Leica Summitar 50mm f/2 v Canon 50mm f/1.8

[colyn]

Which would you prefer the Summitar or Canon?

I'm thinking about selling or trading my Summitar for the Canon..

The Summitar is a fine lens but the slightly faster f/1.8 sounds like a good idea..

[xayraa33]

Not much difference in speed between f 2 versus the f1.8 in the real world.
Both lenses are great classic lenses and I do like the Canon f1.8 lens a lot.

[Bill58]

I'd get the Canon 35/ f2 if I were you. It's sharp as a tack and a much better investment.

[peterm1]

The lenses render differently. The Canon has more modern look than the Summitar. I tend to use the Canon more.

[sanmich]

1.8 vs 2?
No difference here (I mean on negative film, the densities will be extremely close)
My impression is that the canon might be sharper (it has been compared with the rigid summicron, and my experience with two summitars and two coll. crons is that they are less sharp than the summicrons)

[colyn]

Originally Posted by Bill58

I'd get the Canon 35/ f2 if I were you. It's sharp as a tack and a much better investment.

I've had this lens for several years now and would not think about getting rid of it.

[Bingley]

Originally Posted by peterm1

The lenses render differently. The Canon has more modern look than the Summitar. I tend to use the Canon more.

I agree. I have both lenses. The Summitar has lower contrast than the Canon, and is softer wide open. The Canon will give you a more modern look, particularly with color film. My experience is that the Canon is much more flare resistant. As for bokeh, it's a matter of taste; I like them both although they're different. I think a good Canon 50/1.8 is a brilliant all-round 50, and if I had to choose between that lens and the Summitar I'd pick the Canon.

[colyn]

I may instead sell the Summitar and get a Canon 50mm f/1.4.

Since I want to get into nighttime photography the f/1.4 will come in handy..

[Bingley]

The Canon 50/1.4 is a great lens, although maybe not quite as sharp as the 1.8. For nighttime photography, though, I think the answer is faster film rather than a faster lens. The extra speed will be more useful for shallow dof shots.

[colyn]

Originally Posted by Bingley

The Canon 50/1.4 is a great lens, although maybe not quite as sharp as the 1.8. For nighttime photography, though, I think the answer is faster film rather than a faster lens. The extra speed will be more useful for shallow dof shots.

I agree that faster film helps but a faster lens along with the faster film doesn't hurt..

I've had good luck in the past with my Minolta 50mm f/1.4 and 1600 or 3200 Ilford film..

[pagpow]

You might find the short descriptions here useful --

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrflens.html

Good luck

I have both 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 Canon, love the 1.4, reach for the 1.8 when traveling.

Giorgio

[colyn]

Originally Posted by pagpow

You might find the short descriptions here useful --

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrflens.html

Good luck

I have both 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 Canon, love the 1.4, reach for the 1.8 when traveling.

Giorgio

I've had both sites bookmarked for some time..

Very helpful..

[Dez]

When shopping for a Canon 50 f1.8, be aware of an important tradeoff. The original chrome lens is pretty, but extremely heavy.The newer one with the black gripping surface is lighter and more modern looking, styled like the Canon P/7, but the lubricant used for the diaphragm pivots has a tendency to outgas and get on the inner element surfaces. If left there too long, it corrodes the coating on these surfaces, which cannot be easily fixed (i.e resurfacing the elements will cost more than the lens). When buying the later version, beware of anything that looks like internal fog- it may be something worse. As far as I know, the two versions are optically identical.

Cheers,
Dez

[stompyq]

I've owned both and still own the canon 50mm 1.8 (older silver version). The two lenses render differently. The summitar has lower contrast and flares easily. Crazy swirly bokeh (given the right conditions) wide open. Sharpens up stopped down. I'am sure you know all this given you have the summitar. The canon fairs slightly better (still flares) shooting in to the sun. Wideopen it's a little sharper but not by much. Stopped down at least one stop and it sharpens up a lot. Rendering is more modern and does not have the "character" of the summitar. It's a good general purpose lens.
If i were you i would keep the summitar for now and try to pick up the canon since they are not all that expensive. If the only reason is f1.8 vs f2 then there is no appreciable difference in light gathering ability and both lenses preform better at f2.8 down anyway.

If you shoot the summitar wideopen then you will miss it if you swap with the canon (I do).

[Pikapig]

Originally Posted by pagpow

You might find the short descriptions here useful --

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrflens.html

Good luck

I have both 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 Canon, love the 1.4, reach for the 1.8 when traveling.

Giorgio

same here...travel i use 1.8...normal walkabouts i go for 1.4

I have the 1.5 as well as the f2.2, both are very fine lens..but the f1.5 in the market seems to more or less has some issues

[Gabriel M.A.]

Interesting to see the "Canon 50 1.8 will be sharper than the Summitar" comments.

I've owned both, and in my experience, the Summitar was sharper at f/2 than the Canon at f/2. The Canon has more contrast (making it seem "sharper") but having taken a close look at the negatives and the scans, the Summitar won.

Now, if what you want is speed, and a slight lightening on your carry load, by all means, the black/chrome Canon 50 1.8.

[mretina]

I have both, but I like what the summitar can do, sharp at the centre (even at f2) and swirly out of focus , in terms of 3d rendering. The canon is more modern and contrasty stopped down but at least my copy softer at f1.8 with a smooth transition to out of focus

Summitar


Festa di fine anno, Summitar di mraposio, su Flickr


Festa di fine anno, Summitar 50mm f2 di mraposio, su Flickr


Festa di fine anno, Summitar 50mm f2 LTM di mraposio, su Flickr


Canon


Canon 7 RF, 50mm f1.8, after hcb di mraposio, su Flickr


Karate Kids 4 di mraposio, su Flickr

[Shutterspark]

Overall the Canon (either the 1.4 or 1.8) is better corrected and "technically" superior. Definitely more modern rending. Resolution is more even across the field, and higher contrast at all apertures.

Summitar is lower contrast at all apertures, but there's less of a difference stopped down. Compared to the Canon the Summitar is higher resolution at the center of the frame, and lower as you go towards the corners.
Again, this evens out when stopped down. At f8 I think the Summitar is sharper across the whole frame, but the difference is hard to spot considering the differences in rendering being more obvious.
Swirly OOF, lower contrast and pastel colours compared to the Canon. Slightly more vignetting wide open.

I'd say if you had a perfectly clean haze/oil residue-free copy, the flare resistance from periphery light sources is similar between both lenses. The Canon only has a slight edge when you use a hood on both.

I'd keep the Summitar if it's coated (it's my favourite 50mm, perhaps favourite 135 lens), but for most people as a main lens I'd recommend the Canon. Canon has better ergonomics too, IMO.

[colyn]

I have 2 post war coated Summitars and 1 wartime uncoated Summitar so I will be selling or trading one of them for a Canon 50mm f/1.8 in the near future. This way I will have a Canon lens for my Canon P...

[sanmich]

I had a canon 1.4, and its a great lens.
Mine was very sharp, even at full aperture.
It was just a bit less sharp than a modern Summicron, but with lower contrast.
It's also a great lens because it's cheap, really cheap for what it does.
the only reason I sold it (and I am not sure if it was that smart) is because of distortion.
it sometimes shows a fair amount of distortion, and I really dislike it.
I woder if the 1.8 (which is very good too) shows the same amount of distortion...