Which 50mm to keep - CV, Canon?

[Bingley]

This is ever so slightly off-topic, but does anyone have a sense of the difference between the vintage Canon 1.4 and the Canon 1.5? I'm particularly interested in the differences in signature between them. Lens speed differential is of course negligible.

The 1.4 is a planar design, sharp across the focal plane wide open, with moderate contrast. The 1.5 is a sonnar design, so wide open it's sharp in the center w/ that lovely fall-off to oof. Stopped down, though, the 1.5 is quite sharp. Both lenses have lovely oof, and are excellent for portraits. The 1.4 will give you a more modern look, though, closer to a Nokton 50/1.5. There are some excellent photos taken w/ the Canon 1.4 in the Flickr Canon RF Lens group.

 

[cmogi10]

Sell em both and get a Sonnar =O

 

[David Murphy]

My assessment of Nokton "sharpness" comes partially from using it wide open on targets in the sky - i.e., star trails. Images of stars are a rigorous test of lens sharpness, with flaring of the stellar light points being very evident for all, but the very best corrected lenses when used wide-open. Now my star test was not really rigorous since I was using trails instead tracking the stars to get confined images, but the trails were remarkably clean and uniform in their geometry all across the field. I'll post one of those images here shortly. Good correction is expected of the Nokton due to its modern, undoubtedly highly optimized computer optimized design and use of modern materials and coatings. The obvious still excellent correction of the vintage Cannon lens above is probably in large part due to careful craftsmanship on the part of Canon and as-built optimization of the lens at final assembly (I know for a fact that Nikon did this in the 1950's with their rangefinder lenses).

 

[cam]

The 1.4 is a planar design, sharp across the focal plane wide open, with moderate contrast. The 1.5 is a sonnar design, so wide open it's sharp in the center w/ that lovely fall-off to oof. Stopped down, though, the 1.5 is quite sharp. Both lenses have lovely oof, and are excellent for portraits. The 1.4 will give you a more modern look, though, closer to a Nokton 50/1.5. There are some excellent photos taken w/ the Canon 1.4 in the Flickr Canon RF Lens group.

further OT (apologies)... and where does the 1.2 signature come into play?

 

[gdi]

Thanks for all the replies!

William - luckily I don't have to make the decision between my 1.2 Hex and the 0.95. They are different enough to rationalize keeping both!

Carl - the Zeiss looks good, but the results of both the Canon and Nokton keep me from looking there! When I get a Zeiss lens it will be a wider than 35mm one, I believe.

David - what a coincidence, I was planning on testing the M8 as an occasional wide field astro camera last night and had wondered which lens to use. But the moon was high and had some C-41 120 rolls that needed developing! But you are right - stars tell a lot about the optical qualities of a lens.

I'll cheat here and show a few astro shots I made with a DSLR with a telephoto, 50, and a WA...

 

[palec]

Sell em both and get a Sonnar =O

Convincing, well done!

 

[tomasis]

Tomasis, I don't see either shot being way better. I think the added contrast of the CV gives the impression of more sharpness. Sometimes brand looks sharper to me - other times brand B! But CV is so slow compared to the Canon 🙂 !

Sure it is not much difference. I had look at that more hardly. I'm surprised how well vintage Canon could hang on with CV with Asph element 🙂

Since both optics are alike, so choice is more based down on mechanics, weight, handling.

It looks like you got nice sample of CV lens anyway because I heard that it comes sample variations of CV. I dont know for Nokton case. Who knows if CV is really better if one is well adjusted. I need a fully corrected Sonnar because Jupiter 3 doesnt satisfy me yet.

edit. changed jupiter 8 to 3

 

[helen.HH]

I need a fully corrected Sonnar because Jupiter 8 doesnt satisfy me yet.

Tomasis
I just got the Industar 61 /55 2.8
A Gem....Spot On Crisp lovely background
Maybe I was lucky
at present its my 'FAVORITE
am waiting for an J9 / 85 2.8
🙂 Helen

 

[tomasis]

Tomasis
I just got the Industar 61 /55 2.8
A Gem....Spot On Crisp lovely background
Maybe I was lucky
at present its my 'FAVORITE
am waiting for an J9 / 85 2.8
🙂 Helen

Lovely, I already have Jupiter 3,8, 9, 12 and Industar 11. Almost whole collection 😀 Now I need "61", noo it is enough 🙂 🙂 Industar 11 impresses me a lot even at the widest aperture. So I imagine how you like 61 too. It is Tessar design, I believe.

Congratulations on new Jupiter coming to you. I think it is 85/2.0 not 2,8. It is compact, almost same as Hexanon 90/2.8 wow. Again all my russian lenses focus very hardly like a hell and some are wrong adjusted. What do you expect really of cheap lenses 😉 It is easy produce slow lenses but not vice versa.

 

[raid]

An inexpensive but wonderful 85mm lens is the Steinheil 85mm/2.8. It is awesome for portraits. You can find it for sale here and there at $50.

 

[helen.HH]

Well my Industar focuses GREAT / BETTER,FASTER than my Elmar 50/3.5
I think Yuri of FEDKA really looked out for me
RE: Cheap russian lenses ....you never know when you'll get lucky & its really all about Atmosphere & Art (not how much a lens costs 🙂)

Thanx Raid re: the 85 Steinheil

Best-Helen

 

[Krosya]

To take this thread even more off topic (sorry) - here is an interesting 85/2 lens - not really cheap either hehe :
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...em&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=250267918825

Or you can get a cheap J-9 like this:

which (if well adjusted) can deliver pics like this:

 

[raid]

With Russian lenses it is always a gamble. I bought a J3 from a very reputable ebay seller, but the "clean lens" was not a clean lens after all.

 

[Krosya]

And to bring this back on topic - from what I have seen - keep Canon 50 lens. Great lens with nice signature.

 

[gdi]

Ok - I think I have decided - I did a torture test this morning (M8). under nasty conditions - bright sun wide open I get a lot more highlight flaring with the Canon.

I am posting a screenshot from lightroom to show the comparison - no filter or hoods on either lens (so the colors are off). I know that this is not a practical test - to use them wide open in daylight, but I think it may approximate a high dynamic range scene in low light. I know I tend to get this highlight "glowing" at times.

The Canon really is an amazing lens - given its vintage - to compare so well to a modern lens like the CV. Of course I don't think the CV will survive 40 years as elegantly as the Canon!

 

[helen.HH]

Krosya
BEAUTIFUL Shot....the J9 looks GRANDE / is the chrome that big as well ?
Peeked at the Leica on Ebay /
not bad a price @ $895.00 if its FAB

My vote for Canon as well re: this thread & 50's

 

[raid]

Helen,

It is a Nikkor lens in Leica mount. Because it is black, it is rare and costs 3-4 times as much as the optically identical Nikkor in chrome. I soldmy chrome Nikkor 85/2 recently here and for far less than the lens on ebay.

 

[tomasis]

So Canon, other copies of Sonnar (Jupiter, Nikkor) and Zeiss C Sonnar are less flare resistant compared to CV? How flare resistant Zeiss C sonnar is compared to older "brothers"?

helenhill, no. the more lenses cost you get better pictures 😉 because poor, hungry artists do make better works.

 

[gdi]

I have to say - I have been able to avoid getting into FSU lenses - I hope to keep it that way!

 

[WoolenMammoth]

How flare resistant Zeiss C sonnar is compared to older "brothers"?

cant comment on the cv, but I have a zm sonnar and an old opton and the zm is obviously way better on flare and has much higher contrast. I would never, however, think of using the zm sonnar without the hood, the lens tends to flare quite easily in my experience.