R-D1 and Canon 50/1.4

E

espressogeek

Well-known
Local time
8:37 AM
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
210
Location
Nashville, TN
View My Gallery
Dang I love this lens. This is a major crop from the lowly 6mp frame. Shot at F8

384257966_7fb2b35048.jpg


Can a summilux be any better? I know a summicron is supposed to be the king of sharp but this old lens with no CLA is freaking amazing to my DSLR eyes.
 
espressogeek said:
Dang I love this lens. This is a major crop from the lowly 6mp frame. Shot at F8 Can a summilux be any better? I know a summicron is supposed to be the king of sharp but this old lens with no CLA is freaking amazing to my DSLR eyes.
Click to expand...

I found the Canon RF 50/1.8 to be as good or better then my best DSLR 50's and my Rokkor 40/2 is better yet. Even the cheap Russian copies are very good optically stopped down.

tm
 
great shot. More impressive than the glass for me is getting out and capturing that moment. Also I really like the white in the sweatshirt but also the richness in the tree branches.
 
pfogle said:
I would guess (I don't have one!) that the lux would be better at f1.4 -f2.
Click to expand...

The current Summilux, yes... but as fpr the first-generation version, the one that was current at the time the Canon came out -- the consensus seems to be either that they're comparable or that the Canon is a bit better, depending on how you evaluate "better."

Another interesting thing about the 50/1.4 is that Canon got the job done with only six elements; most other manufacturers have used seven elements when designing a 50/1.4 lens. It looks as if Canon had to use not only high-index glasses but drastic, harder-to-make surface curvatures to keep the element count down, but the extra effort paid off in yielding a fine-performing lens that's also pleasantly compact.
 
jlw said:
The current Summilux, yes... but as fpr the first-generation version, the one that was current at the time the Canon came out -- the consensus seems to be either that they're comparable or that the Canon is a bit better, depending on how you evaluate "better."

Another interesting thing about the 50/1.4 is that Canon got the job done with only six elements; most other manufacturers have used seven elements when designing a 50/1.4 lens. It looks as if Canon had to use not only high-index glasses but drastic, harder-to-make surface curvatures to keep the element count down, but the extra effort paid off in yielding a fine-performing lens that's also pleasantly compact.
Click to expand...
interesting comment about the pre-ASPH 50 lux - it's a lens that's tempted me (as does the Canon f1.2) because of that 'dreamy' look bokeh wide open - I keep blowing hot and cold over getting one!

As for the later version - well, I bottled out of spending the money, and settled on the Nokton 1.5, which I do like, but I can't help fantasizing about what I'm missing 🙁

But, I'm certainly not knocking the Canon 1.4, which does seem to be a great performer for its age.
 
Last edited:
I agree w/the virtues of the Canon 50/1.4, but I wouldn't characterize it as compact, @ least as compared w/other f/1.4 RF lenses of the same time period. It's considerably fatter than the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S & Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton in LTM & the pre-ASPH 50/1.4 Summilux, though not heavy. IIRC, Canon essentially stretched the design of the 50/1.8 to make the 50/1.4, hence the increase in girth.

jlw said:
. . . a fine-performing lens that's also pleasantly compact.
Click to expand...
 
furcafe said:
I agree w/the virtues of the Canon 50/1.4, but I wouldn't characterize it as compact, @ least as compared w/other f/1.4 RF lenses of the same time period. It's considerably fatter than the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S & Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton in LTM & the pre-ASPH 50/1.4 Summilux, though not heavy. IIRC, Canon essentially stretched the design of the 50/1.8 to make the 50/1.4, hence the increase in girth.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, although I don't have a clear recollection of how large these two lenses actually are. (Anyone out there own all three and might be willing to post a side-by-side comparison photo?) The Canon is definitely more svelte than the modern C-V Nokton, though.

Assuming that the Canon is significantly fatter than the Nikkor and vintage Nokton, I also wonder how much of this is due to optics and how much is due to mount designs. The Canon's diaphragm mechanism is a later type that allows more-or-less-equally-spaced f/stop markings; I haven't used an old-style Nokton, but one of the things that used to drive me @#$% crazy about my 50/1.4 Nikkor was the fact that there's about a yard and a half of space between f/1.4 and f/2, and then the small stops are spaced apart by what seem to be about an angstrom.

The equal-space design is certainly more convenient, but in other lenses I've examined I've noticed that it also seems to require a somewhat larger-diameter lens barrel to handle the diaphragm blades with more complex curvature that are required to achieve the equal spacing.
 
jlw said:
I don't disagree, although I don't have a clear recollection of how large these two lenses actually are. (Anyone out there own all three and might be willing to post a side-by-side comparison photo?) The Canon is definitely more svelte than the modern C-V Nokton, though.

:::

The equal-space design is certainly more convenient, but in other lenses I've examined I've noticed that it also seems to require a somewhat larger-diameter lens barrel to handle the diaphragm blades with more complex curvature that are required to achieve the equal spacing.
Click to expand...

espressogeek, thanks for the post.

I only have the Canon and the Nikkor. I like the Canon better as a general
purpose fast 50. The Nikkor vignettes at f1.4 at medium and far distances. On the other hand, the Nikkor @ f1.4 is great for close up portraits due to signature.

Weight-wise they are similar. While the Canon is much smaller than the
modern Nokton, it is volume-wise almost twice the size than the Nikkor.
The aperture ring on the Nikkor is something else ... reverse direction of
course and un-equally spaced. But nice click stops and good to have
large distance between 1.4 and 2 - because you need to stop it
down to 1.6 or so to get rid of the vignetting.

Here is the Nikkor on the M6:

119214544-M.jpg


Here is the Canon on the M3:

105977045-M.jpg


Roland.
 
I'm not sure where the first poster or two got that this was an SLR lens. I was referring to the canon lens that fits an m39 mount. I just can't believe the performance at this price point on the used market. This lens has such a wonderful 3d effect that I didn't think was possible without a leica lens. I am going to walk around a bit weather permitting and see what I can with this puppy. I am quite impressed with it so far. Thank everyone for the interesting input to this thread. This forum is a wonderful place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom