Poor man's 50mm Summilux?

both the 1.8 and 1.4 are great lenses.

I had a 1.4 and it performed very well. I did some tests and the resolution was really high.
Only cons, some are shared with lots of other lenses in this category:

Long throw (you might like it)
distortion
min focus distance of 1m (much less a limitation than on a 35 or a 28 IMHO)

For these reasons, I sold mine because I usually don't use 1.4, and the small discomforts of this otherwise fantastic lens made me pick an f/2 alternative every time.

So for me, it's a no brainer: unless a 50mm f/1.4 is your bread and butter, and you can buy a summilux asph, I wouldn't bother with the other alternatives (some flak coming from the Sonnar/Nokton crowd...fair enough 🙂)
 
The Canon 50/1.4, and many of the Canon LTM lenses, have a problem with internal haze caused by the Lubricants used- so check the inner surfaces with a flashlight. Not hard to clean, but must be done. If the lens was serviced over the last 50 years, good chance the lubricants were changed out.

The Canon is a Planar formula lens, 6 elements in 4 groups made possible through the use of a "then" new high-index of refraction/ low dispersion glass that Canon developed. Same glass made the 50/1.2 and 50/0.95 possible with 7 elements. The Summarit and Summilux lenses are Planar formula lenses, 7 elements in 5 groups.

It is well-corrected, well-behaved optically- sharper and higher contrast than the Leica Summarit and V1 Summilux.

I have one, but end up using Sonnar forumula lenses. These are center-sharp, higher contrast, not as well corrected for curvature of field.

Canon 50/1.4, wide-open at F1.4. On the M8:

picture.php


100% crop:

picture.php


Another at F1.4, M8 at ISO 2500, lighting by the "Disco Lights", subject moved during exposure:

picture.php
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys. Great opinons and perspectives. I am working on my first roll with the f1.4. I will let you know how it turns out.
 
JHP said:
Why does one own two of the same lens?

Just out of curiosity.

🙂
Click to expand...


It usually is one of the four reasons given below:

1. you have one lens but see a cleaner one.
2. you have one lens but find a less expensive one.
3. you "inherit" a second lens when buying a camera.
4. GAS
 
The Canon 50/1.8 is also a Planar design, not a Sonnar formula like the Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5.

A Jupiter-3 is a poor man's C-Sonnar.

J-3 at F1.5:

picture.php


picture.php


C-Sonnar at F1.5:

picture.php


picture.php


But at ~$1,000- the C-Sonnar is affordable compared to a Summilux. Of course a J-3 at under $200 is one of the cheapest of the fast 50's.
 
johnwolf said:
Is this an example of the Canon 50 1.8 being mentioned?

http://http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-50mm-f1-8-Leica-M39-Mount-Rangefinder-Lens-MINT-/120779169889?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c1effe061#ht_5156wt_922

If so, what type of adapter is needed for an M body? Thanks.

John
Click to expand...

Yes, that is an example of the 50/1.8- at much more money than they used to sell for. They used to go in thr $150 range, back when J-3's went for under $100. I think $200 is a better price for a Canon 50/1.8, for $325 I would start looking for the Canon 50/1.4.
 
photokalia said:
I used to think people with more than one lens with the same focal length were out of their mind.
Click to expand...


Religion manifests in many way it does. When futile the search for truth it seems, dogma over it takes.

Differently said, for most war it means. Until the light you see. Do or do not, there is no try.
 
johnwolf said:
Is this an example of the Canon 50 1.8 being mentioned?

http://http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-50mm-f1-8-Leica-M39-Mount-Rangefinder-Lens-MINT-/120779169889?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c1effe061#ht_5156wt_922

If so, what type of adapter is needed for an M body? Thanks.

John
Click to expand...

Yes, that's one. Canon made three versions of the 50/1.8 which share the same optical formula: an all-chrome version from the early 1950s, and two chrome and black versions from the late '50s/early /60s. The one in the ad is one of the latter. I agree w/ Brian Sweeney that the price seems high in the current market, even though the prices on these lenses have appreciated in the last couple of years (as photographers discovered, or re-discovered, how good they are, particularly compared to more expensive Leica lenses from the same period). As for the adapter, you should look for an LTM-M adapter for a 50 mm lens, so it will bring up the correct framelines in a Leica M. I've got an adapter made by Leitz for the 50/2.8 Elmar, but other mfrs. make them too (e.g., Cosina Voigtlander). They cost around $50.
 
kermaier said:
+1

But I'd say the CV Nokton 50/1.5 is more the poor man's 50mm Lux Aspherical. The Canon 50/1.4 may be closer to being the poor man's 50mm Lux v1. 🙂
Click to expand...

That's an interesting comment. I hear they're nearly indistinguishable 🙂 But I'll do a test when I get myself a copy of the canon and post some more comments 🙂
 
To me the really poor man's Summilux would be a good J-3 ... but even they seem to have climbed in price of late.

Not to mention the random quality control! 😀
 
Last edited:
i like the j3s.. recently stumbled across one but not sure if it's a good or bad copy?



is it difficult to tell from this sample, or is the exposure way off to tell?
 
Looks good to me, but I always like to see a B&W conversion in addition tothe color copy. Gives better info in terms of tonal range/dynamics


a10101100 said:
i like the j3s.. recently stumbled across one but not sure if it's a good or bad copy?



is it difficult to tell from this sample, or is the exposure way off to tell?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom