The Canon 50/1.2 "I don't get no respect" thread

[Krosya]

You've just cut the ground out from under your own feet.

You're not judging the lens; you're judging the photographer.

If you really think you can judge sharpness and contrast from web images, the best of luck to you. If you think you can judge the quality of the photographer, I'm in complete agreement.

Cheers,

R.

I didn't cut anything from under my feet. But I think you confuse/misunderstand what I was trying to say. Although, in a way you are right - when I judge the lens, I do judge a photographer - to a degree. I'm not talking about the artistic merit, composition, etc. Those are matter of taste.
But I do talk about photographer's ability to use his/hers equipment the way it was intended. Anyone can buy some expensive toy - be that a Noctilux or Ferrari (I know, you like car analogies ). But can anyone make them perform the way they are designed to? So, yes, when I look at sharpness of the lens, for instance, I want a photo to come from a person who knows how to focus a fast lens. Or expose well, or post process well for that matter. I want to know what kind of a FINAL outcome I can expect from the lens. Or whats the point, really? So, if I get such a lens, I know that if my results are worse - it's most likely because of me and not the lens I have.
So, like it or not - one has to judge a photographer to judge a lens, or otherwise anyone with the money for Noctilux, could magically turn into Ned or someone with similar skill level. But we both know it's not the case, and thats where those web photos tell the story.

 

[Krosya]

I agree that Neds photos are gas inducing when it comes to the Noctilux but, his Summarit pics are the same. I looked at them and immediately went eBay browsing looking at Summarit prices and suddenly woke up to myself. I have a half a dozen lenses in my cupboard that will improve immeasurably if I send them to Ned ... I wonder how much he'd charge me?

Actually, Keith, I can't agree all the way here. In my opinion Ned's Summarit pics are not the same. Yes, they may have a good composition, tell interesting story - from this point of view they are the same. But they also do more - they show how that lens performs in HIS hands. Knowing his skill level and talent, I know he got all one could get out that Summarit. And I still dont like the lens. Now - that is pretty conclusive. But if that Summarit was used by someone with much lesser skills - I would still question if it's the lens that performs poor, or the photographer who didn't know what he was doing?

 

[Keith]

Actually, Keith, I can't agree all the way here. In my opinion Ned's Summarit pics are not the same. Yes, they may have a good composition, tell interesting story - from this point of view they are the same. But they also do more - they show how that lens performs in HIS hands. Knowing his skill level and talent, I know he got all one could get out that Summarit. And I still dont like the lens. Now - that is pretty conclusive. But if that Summarit was used by someone with much lesser skills - I would still question if it's the lens that performs poor, or the photographer who didn't know what he was doing?

Of course you're right Krosya ... the Summarit may well be a dog in some people's eyes and although Ned's talent shines through it's bark you can still see the fleas if you have the eye to spot them. He does supply a valid yardstick though!

Getting back to the ubiquitous Canon 1.2 though ... (isn't that what we're here for?) ... I shot a roll of Neopan the other night with mine mounted on my Ikon in rather challenging light for an old lens. I was in the courtyard outside the gallery I had photographed the opening of with my M8 and Nokton 35mm. I'd had enough digital and wanted to take some black and whites of the people who were stll hanging around outside for my own pleasure and purposes and I have to say the lens didn't cope with the conditions at all. I've just scanned the film and a lot of shots have flare and faint halos in them and I'm a little disappointed to be honest! Admittedly the spot lights outside the gallery were rather severe but I know my 50mm Hex (even though a little slow) would have done a much better job so I might have to rethink my fast 50 choice in the future as I like to shoot in these types of environments and I like f1.5 or better for doing it!

There's no way on god's earth I can afford a Noctilux without selling half my camera gear so I may start looking for a f1.2 Hex which although not quite a match for the Noctilux from what I've read, will still be a very capable lens and not too far behind!

 

[Nokton48]

I'm a bit late to this party.

I still like my Canon F1.2, even moreso since I bought my M2. The advantages to me, over my slower 50's, are the 1/2 stop faster aperture, and the distinctive signature (which I like). And the paper-thin DOF, of course. :bang:

BTW Guys the handling on my lens is greatly improved (for me) with the addition of the Leicagoodies "Steer" to the focus ring. See 'er below:

 

[Krosya]

Keith,
While I'm not terribly surprised that you got some flare - it is an old lens with large glass elements, I wonder if at least some of it could have been avoided. Post some pics with examples, maybe it'll make things more clear?
When I shoot into the light I expect even the best lenses to act strange, so I try to shoot from different angles to have better odds for flare free shots. Yet, at times there is just nothing you can do - no matter what the lens is or what you do. Even famous Zeiss lenses with T coating flare at times.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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.

