how good is canon, 50mm1,4lenes .

[jerkmam]

how good is the canon 50mm1.4,/zeiss sonnar new 50mm1.4/leica f1.4 50mmornokton 50mm1.4 .Iam looking for,shaepness good contrast and l,detail in the dark shadows

[David Murphy]

I can speak for the Nokton. It's a first rate modern and fast 50mm lens with good build quality, great contrast and detail. I've used several Canon 50's, but not the 50/1.4. If the 50/1.4 is like the other Canon's you will also have a very good lens at a modest price. I can't afford a Summilux 50mm F1.4 (now at least), but I would venture a guess that it's better than all the others on your list in the qualities you're looking for (possibly the Nokton and Sonnar and will outperform earlier Summilux models). Leica glass is very, very good -- I've never seen a poorly made or misaligned lens from Leica. It's also very expensive, particularly for recent serial number lenses.

[raid]

The Canon 50/1.4 is a first class lens. It is as good as the Canon 50/1.8 [which is awesome], but it has a 1.4 max aperture. I recently got my first 50/1.4 Canon, and it is a lens that I do not plan to sell ever.

[John Shriver]

The Leica Summilux APSH is probably the best of the four lenses. Up to you if it is worth many times the cost.

The Canon 50/1.4 is a very fine lens, very comparable to quality SLR 50/1.4 lenses of the 1970's and 1980's. Very compact, very light.

The Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 is not a general-purpose lens. It's a lens with a look, a particular resolution pattern wide open that falls off in sharpness to the corners, with a distinct look to out-of-focus areas. It also has focus shift when you stop down, which makes it tricky to use.

The Nokton 50/1.5 is a bread and butter lens. Nothing stunning, but incredible value. Some mentions of harsh out-of-focus areas.

[Broke]

Unfortunately I can't speak to the other lenses, but I've recently purchased the summilux pre-asph (the e46 version). It has a lovely build, it's contrasty on center wide open and does quite well stopped down... my copy focuses right on. I paid $1150, significantly more than the voigtlander and the canon -- I justified the expenditure in the Leica's build quality. I'm sure all the lenses mentioned will be excellent performers for general photography -- hand holding and fast film are the great equalizers in my mind.

Good luck in your decision,

Jim

[David Murphy]

Unfortunately I can't speak to the other lenses, but I've recently purchased the summilux pre-asph (the e46 version). It has a lovely build, it's contrasty on center wide open and does quite well stopped down... my copy focuses right on. I paid $1150, significantly more than the voigtlander and the canon -- I justified the expenditure in the Leica's build quality. I'm sure all the lenses mentioned will be excellent performers for general photography -- hand holding and fast film are the great equalizers in my mind.

Good luck in your decision,

Jim

Nice shot of the foliage -- really shows what a classic Summilux can do.

[januaryman]

The Canon 50/1.4 is a first class lens. It is as good as the Canon 50/1.8 [which is awesome], but it has a 1.4 max aperture. I recently got my first 50/1.4 Canon, and it is a lens that I do not plan to sell ever.

Raid took the words right out of my mouth. An excellent, excellent lens.

example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/2402638890_3e3cdd0ae2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/januaryman/2402638890/in/set-72157604399970206)

[tennis-joe]

Good lens and I will post some pics later when I scan them that I have taken with my new 1.4. I also have a Voigtlander 50/1.5 SM and for sure I am pleased with both.
Joe

[Sonnar2]

In terms of performance/price ratio, and weight-size, the best buy of this bunch is probably the Canon 50/1.4. If size don't matter, go for the Nokton.

[like2fiddle]

I really like the Canon 50/1.4. Hopefully the following two links to my Flickr work as I don't have any photos on this computer. (sorry, you might have to cut and paste)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/2385586302_a2e996a19d.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/2384754507_fd6380d201_s.jpg

[like2fiddle]

One of those is a little on the small size. Hopefully attached is a larger color image showing a little OOF characteristics.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilike2fiddle/2385335160/in/set-72157604726587861/

[tritiated]

The canon 50/1.4 is rad. I have had it for a few weeks, 2 films worth, it's truly stunned me.

