raid
Dad Photographer
J-3 at 1.5: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297599
Canon 50/1.5 at 1.5: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297610
Canon 50/1.4 at 1.4: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297612
Summarit 50/1.5 at 1.5: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297604
Canon 50/1.2 at 1.4: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297585
The focusing can be off due to motion, but you can get the overall rendition of the different 50mm lenses. The J-3 is amazingly good and so is the Canon 50/1.2. In this test, the Canon 50/1.4 may have been in need of adjusting,while the Summarit is hopelessly a soft focus lens in this case.
Canon 50/1.5 at 1.5: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297610
Canon 50/1.4 at 1.4: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297612
Summarit 50/1.5 at 1.5: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297604
Canon 50/1.2 at 1.4: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297585
The focusing can be off due to motion, but you can get the overall rendition of the different 50mm lenses. The J-3 is amazingly good and so is the Canon 50/1.2. In this test, the Canon 50/1.4 may have been in need of adjusting,while the Summarit is hopelessly a soft focus lens in this case.
raid
Dad Photographer
When comparing Canon 50mm lenses at 2.0, I got the following results:
1. Canon 50/1.8: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297546
2. Canon 50/1.5: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297431
3. Canon 50/1.4: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297433 (off focus)
4. Canon 50/1.2: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297434
I have posted these results before as part my marathon 50mm lens comparison. I now have quite a few nice photos of my daughter due to the tests.
I recently bought my own Canon 50/1.4, and I can assure you that it is tack sharp.
1. Canon 50/1.8: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297546
2. Canon 50/1.5: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297431
3. Canon 50/1.4: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297433 (off focus)
4. Canon 50/1.2: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297434
I have posted these results before as part my marathon 50mm lens comparison. I now have quite a few nice photos of my daughter due to the tests.
I recently bought my own Canon 50/1.4, and I can assure you that it is tack sharp.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have a Canon F1.2 ... I love it's look and I use it a lot but as much as I'm a fan of the lens it's no Noctilux. At a going price of around $300.00 to $400.00 it doesn't need to be either but it always seems to be mentioned in the Noctilux threads at some point ... which puzzles me!
The lens needs no defending ... it's performance for $300.00 (what I paid for mine) is it's own defence. That said ... it's soft wide open, flare prone and the edge sharpness at most apertures is ordinary ... but it has character .. you either like it or you don't!
The lens needs no defending ... it's performance for $300.00 (what I paid for mine) is it's own defence. That said ... it's soft wide open, flare prone and the edge sharpness at most apertures is ordinary ... but it has character .. you either like it or you don't!
kevin m
Veteran
No, it isn't. Or rather, what you say only applies to your copy. I bought a minty one, with clean glass, had it CLA'd and it is reasonably sharp wide open and as resistant to flare as my 50 Summilux was.
That's sort of the point of this thread, I think, is to put a stop to the rumor-mongering and group-think that spreads misleading information. I'm not inclined to give your opinion, or Roger Hick's opinion, much weight when I have an example here that contradicts what you say, am I?
I'm not comparing it to the Noctilux, either, except to say that I find its OOF rendering less "weird" than the Noctilux wide open, which is a matter of taste, anyway.
rolo
Established
I hadn't realised that Canon had made any lens that bad.
The samples you have shown would stop me from even admitting to owning that lens. I'm sure it can't be THAT bad. eeek.
Have you got tongue in cheek ??
BillP
Rangefinder General
I have the 1.2 and am happy with it.
In other words, I am happy with a Subaru Impreza, and a Ferrari, while lovely, is neither necessary nor financially viable. It has shortcomings, but then so does the Ferrari. It's my least used 50, but when I need it's special capabilities it does what I expect.
There's no point in wishing for something I don't have. I am content.
Regards,
Bill
In other words, I am happy with a Subaru Impreza, and a Ferrari, while lovely, is neither necessary nor financially viable. It has shortcomings, but then so does the Ferrari. It's my least used 50, but when I need it's special capabilities it does what I expect.
There's no point in wishing for something I don't have. I am content.
Regards,
Bill
Krosya
Konicaze
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
No, it isn't. Or rather, what you say only applies to your copy. I bought a minty one, with clean glass, had it CLA'd and it is reasonably sharp wide open and as resistant to flare as my 50 Summilux was.
That's sort of the point of this thread, I think, is to put a stop to the rumor-mongering and group-think that spreads misleading information. I'm not inclined to give your opinion, or Roger Hick's opinion, much weight when I have an example here that contradicts what you say, am I?
I'm not comparing it to the Noctilux, either, except to say that I find its OOF rendering less "weird" than the Noctilux wide open, which is a matter of taste, anyway.