Yes; in the words of a great political tragedy: "poppycock".*

I don't like Leica-bashing, just as much as I don't like dogmatic Leica-posturing.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM lens is a great lens, and has a few shortcomings compared to the f/1.2 and f/1 Noctiluxes (Noctiluxae? Noctiluxii? Noctiluxen? j'sais pas).

Anyway, by the same reasoning I've argued that the 35mm Summicron pre-asph lenses are much better for one of the points of rangefinder photography than the 35mm Biogon f/2 ZM is *its physical size*, I can argue that the 50mm Canon f/1.2 is much better than any of the Nocitlux(es/ae/ii/en).

Image-wise, you can make strong arguments about flare resistance and "light drawing" for the Noctilux and the Biogon. Both of those are wonderful.

But shouting one down over the other misses many points.


*Edit: to clarify; the "poppycock" is to the negative comparisons. I think they're rather different monsters, and it's hard to compare both camps, except the fact that they're both "ultra"-fast lenses.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Here be a few samples with the Canon 50mm f/1.2:


M8 + 50mm f/1.2 Canon LTM wide-open



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/231520452/']

[/url]
Bessa-R + 50mm f/1.2 Canon LTM (wide-open) / Ilford HP5+ (in Diafine)

 

[vieri]

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM lens is a great lens, and has a few shortcomings compared to the f/1.2 and f/1 Noctiluxes (Noctiluxae? Noctiluxii? Noctiluxen? j'sais pas).

In English, the singular and plural are the same, Lux; in Latin, the plural would be luces, so... Noctiluces is in fact the correct plural latinization of our monster 1.0/50mm Nocti

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

In English, the singular and plural are the same, Lux; in Latin, the plural would be luces, so... Noctiluces is in fact the correct plural latinization of our monster 1.0/50mm Nocti

I never know with Latin anymore, with all the pseudo-Latin (forae vs. forums) being hurled around the Internetseses.

Gratias.

 

[vieri]

I never know with Latin anymore, with all the pseudo-Latin (forae vs. forums) being hurled around the Internetseses.

Gratias.

Indeed - actually, that would be fora however, I think that the same way as we incorporate words from other languages into our own - a language's evolution - and apply our own language's rules to the new world, we might as well be lenient on the use of Latin words; using them correctly funny enough as it might be, makes one look like a show-off...

 

[gdi]

Peter, when it comes to respect, I think the "Rodney Dangerfield" 1.2 begins to seem more like the Oskar Barnack around here when compared to its ne'er-do-well, faster sibling.

But if you have the self esteem (or a big enough rebellious streak) to withstand the heckling, you may try the 0.95... (This thread remind me I don't use mine often enough, so forgive me for the repost)

 

[Krosya]

This is one Awsome photo, gdi !

 

[Peter Klein]

Gabriel and gdi---those are all beautiful shots, and this is my point. The fast Canons can take beautiful pictures if handled well. If you were to blow them up to 1:1, you'd probably find that you couldn't see individual eyelashes or hairs like you could with a recent Summicron or ASPH lens wide open. But that's not the point. One has to consider the context.

You can't hold an available light photo to the same technical standard as one taken in broad daylight. Available light is about doing the best you can under the conditions you find. Sometimes you have to choose between too slow a shutter speed or a lens that will not pass muster under an optical bench. And the choice of a fast lens means very thin DOF, so you may not nail focus exactly under real-life conditions. And sometimes the "defects" you have to put up with give visual cues that the picture was taken in near-darkness. I like that, up to a point.

The Canon sometimes gives more of those cues than I'd like. But since I don' have $5500 burning a hole in my pocket, the Noct is not an option. So I use what I have, and try to work around the defects. It's better than not taking the picture at all.

--Peter

 

[Roger Hicks]

Gabriel and gdi---those are all beautiful shots, and this is my point. The fast Canons can take beautiful pictures if handled well. If you were to blow them up to 1:1, you'd probably find that you couldn't see individual eyelashes or hairs like you could with a recent Summicron or ASPH lens wide open. But that's not the point. One has to consider the context.

