espressogeek
Well-known
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.
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.
tmessenger
Established
espressogeek said:
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
DwF
Well-known
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
Well-known
I would guess (I don't have one!) that the lux would be better at f1.4 -f2. THAT would blow your DSLR lens out of the waterespressogeek said:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
pfogle 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.
pfogle
Well-known
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!jlw said:
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:
furcafe
Veteran
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:
washy21
Established
I just sold a mint Canon 1.4 and I can testify that it had something special about it
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
furcafe 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.
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.
ferider
Veteran
jlw said:
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:
Here is the Canon on the M3:
Roland.
espressogeek
Well-known
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:
pfogle
Well-known
what a pretty M3! - it almost makes me feel a twinge of nostalgia for film