[ferider]

One of the greatest LTM sleepers out there ...

Roland.

[gdi]

I am just now trying to decide which to sell ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61277 )- the Canon 1.4 or 1.5 Nokton.

I think the Canon is sharper and the boke is a little nicer, but they are very close, The CV has better contrast by a bit. And if you don't have the hood on either there is little size difference, from what I can judge - the CV is a little fatter.

Here is a comparison I just did to help me decide. The CV is on the right - this is just a quick screenshot from LR with both wide open...

[kermaier]

Raid -- In your opinion, is there any reason to prefer the Canon 50/1.4 over the 50/1.8 other than the extra 1/2-stop of aperture?

So far I'm using a Canon 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 on my R-D1, and loving them. I've got a VC Nokton 50/1.5 coming in the mail, but the old Canon lenses are capturing my heart....

[tennis-joe]

The Canon lenses both 1.4 and 35/2.8 are very very sharp. I really prefer them over the VC lenses and I have them both in 1.5 and 35/2.8. I guess I should trust the VC lenses more but after getting the Canons I was sold on the 50 year old glass. I really need to get out and shoot more though but I have to make a living and on the weekends its tough, sometimes as its so hot in Houston. But then winters are more mild and I should think of that.
Joe

[newspaperguy]

Ah c'mon Joe... when my parents were alive and living in Tucson, all I heard was "...out West, it's dry heat!"

Not so here in the Washington DC area.

[raid]

Raid -- In your opinion, is there any reason to prefer the Canon 50/1.4 over the 50/1.8 other than the extra 1/2-stop of aperture?

So far I'm using a Canon 28/3.5 and 35/2.8 on my R-D1, and loving them. I've got a VC Nokton 50/1.5 coming in the mail, but the old Canon lenses are capturing my heart....


Not really; the 50/1.8 is superb and it is a bargain lens to buy.

[januaryman]

I agree with Raid. My 1.8 is every bit as good as my 1.4

[kermaier]

Then I'm going to look for a 50/1.8 for compactness and to share 42mm caps with my 28/3.5 -- ah, the throes of sudden-onset GAS....

[raid]

I took this photo with the chrome Canon Serenar 50mm/1.8 during a lens test on 50mm lenses two years ago. I was thrilled at the sharpness, when compared to images taken with exotic lenses.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288230

[ferider]

I agree with Raid. My 1.8 is every bit as good as my 1.4

You have to look at it the other way: the 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the 1.8, at 1.8 :) Faster lenses normally have more abberations and flare ...
My 1.4 is quite flare resistant and has quite high resolution wide open across the field. Better, for instance, than the pre-asph Summilux (but the latter has nicer bokeh to my eyes ...).

Cheers,

Roland.

[Bingley]

I agree with Raid. My 1.8 is every bit as good as my 1.4

Raid and Jim are right on concerning the Canon 50/1.8. In addition to Raid's lens tests, you can find sample shots taken w/ the 1.8 and 1.4 in the Flickr Canon RF Lens group and in the M-Mount Lens group.

[raid]

You have to look at it the other way: the 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the 1.8, at 1.8 :) Faster lenses normally have more abberations and flare ...
My 1.4 is quite flare resistant and has quite high resolution wide open across the field. Better, for instance, than the pre-asph Summilux (but the latter has nicer bokeh to my eyes ...).

Cheers,

Roland.

Roland is right, but we just chatted about the qualities of the 50/1.8 with considerations for the cost of the lens. If you can spend an additional $100, the Canon 50/1.4 is a better lens in terms of its usefulness at 1.4 for that extra edge in low light situations.

Steve may be referring to the Canon RF Flickr group. There are photos there.

[kermaier]

Yes, very sharp. The color rendition of the skin tones looks odd to me, though -- is that just the lighting?

