with a 40/1.4 do i need a 50/1.2?

[x-ray]

In reality there is only 1/3 stop difference and the DOF is more influenced by the focal length 40 vs 50mm than 1/3 f stop. I had the Noctilux 1.2 for a number of years and found its performance wasn't very good stopped down past f4 in comparison to my summicron.

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Joe,

The CV 40/1.4 is rather jarring at 1.4, and vignettes quite a bit as well. So if you are pleased with the Canon at 1.2, both in terms of OOF and vignetting characteristics, I'd keep it.

The CV is quite competent at 2.0 and above, but 1.4 is not its virtue (even though it really should be, as it is a 1.4 lens). good luck

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I think a 50/1.2 has quite a different look to a 50/1.4 at least in what i do. I used to have the Notilux but sold it along with the M6 ttl 0.85 (which wasn't a very happy camera - it went back several times to Leica Uk to have repairs and in the end the black chrome finish "bubbled". That top plate would have been replaced free) but GAS took over in the form of the BP Nikon S3 2000.
Back on track - with the Noctilux gone i worked with a Nkon 50/1.2 + Stephen's F-M adaptor and the early 50 lux
When shooting both wide open -the Nikon had something sublte the lux didn't in some cases. The notilux vignetted too much, for me, although it certainly produces some remarkable images.
If i was you Joe i'd keep both but the yes i'd be interested should you wish to sell it one day. 🙂

 

[dcsang]

Answer:

yes

🙂
Dave

 

[enochRoot]

i have to admit owning less is very attractive also.

i fully agree w/ this, and am trying to live it. but ask yourself...would you *really* own less, or would you funnel the money from the sale into another purchase? be honest now 🙂

 

[rover]

OK, I am sooo busy I am just popping in and out to see what is going on.

Joe, my goodness. At this rate the "I am thinking of selling my ZI" thread is just weeks away.

I am thinking we may need to issue a suspension on you soon. 2 weeks, you will have to box up all of your gear and send it to..... I would say me but then customs would kill you on return, lets just say we will find a trusting Canadian friend.... and then it will be sent back to you.

What happened to the "Canon and M3 are a great match"? I know, the Elmar is in the picture now.

 

[raid]

I use the Canon 50mm/1.2 on the M3 or the Bessa T as often as the Leitz 40mm/2.0 Summicron on my CL. Since I don't have Joe's CV 40mm/1.4, I can only comment on the focal lengths. The 40mm is closer to a 35mm lens than to a 50mm lens even though people seem to view the 40mm as a normal lens and not a wide angle lens. The 50/1.2 is big and heavy and beautiful for special effects photos. If this is not your thing, then sell the 50/1.2 Joe, and pocket the money without spending it immediately on another lens or camera. Maybe next month you get the urge to buy another lens.

Also, I find that focusing with the 50mm lens is easier than with the tiny 40mm lens.

 

[awilder]

For the previous owners of the 50/1.2 Noctulux, I'd love to see some examples of the "unacceptable" images since obtaining one is next to impossible, at least to play with. I don't expect Summicron quality but I would think by f/2.8 it should be darn close. My previous 50/1 was great considering it's limitations and by f/5.6 it was equal to any Summicron except at the extreme corners.

 

[back alley]

i fully agree w/ this, and am trying to live it. but ask yourself...would you *really* own less, or would you funnel the money from the sale into another purchase? be honest now 🙂

i don't think so.
i was trying to think of a trade for the 1.2 but i could not think of anything i would like having.

and rover, i would never sell the zi as it and the 35 was a gift!

but the cl and m3 would be a very satisfying combo together, just a bit slower to load.

i might get rid of the 50/1.2 and the buyer would be very lucky cause i got it at a good price and would pass that on.

 

[rover]

i might get rid of the 50/1.2 and the buyer would be very lucky cause i got it at a good price and would pass that on.

Let me confirm that this is a very true statement. Joe is a gentleman to deal with.

Also, feel confident that this statement has gotten you off probation. 😉

 

[kully]

Joe,

The CV 40/1.4 is rather jarring at 1.4, and vignettes quite a bit as well. So if you are pleased with the Canon at 1.2, both in terms of OOF and vignetting characteristics, I'd keep it.

The CV is quite competent at 2.0 and above, but 1.4 is not its virtue (even though it really should be, as it is a 1.4 lens). good luck

How would you describe the lens as "jarring"? I'm not being uppity, I'd just like to know 🙂 .

cheers,
kully

PS I noticed the vignetting after you mentioned it:

 

[back alley]

i'm ok with a little vignetting at open aperture, especially for low light people shots.

i think the jarring comments are from the open aperture bokeh this less has a rep for.
again this usually does not concern me but i have yet to see anything other than a screen shot of an image. perhaps an in person photo will bother me some.

 

[Mackinaw]

I'm a Canon 50/1.2 man from way back. Just love the limited depth-of-field between F1.2 and F2.0, something I don't think a 40/1.4 lens could duplicate. Pictures taken with the 50/1.2 lens, at those apertures, have a certain "look" about them which set them apart from other 50mm lenses. Take a gander at the 50/1.2 shots in my gallery, all taken at around F1.4 (or so).

Jim Bielecki

 

[taffer]

i might get rid of the 50/1.2 and the buyer would be very lucky cause i got it at a good price and would pass that on.

I wasn't expecting less than that.

Well, ok, maybe for a second or two 🙄

 

[harry01562]

while i agree that the 50/1.2 and the m3 seems made for each other, i prefer it with the smaller elmar as a walking around camera.

joe

I use a Canon 50/1.5 on mine for general walk around. For places where I know I'm going to need that extra, I slap on the 1.2. It does feel and look good on the M3.... for little money compared to fast Leica glass. Performance of this lens is also much better than its poor reputation.

Harry

 

[back alley]

clearly, i can't rush to judgment on this one.

i started this thread with the thought that i'd get rid of the 1.2 and was looking for a few supportive statements to aid in the decision. but there have been some good thoughts here that i maybe was too quick to dismiss in my own thinking.

sometimes i get the urge to purge.

and i haven't even tried the 40/1.4 yet...

and jim, i love the 2 trains and a pipe shot!!

joe

 

[back alley]

Don't you need at least two 50mm lenses to be an RFF moderator 😛

Roland.

i need to check the by-laws!

😉

 

[raid]

Don't you need at least two 50mm lenses to be an RFF moderator 😛

Roland.

Does this imply that having twelve 50mm lenses makes you a Super Moderator?
Food for thought 🙂

 

[back alley]

the 50/1.2 is the only lens that might be superfluous soon.

much will depend on the feel of the cv 40, especially size and ease of focus and of course, what the pics will look like.

no decision has been made yet.

 

[Jerevan]

Joe,

All in good spirit:

I have been around here for a few weeks only, but during that time, you've bought and sold and asked about more gear than I have been in the last eight years or so... 😛 This observation may indicate that I spend too much time on RFF, instead of going out making photos with my Summicron DR (only lens I got). 😀

My advice: "One lens in, one lens out", i.e. sell the one you don't use.