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

[back alley]

too much free time breeds questions like this.

just thinking that with a 40/1.4 on hand (soon) will i need that much bigger and heavier 50/1.2 lens?

i like having the 50/1.2 for low light shooting, like in the bar. but would a 40/1.4 do as well, it's smaller, lighter and might be easier to get a sharp image with.

serious opinions, smart ass remarks and personal judgements regarding my character as a human being welcomed...

joe

 

[tedwhite]

I'll pass on the character assassination, even though down here on the Mexican border I may be sufficiently distanced from a whack job.

My take? 1.4 is close enough to 1.2, and you gain a lot by less weight and a slightly wider view. Plus you could probably sell the 50/1.2 and be Krugerands ahead. If you're worried about not having enough light in barroom/brothel lighting, switch from TriX or HP5 to Neopan 1600 with the 40/1.4 and smile all the way to the darkroom.

Ted

 

[Honus]

Joe,

Given your directive, the temptation to be a smart ass is quite overwhelming 😀

On the other hand, I would advise you to hold on to both. I assume the 40/1.4 is slated for the CL. A sweet little compact available light combination.

The 50/1.2, however, seems tailor made for the M3. A bit bigger and bolder, but a hair faster and a different fingerprint.

That leaves the Ikon for the wides and the more modern glass.

Throw them all in the bag, head for the bar, load up with Tri-X and make us proud!

Robert

 

[back alley]

i'm thinking more like ted but you are the voice of reason...

i have to admit owning less is very attractive also.

 

[wlewisiii]

I'd tend to agree with Honus' analysis. I'll add that Tri-X at 1600 and then souped in Diafine can be an awfully amusing especially when used with either a 1.2 or 1.4 lens.

The Canon 1.2 tends to be a bit disrespected (Rodney Dangerfield anyone?) but it does have a very unique signature that nothing else will compare to. I'd say keep them both and, yeah, especially use it on the M3. As for 40's, well, as an American I'll invoke the 5th amendment about now... :bang: :bang: :bang:

:angel:

William

 

[back alley]

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

 

[wlewisiii]

That is a real, good, point joe. That Elmar is a wonderful lens as well and I can appreciate having a lens that just feels right with a certain body (cf. a CL & collapsible 'Cron... ).

The 1.2 is a specialty lens. I guess I'd simply suggest is that you look at how you have used it since you've owned it. Have you actually used it wide open? Or is it always getting stopped down? These kinds of questions are why I've found myself very happy with a 2.0 as my primary lens. While occasionally I do need a faster lens (and have my Sweeney/Jupiter 3 for those times), >90% of the time I can do what I want with the 50/2.

Hope this helps,

William

 

[pvdhaar]

For low light, the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is almost non-existent. But for DOF, 50/1.2 will do something different than a 40/1.4....

 

[rbiemer]

joe,
if you decide you don't "need" that 50/1.2, maybe you could trade it for , oh, I dunno, maybe, something like a Maymia 6?



Going to have a time out now.
Rob






😀 😀

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

For low light, the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is almost non-existent. But for DOF, 50/1.2 will do something different than a 40/1.4....

I'd agree with this certainly but Joe if you decide to let the 50/1.2 go please let me know
thanks,
Simon

 

[sf]

Joe loves cameras.

 

[Silva Lining]

I too have the Elmar 50/2.8 and the Canon 50/1.2 and I would never part with either, I also have a Jupiter 3 50/1.5, but that Canon lens is a object of beauty....

There is an ancient Eastern proverb from the Book of Bokeh which wisely says :

"He who parts with fast lens regrets, for they are better kept"

 

[Pherdinand]

nope.
(thislineisjusttomakeitlonger)

 

[sf]

Joe, you DO have too much time. Let's see a dedicated gallery with a "sticky" on it, where you can put all the wonderful images you make with these lenses and cameras!

I liked the Nokton 40. It is a really nice lens for available light shooting. Very small too. I prefer the slightly wider look to the 50, especially for indoors where the spaces are more closed.

 

[telenous]

The M3 is one of the few rf cameras that allows for accurate critical focusing. An M3 with a superfast 50 is a match made in heaven. But I suspect you could also be using the Nokton with the M3 guestimating a little wider framelines.

 

[richard_l]

There's slightly less that 1/2 stop difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4. It's 0.4448, to be more precise.

My favorite focal lengths are 40mm, 50mm, and 35mm. There's enough difference between the 40mm and 50mm fields of view to make it worthwhile to have both, IMHO.

 

[back alley]

so, i need to think about dof...don't want a mamiya 6...simon is interested in the lens and i have seen some his work and that lens would be well used...yes, joe loves cameras...and could care less about bokeh...for those worrying about it, i shoot alot but process in spurts, i have over a dozen rolls waiting on the developing tank now...i agree about the differences in focal lengths but i have 3 50's (too many?) and one fast lens should be enough considering how little real low light stuff i shoot.

decisions decisions

thanks guys,
joe

 

[nightfly]

There's a certain joy in the simplicity of having fewer lenses and lenses with definite focal length differences. I think you can find an excuse to keep every lens but it can be freeing sometimes to know that you only have one lense that can do a given job.

 

[awilder]

The 50/1.2 is worth considering only if it's the Noctulux and you do full aperture work frequently. Compared to the CV 40/1.4, coma and flare are significantly reduced to being practically nil. Relegated to collectors status due to low production and rarity, it's cost probably isn't worth it unless you do a lot of low light work and you need the speed. The 50/1 Noctulux is a close second and much cheaper but much bulkier. Avoid the Canon 50/1.2 and especially the 50/0.95 unless you can put up with a bit more flare and lower contrast.

 

[back alley]

mine is the canon 50/1.2 and so far i have been lucky shooting with it.
my bar shots have been inside a dark bar with some decent window light as sid lighting.