I've been trying both the chrome and the black/chrome versions of the Canon RF lenses (tried both for the 28/3.5, and I'm currently using a chrome 35/2.8), and I moving toward the conclusion that I like the black/chrome lenses better. The chrome ones seem more solidly built -- all brass, rather than some aluminum parts? (Or maybe that just makes them heavier, not more robust.) And the chrome lenses seem slightly more compact.

But the ergonomics are better on the black/chrome versions: The focus ring on the chrome lenses is so narrow that it's only practical to focus using the tab, while it is wide enough to be usable on the black/chrome version. And the aperture ring settings on the chrome lenses are marked in a logarithmic scale, so it's a much shorter throw from f/11 to f/16 than it is from f/4 to f/5.6; while the black/chrome lenses have the aperture markings spaced equidistant from each other, which I find easier to use without having to look and make sure.

So I may soon be looking for a black/chrome 35/2.8 too. :-)

[raid]

The color is due to the wall color and use of a long exposure with some artificial light mixed with window light.

[januaryman]

And Fuji film, I'll bet. I get a tint of magenta everytime and need to color correct in Elements. YMMV.

And if you get and use that Canon lens, be sure to post in our Flickr group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon-rf-lenses/), as me fellow members have been hinting at.

[Bingley]

Both of the Canon 50s discussed in this thread are great lenses. For me, the choice comes down largely to what I shoot. I use a 50 mainly for street photography and landscapes (urban and rural), and have less need for 1.4 than someone who uses a 50 primarily for portraits. For now (important qualifier), I'm very happy w/ the 50/1.8 as an all-purpose lens ... for my purposes.

In fact, I will probably sell my Nokton 50/1.5 in the very near future... I'm just not using it, and I find I prefer the smaller size of my Canon 50s as well as the results from those lenses.

[raid]

I may one day get a Canon 50/1.5 simply because I love vintage Canon lenses.

[MCTuomey]

Raid, I picked one up, sent it off for a half-bath at Golden Touch, and really am enjoying it. I've got to get some pics posted soon ...

I think you'd like it a lot.

I may one day get a Canon 50/1.5 simply because I love vintage Canon lenses.

[raid]

Raid, I picked one up, sent it off for a half-bath at Golden Touch, and really am enjoying it. I've got to get some pics posted soon ...

I think you'd like it a lot.

Mike,
The Sonnar design is always tempting.
Sometimes, you can see such a lens for low asking price, but then it is sold.

[Platinum RF]

Canon 50/1.4 lens is good optically, but mechinically speaking they are lousy.

[raid]

Canon 50/1.4 lens is good optically, but mechinically speaking they are lousy.

Could you more explain why they are lousy.

[tennis-joe]

I would tell about my 1.4 and it seems loose but the pictures taken with it are good. I guess I am use to the chrome Canon 1.8 which is very tight. Maybe my 1.4 was used a lot but the glass is clean.
Joe

[januaryman]

Not sure why the Canon 1.4 lenses are seen as mechanically "lousy" - sure there's no autofocus, but aside from that and MAYBE the infinity lock that I have now become used to, the fit and finish on mine Canon lenses are practically works of art.

In contrast, my modern day VC 35mm Ultron is less dense, easily chipped and dented and so on. But it takes nice photos, so I don't mind.

So I don't get it.

[kermaier]

Jim, I just posted a thread on the Flickr group with a photo using my 35/2.8.

[januaryman]

Welcome, kermaier - BTW, my home was Northern NJ, on the border of Bergen/Hudson Counties. Started photographing there late 60s, early 70s.

[John Shriver]

The 50/1.4 Canon doesn't have the stiffest of guide systems to keep the front of the lens from twisting. This can be made worse over time by not using the infinity latch to install and remove the lens. Not at all critical to focusing accuracy on a 50mm lens.

[januaryman]

Yeah, you CAN get used to the infinity lock. It takes a few months, but you will get used to it. If I can, anyone can. Glad I decided to leave it be rather than remove it.