorry, but from what I've seen, you can't fault the Nokton in any area. For me it's a no brainer and because I value it's speed, quality, performance and price, I've sold my Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH to purchase the Nokton 50/1.1......and can't wait to get my dirty little hands on it.
D&A
Well-known
Hi All,
My comments are designed to impart what I hope is useful infomation (based on fairly extensice "controlled" and real world shooting of the new 50 f1.1 vs. Noctilux 50mm f1.0 vs. the 50mm f1.5)...rather than take any particular side. I'll restrict m comments solely to this threads discussion of 50mm f1.1 vs 50mm f1.5 . Comments I made regarding the Leica 50mm f1.0 vs. the 50mm f1.1 was posted in a different thread a few weeks ago.
Tom is right....the 50mm f1.1 is sharp and has very good contrast, even when used wide open. Yet for those that are willing to give up a approx stop of speed, they will be rewarded with not only a savings in $$ but a lens (the 50mm f1.1)rably sharper for large format printing and higher contrast. This is what I consistantly found when comparing the 50mm f1.1 vs the 50mm f1.5....but primarily when I examined on an M8 and at close to or at "actual pixels" (100%). It was at this close examination, especially at average shooting disatnces, that the 50mm f1.5 was strikingly sharper both...both center and edge. This noticable difference held up to approx. f5.6, although the gap started to narrow by the time I reached this f-stop. Contrasts also paralled sharpness observations..with the 50mm f1.5 being noticably higher in contrast. (which can be viewed a s a positive or negative, (depending on use). Again in normal sized web images or average sized enlargements (say 8x12")..the differences I outlined in sharpness and contrast with these two lenses might or might be noticable enough to make a big difference...but will certainly be observed the larger one prints.
In contrast (no pun intended)....the 50mm f1.1 is almost a full stop faster...no small feat and as stated, that one stop can make all the ddifference in certain shooting situations. Giving up some sharpness (even when the 50mm f1.1 is used stopped down ...is also a tradeoff, but one that can be viewed as relative to what is gained. As oftened stated, it depends on what one is looking for and their intended use for a particular lens such as these two fine ones are.
Dave (D&A)
My comments are designed to impart what I hope is useful infomation (based on fairly extensice "controlled" and real world shooting of the new 50 f1.1 vs. Noctilux 50mm f1.0 vs. the 50mm f1.5)...rather than take any particular side. I'll restrict m comments solely to this threads discussion of 50mm f1.1 vs 50mm f1.5 . Comments I made regarding the Leica 50mm f1.0 vs. the 50mm f1.1 was posted in a different thread a few weeks ago.
Tom is right....the 50mm f1.1 is sharp and has very good contrast, even when used wide open. Yet for those that are willing to give up a approx stop of speed, they will be rewarded with not only a savings in $$ but a lens (the 50mm f1.1)rably sharper for large format printing and higher contrast. This is what I consistantly found when comparing the 50mm f1.1 vs the 50mm f1.5....but primarily when I examined on an M8 and at close to or at "actual pixels" (100%). It was at this close examination, especially at average shooting disatnces, that the 50mm f1.5 was strikingly sharper both...both center and edge. This noticable difference held up to approx. f5.6, although the gap started to narrow by the time I reached this f-stop. Contrasts also paralled sharpness observations..with the 50mm f1.5 being noticably higher in contrast. (which can be viewed a s a positive or negative, (depending on use). Again in normal sized web images or average sized enlargements (say 8x12")..the differences I outlined in sharpness and contrast with these two lenses might or might be noticable enough to make a big difference...but will certainly be observed the larger one prints.
In contrast (no pun intended)....the 50mm f1.1 is almost a full stop faster...no small feat and as stated, that one stop can make all the ddifference in certain shooting situations. Giving up some sharpness (even when the 50mm f1.1 is used stopped down ...is also a tradeoff, but one that can be viewed as relative to what is gained. As oftened stated, it depends on what one is looking for and their intended use for a particular lens such as these two fine ones are.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
OwenStegemann
Established
Hello all, first post.
I have no interest in getting into a lens pissing contest, but this statement needs to be addressed. An image that is blurred is not always useless. It may be if sharpness is the only way you can justify spending the big money you just spent on the newest, coolest lens.
There are plenty of great, somewhat blurred photos out there. I'm sure you have seen some of them.
leicashot
Well-known
Did, you not see my quote (unintentional)? As a pro, I see all too many 'photographers' at events shooting at shutter speeds that are too slow to achieve sharp results, then using them as artistic work, when I know that was not their original intentions.
Sorry but a line must be drawn to separate those who know 'how' to create and use blur, and those that achieve such a result through lack of understanding. My point is that a fast lens like a 50/1.1 can make all the difference in certain situations with a photographer who 'knows' what he/she is doing with it.
OwenStegemann
Established
I did not notice that. I apologize.
Sukiari
Member
The 50 f/1.2 is not really soft. It has some aberrations wide open, but by f/1.4 it is much, much sharper. Then again, look at the margins of a shot made with a Leica 50 f/0.95, f/1, or f/1.2. They have the same problems.
The Canon 50 f/1.2 is a hell of a lens, and has a very unique look. If you are willing to be DEAD on with your focusing and composition, it will perform.
Krosya
Konicaze
Tom,
I just had a look at your flickr pics from Nokton 50/1.1.
And here are a few questions/observations.
this pic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/3750530034/in/set-72157618400098667/
Pretty dark corners there - is it typical of this lens? Were you going for a Noktilux look?
this pic : http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/3755602003/in/set-72157618400098667/
and this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/3552691160/in/set-72157618400098667/
- Rather busy/unplesant bokeh IMO.
Yet some other pics look pretty nice from it. I dont know, maybe I'm more picky when it comes to lenses, but it seems that this lens Does give you a surprise or two, at least based on your pics you posted from it on flickr.
Krosya
Konicaze
And one more thing Tom,
I was wondering how, in your opinion, does CV 35/1.2 compare to CV 50/1.1? I know one is 35 and the other is 50, and one is ASPH and the other is not, but overall - pics from which you like better and why? Just wonder.
I was wondering how, in your opinion, does CV 35/1.2 compare to CV 50/1.1? I know one is 35 and the other is 50, and one is ASPH and the other is not, but overall - pics from which you like better and why? Just wonder.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Leica M2, Nokton 50mm f/1.1, TriX, printed on Iford MGIV.
Erik.
Erik.
Last edited: