Peter Klein
Well-known
I'm posting this in the Leica M forum because of the inevitable comparisons to a certain f/1 lens of Canadian origin. So, first of all, The Defense Stipulates that the Noctilux is a better lens than the Canon.
But I'm of the opinion that a good 50/1.2 is actually a very usable lens. And the Canon's major flaws--low contrast and veiling flare, can be mitigated by a little extra post-processing. I respect Roger Hicks enormously, but I think I may have been luckier in my purchase than he was.
This shot was taken with the 50/1.2 wide-open on an M8. I used the "local contrast" trick where you set unsharp mask to Radius 40 or so, Amount around 12-15%. This enhances differences between light and dark areas, and tends to bring things out in low-contrast pictures. The picture prints very nicely at 8.5 x 11 inches.
If you've got some good wide-open shots with this Rodney Dangerfield of lenses, post 'em here!
--Peter
But I'm of the opinion that a good 50/1.2 is actually a very usable lens. And the Canon's major flaws--low contrast and veiling flare, can be mitigated by a little extra post-processing. I respect Roger Hicks enormously, but I think I may have been luckier in my purchase than he was.
This shot was taken with the 50/1.2 wide-open on an M8. I used the "local contrast" trick where you set unsharp mask to Radius 40 or so, Amount around 12-15%. This enhances differences between light and dark areas, and tends to bring things out in low-contrast pictures. The picture prints very nicely at 8.5 x 11 inches.
If you've got some good wide-open shots with this Rodney Dangerfield of lenses, post 'em here!
--Peter
Attachments
maddoc
... likes film again.
I don't want to appear rude and it is maybe my eyes but ... this sample photo looks quite soft to me, somehow focus seems to be off ... 
tomasis
Well-known
peter, have you owned nocti before? IMHO one could say something after owned both canon 1.2 and nocti. I've said a lot things though I didn't owned any of both so better I shut up myself but the sample tells much how canon can do. Some are happy with that look, that's fine. Some dislike ASPH sharpness
but the sample tells much how canon can do. Some are happy with that look, that's fine. Some dislike ASPH sharpness kevin m
Veteran
Peter, you bring up a good point. Here in the digital age, a high-contrast lens can actually be a liability, and that's true if you're scanning film, too. Roger's opinion about this lens, and those of his photographer friends, was formed decades ago and may not be relevant now, depending on your work flow.
My opinion is that this lens is about equal to the pre-aspherical Summilux 50 in performance. If anything, the Canon has the edge at f1.4. Considering the price it's a bargain.
I shot one test roll with a Noctilux back when I could have had it for $1,500 and passed. The lens is remarkably sharp on-center wide open, but the rest of the frame shows too much "personality" for my taste. The Canon draws much more neutrally wide open.
Here's one wide open, close focus. Fuji NPH (or whatever the new name is..) f1.2 1/1000.
My opinion is that this lens is about equal to the pre-aspherical Summilux 50 in performance. If anything, the Canon has the edge at f1.4. Considering the price it's a bargain.
I shot one test roll with a Noctilux back when I could have had it for $1,500 and passed. The lens is remarkably sharp on-center wide open, but the rest of the frame shows too much "personality" for my taste. The Canon draws much more neutrally wide open.
Here's one wide open, close focus. Fuji NPH (or whatever the new name is..) f1.2 1/1000.
kevin m
Veteran
Another, wide open, close focus.
100% crop:
100% crop:
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Another, wide open, minimum focus distance. Fuji NPH, f1.2, 1/1000th.
100% crop. You can see just how shallow the DOF is, the back flower is out of focus less than two inches away!
100% crop. You can see just how shallow the DOF is, the back flower is out of focus less than two inches away!
Peter Klein
Well-known
Maddoc & Tomasis: I didn't say the lens was razor sharp, I said it was quite usable with a little care. And focusing with either lens is a bear. If you're looking to count eyelashes, use a Summicron. All ultra high-speed lenses are compromises, and their primary use is when all else fails. (Ignore the preceding if you use the Noct's qualities for artistic effect)
Post side-by-side pictures taken with the Noctilux and Voigtlander 35/1.2, and I suspect 70% of photo.net would tell you to "ditch the Noct, it's a piece of crap." I say that yes, the modern look is more accurate, but the old stuff can still take decent pictures.
Since my shot was taken, I got an eyepiece magnifier with adjustable diopter, and that has really improved the ease of critical focusing.
A few weeks ago a friend and I did a shootout with his Noct and my Canon, and we swapped lenses for a few shots. Comparing the pictures later, both lenses were remarkably similar at the center of the frame. The Noct hardly ever flares, the Canon does.