You can't hold an available light photo to the same technical standard as one taken in broad daylight. Available light is about doing the best you can under the conditions you find. Sometimes you have to choose between too slow a shutter speed or a lens that will not pass muster under an optical bench. And the choice of a fast lens means very thin DOF, so you may not nail focus exactly under real-life conditions. And sometimes the "defects" you have to put up with give visual cues that the picture was taken in near-darkness. I like that, up to a point.

The Canon sometimes gives more of those cues than I'd like. But since I don' have $5500 burning a hole in my pocket, the Noct is not an option. So I use what I have, and try to work around the defects. It's better than not taking the picture at all.

--Peter

Dear Peter,

I agree completely, especially the bits I have underlined in your quote.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gdi]

Dear Peter,

I agree completely, especially the bits I have underlined in your quote.

Cheers,

R.

What a coincidence! I would agree with those selected comments and extend their application to the Noctilux as well. All the superfast lenses I am familiar with are very much exercises in compromise.

I am pretty happy with the .95, particularly on film - though I think the Leica lens may be somewhat sharper from what I see. (and ergonomically better as well, I'm sure!) Though the now-famous Charlie Lemay head-on comparison presents a fairly convincing argument to the contrary.

And back to the 1.2 - I can't seem to find one reasonably priced, but I will eventually. I just got a beautiful 1.4 that easily dusts my early Summilux, but I'm now getting to the "Cat Hoarder" stage with 50s, so I may well sell one or two...

 

[Keith]

Keith,
While I'm not terribly surprised that you got some flare - it is an old lens with large glass elements, I wonder if at least some of it could have been avoided. Post some pics with examples, maybe it'll make things more clear?
When I shoot into the light I expect even the best lenses to act strange, so I try to shoot from different angles to have better odds for flare free shots. Yet, at times there is just nothing you can do - no matter what the lens is or what you do. Even famous Zeiss lenses with T coating flare at times.

Hi Krosya,

I think I'd been spoiled by going through all the photos I'd shot inside the gallery with the M8 and 35mm Nokton before I scanned and looked at the black and whites from the Ikon and Canon. At times I was shooting straight into very bright light sources with the M8 and as we know the Nokton is amazing in these conditions.

This example would probably have been avoided with the lens hood which I have but it's enormous and really makes the camera stand out so I gave it a miss. I took a few inside the gallery that look like they have flying saucers in them when shooting into the down lights ... but that really was expecting a bit much.

The general flaryness of the lens doesn't bother me at all because that's part of it's signature and I do love it for low light portraits so I'd never part with. The crescent in the lower right of this pic would likely have been avoided with the lens hood ... but that said I think I will still consider a superfast 50mm for the future to use when I'm in doubt about what the Canon may do in extreme curcumstances. It is an old lens after all!

 

[gdi]

If you were to blow them up to 1:1, you'd probably find that you couldn't see individual eyelashes or hairs like you could with a recent Summicron or ASPH lens wide open.

I wouldn't expect to see eyelashes at distances I most use the lens. I'll have to try to rescan larger as a test soon, but the sharpness holds up fairly well when viewed much larger than regular web sizes...

Follows is a full downsized shot and a crop from a 1980x 1342 scan

 

[Keith]

I wouldn't expect to see eyelashes at distances I most use the lens. I'll have to try to rescan larger as a test soon, but the sharpness holds up fairly well when viewed much larger than regular web sizes...

Follows is a full downsized shot and a crop from a 1980x 1342 scan

What is interesting in the crop is the apparent flare around the white collar and his right cuff!

 

[Peter Klein]

GDI: Your night shot is quite fine for f/0.95, as far as I can see! [edit: I thought the ghosting might be the scanner, but you're right, it's probably the lens.]

By the way, I just noticed that the site downsized the crop of my original picture and softened it considerably. I've resized it so that won't happen and am reposting it here. This is a 1:2 (50%) crop. It looks significantly better than the crop I first posted. But it's a perfectly usable picture, and the full frame prints nicely at letter size

I focused on the near eye, but the lips are actually in better focus, so either one of us moved slightly, or I didn't quite compensate correctly for a slight front focus, or both.

See the first post of this thread for the original full frame and crop of this picture.

--Peter

 

[gdi]

Its not the scanner! It is the Leica Glow - built into all the 0.95's. Hopefully it was properly licensed by Canon!

Seriously, this is seen often in the Canon 1.4 as well, usually in high contrast situations. And the early Summilux exhibits it as well...