Hi Kevin,
When I say soft I mean soft compared to my Hexanon or DR Summicron. I really like mine as a low light portrait lens ... it's a lot kinder to face features and skin tones than the afore mentioned 50's.
As for my example ... I would be extremely surprised if it was anything less than perfect as it came from the hands of Dante Stella through our classifieds!
As for it's tendency to flare ... that is releative also I guess. I can point the Hex straight at the sun and it hardly flares at all. The Canon on the other hand will always give a degree of flare with background highlights if they are pronounced enough ... and the glass in mine is as clean as a whistle!
I also meant to add ... that looking back through this thread at your sample images ... they don't scream sharpness to me! Which in itself is a pointless observation when you consider I'm looking at them at 900x600 on a computer screen!
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, I posted many pics from mine - look at other threads
But here is one more wide open:
in my opinion - not too bad, is it?
But here is one more wide open:
in my opinion - not too bad, is it?
Krosya
Konicaze
and one more - I think I posted this before:
maddoc
... likes film again.
Well, I posted many pics from mine - look at other threads
in my opinion - not too bad, is it?
Right you are
! These are not bad at all, very good !! Taken with the Hexar RF / Canon 50/1.2 ?
rolo
Established
Well, I posted many pics from mine - look at other threads
in my opinion - not too bad, is it?
You're right. Quite nice it is after all.
Must be the light.
kevin m
Veteran
Ah, gotcha! Yeah, it's not in their league for sharpness wide open.
I do have to say again that this lens improves remarkably stopped down to even f1.4, though. And by f2.0 it's as sharp as I need a lens to be for shooting human subjects. And it has a lovely signature at those apertures that can't be added in PS.
Honestly, I've had more trouble trying to "tame" images from ultra-sharp, high contrast lenses than I have boosting the contrast as needed from older, more "people-friendly" glass like this Canon. Roger Hicks
Veteran
There are several conflicts here.
One is 'love/hate'.
Plenty neither love nor hate the lens; they regard it (as I do) as relatively inexpensive, quite fun, but deserving neither exaggerated praise nor exaggerated contempt. But those whose opinions are violently polarized are inclined to place the middle-of-the-read brigade in the opposite camp. If someone declares it less than perfect, its uncritical fans accuse them hating it. If someone else declares it as better than worthless, they run a (rather smaller) chance of being accused of overrating it.
The second is post-processing. Yes, you can get a lot more out of any lens with post-processing. So? that doesn't alter the fact that some lenses need a lot of post processing, while some need little or none.
The third is that there are enough people who do find it soft and flary -- even with beautifully cleaned or apparently flawless examples -- that there are two possibilities. Either there is vastly more sample-to-sample variation than seems reasonable in a lens made by a manufacturer of Canon's calibre, or different yardsticks are being used. It's not too bad for a very fast lens, but it's never going to be in the class of a good f/2 or even f/1.5.
The fourth lies in web comparisons, as I have said before. A good picture is a good picture, whether it's on a monitor or an original print, just as a good piece of music is a good piece of music whether it's heard live or on a high-end hi-fi or on a tinny wireless. I'm just not going to make many judgements on recording quality if I'm using a monitor or a $15 Walkman.
The fifth is well illustrated by the title of the thread. A story from a friend of mine, a very high-ranking Tibetan incarnate lama:
Two western nuns came to him and said, very respectfully, hands folded, "Rinpoche [a term of respect for incarnate lamas], we feel we're not getting the respect that is due to us as nuns."
"Ah," he said, "Did you become nuns to study the Dharma [the body of Buddhist teaching] or to gain respect?"
"Oh, to study the Dharma, of course, Rinpoche," they both said.
He speaks very good English, so his reply was, "WELL F*** OFF THEN!"
You don't buy a 50/1.2 Canon to gain respect; you buy it to take pictures. If it takes pictures you like, that's great. If others like them too, that's even better.
Look at others' pictures -- probably on the web, because that's one of the few places you'll find people making a real point of using these lenses -- and if they look like the sort of pictures you'd like to take, then by all means buy a Canon 50/1.2. But if it doesn't turn out quite as you had hoped, especially at full aperture; well, bear in mind what others said about its performance wide open...
Cheers,
Roger
One is 'love/hate'.
Plenty neither love nor hate the lens; they regard it (as I do) as relatively inexpensive, quite fun, but deserving neither exaggerated praise nor exaggerated contempt. But those whose opinions are violently polarized are inclined to place the middle-of-the-read brigade in the opposite camp. If someone declares it less than perfect, its uncritical fans accuse them hating it. If someone else declares it as better than worthless, they run a (rather smaller) chance of being accused of overrating it.