--Peter
All ultra high-speed lenses are compromises, and their primary use is when all else fails. (Ignore the preceding if you use the Noct's qualities for artistic effect)Post side-by-side pictures taken with the Noctilux and Voigtlander 35/1.2, and I suspect 70% of photo.net would tell you to "ditch the Noct, it's a piece of crap." I say that yes, the modern look is more accurate, but the old stuff can still take decent pictures.
Since my shot was taken, I got an eyepiece magnifier with adjustable diopter, and that has really improved the ease of critical focusing.
A few weeks ago a friend and I did a shootout with his Noct and my Canon, and we swapped lenses for a few shots. Comparing the pictures later, both lenses were remarkably similar at the center of the frame. The Noct hardly ever flares, the Canon does.
--Peter
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Folks,
I read from time to time these posts about the "kings of light" and sometimes wonders about the canon 1.2.
I always come ot the same conclusion: I have the canon 1.4 which is a good lens.
Why should I pay twice its price to get a huge chunk of glass that will give me a third of a stop, at what seems a considerably lower contrast.
I'm not trying to irritate anyone here, but really, what is the point?
Thanks!
I read from time to time these posts about the "kings of light" and sometimes wonders about the canon 1.2.
I always come ot the same conclusion: I have the canon 1.4 which is a good lens.
Why should I pay twice its price to get a huge chunk of glass that will give me a third of a stop, at what seems a considerably lower contrast.
I'm not trying to irritate anyone here, but really, what is the point?
Thanks!
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Memphis,
that second shot of your daughter is the bomb! great light!
that second shot of your daughter is the bomb! great light!
sanmich
Veteran
So... how is the signature of the 1.2 different from the 1.4?
Is this special rendition kept at smaller apertures?
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Old images (haven't processed any new rolls with shots from it) - but I love this lens.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have been using the Canon 50/1.2 quite often, and I find it to be an excellent performer. My lens needed some internal adjustings that DAG took care of.
at 1.4 (focus on hair): http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297585
at 2.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297434
at 4.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5272832
at 1.4 (focus on hair): http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297585
at 2.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297434
at 4.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5272832
Peter Klein
Well-known
f/1.2 is a half stop more than f/1.4, not a third. Your Canon 50/1.4 is indeed a very good lens. It's just that there might be low-light situations where you could shoot at, say 1/45 second with f/1.2, where you'd be shooting 1/30 second at f/1.4. That might make a significant difference in terms of camera or subject motion.
Of course, the full stop of the Noct would buy you 1/60, but at considerably more cost.
If you think that mostly marketing hype or numbers lust that drives sales of these lenses, you may be right. You are right that the extra half stop might not be worth the cost for you. I think it is worth it for me enough of the time that I decided to give the lens a try. I like to do "available dark." So far, I'm pleased with it, but it is definitely a specialty lens, not for all the time.
--Peter
dexdog
Veteran
BTW Rogue, I really think that shot of the bartender. Great riot of color, and you nailed the focus.
kevin m
Veteran
The 50/1.2 improves considerably stopped down to f1.4. The "sweet spot" seems to be from f1.4 to f4.0 so far, meaning, that's where the lens' signature is evident, but the weaknesses are kept in check.
MikeL
Go Fish
Thanks everyone for posting photos. One thing I really like about 50mm f1.2 threads is that the majority of postings and opinions are by those who have a lot of experience with the lens (My post excluded). And money is mentioned less as well (My post excluded). In the past I'd seen some nice photos from memphis and Gabrielma and Kevin, and it's nice to see more. Thanks!
sanmich
Veteran
You got me here...
I had to go back to my maths. If I'm not mistaking 1.2 is 39% more luminous than 1.4.
But I totally miss the point here, don't I
I think I'm gonna start a thread on these elusive "character" lenses...
Summitars, sonnars, darkness kings and their folks...
kevin m
Veteran
Another thing worth mention is that the older "flawed" lenses are often much better at people photography than are their modern replacements. The Summilux 50 I used to own was great in that regard; sharp enough, but kind to the less-than-perfect skin most of us have. I'm finding I like the 50/1.2 Canon for much the same reason. Stop it down and it's sharp, but open her up a bit and watch the wrinkles disappear!
raid
Dad Photographer
The Canon 50mm/1.2 can be an excellent lens. I have used it once as my main lens on a trip to Europe. It provides a lot of flexibility in one lens. In dark rooms, open up to 1.2 and enjoy low light photography. In light areas, close down to 5.6-11 and enjoy great sharpness.
Attachments
raid
Dad Photographer
B&W Image at 1.2; http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5105481