The second is post-processing. Yes, you can get a lot more out of any lens with post-processing. So? that doesn't alter the fact that some lenses need a lot of post processing, while some need little or none.
The third is that there are enough people who do find it soft and flary -- even with beautifully cleaned or apparently flawless examples -- that there are two possibilities. Either there is vastly more sample-to-sample variation than seems reasonable in a lens made by a manufacturer of Canon's calibre, or different yardsticks are being used. It's not too bad for a very fast lens, but it's never going to be in the class of a good f/2 or even f/1.5.
The fourth lies in web comparisons, as I have said before. A good picture is a good picture, whether it's on a monitor or an original print, just as a good piece of music is a good piece of music whether it's heard live or on a high-end hi-fi or on a tinny wireless. I'm just not going to make many judgements on recording quality if I'm using a monitor or a $15 Walkman.
The fifth is well illustrated by the title of the thread. A story from a friend of mine, a very high-ranking Tibetan incarnate lama:
Two western nuns came to him and said, very respectfully, hands folded, "Rinpoche [a term of respect for incarnate lamas], we feel we're not getting the respect that is due to us as nuns."
"Ah," he said, "Did you become nuns to study the Dharma [the body of Buddhist teaching] or to gain respect?"
"Oh, to study the Dharma, of course, Rinpoche," they both said.
He speaks very good English, so his reply was, "WELL F*** OFF THEN!"
You don't buy a 50/1.2 Canon to gain respect; you buy it to take pictures. If it takes pictures you like, that's great. If others like them too, that's even better.
Look at others' pictures -- probably on the web, because that's one of the few places you'll find people making a real point of using these lenses -- and if they look like the sort of pictures you'd like to take, then by all means buy a Canon 50/1.2. But if it doesn't turn out quite as you had hoped, especially at full aperture; well, bear in mind what others said about its performance wide open...
Cheers,
Roger
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
You've summed it up perfectly Roger. A like or dislike of this and other classic lenses is a very personal thing and is has little to do with flare resistance sharpness, or any other positive or negative a person may want to attach to it.
Krosya
Konicaze
And don't forget another important point - the actual user of the lens!
I have seen a bunch of garbage (meaning - poor quality photos - i.e unsharp, flary, etc) taken with noctilux, Asph summilux, etc. as well as canon 50/1.2. yet somehow people don't doubt those lenses as much.
I photographer who knows the lens and knows what they are doing will get great results with canon 1.2 just as well as noctilux or any other. While someone who just "tried" the lens but never actually took time to learn the skill - be that be aware of flare, be able to focus such a fast lens, use lens' "character" to make photo better instead of worse, will not get good results with anything. Even more so with these so called - specialty lenses.
I have seen a bunch of garbage (meaning - poor quality photos - i.e unsharp, flary, etc) taken with noctilux, Asph summilux, etc. as well as canon 50/1.2. yet somehow people don't doubt those lenses as much.
I photographer who knows the lens and knows what they are doing will get great results with canon 1.2 just as well as noctilux or any other. While someone who just "tried" the lens but never actually took time to learn the skill - be that be aware of flare, be able to focus such a fast lens, use lens' "character" to make photo better instead of worse, will not get good results with anything. Even more so with these so called - specialty lenses.
raid
Dad Photographer
My Canon 50/1.2 used to be an inferior lens until I had it fixed. It has excellent flare control, and it has a very pleasing bokeh, in my humble opinion. When comparing it to the Noctilux, the Summicron, the Canon 50/1.4 or 1.5 or 1.8, or even the Zeiss 50/2, the Canon 50/1.2 did not come out as an inferior performer relative to these well known and well liked lenses. Finer differences may occur when making large prints, but how often do I make large prints? Very rarely.
kevin m
Veteran
"Violently polarized?" Is your argument so weak that you have to make disparaging characterizations of those who disagree with you?
"Uncritical fan?" Hardly. I'm well aware that this lens has drawbacks. And I (and others) have posted numerous example photographs to illustrate the point. Which, I think, must trump words in a photo-related discussion, no matter how many one types.
Given the photographic evidence, I think you should take your own advice: "I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken."
Last edited:
Hacker
黑客
It is really huge when you use the hood:
kevin m
Veteran
Good point. I think the reason Ned gets such good results with the Noctilux is that he uses the lens to its strengths, rather than just showing off its shallow DOF.
When I shot weddings with a Summilux 50, I was aware that the lens could get a bit "weird" wide open at near focus, so I simply didn't shoot it that way.
Here's another example of the of the Canon 1.2 in difficult lighting. That's the setting afternoon sun coming in the windows behind her. f2.0, if memory serves, Fuji NPZ.
To paraphrase comedian Eddie Murphy, Roger, who am I to believe, you, or my lying eyes?
Last edited: