ilya_e Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>I've been using Canon 50mm f/1.4 until I started having problems with it last week. The lens does not want to focus closer than 0.6m (gets stuck). I was thinking about getting either Canon 50mm f/1.2 or Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2. The only thing that stops me from buying f/1.2 glass is its size. I use 50mm a lot and want to keep the weight to minimum. Leica is very small and produces superb images but I've never used M lenses on digital Canons. Is it too much of a pain? What issues should I be aware of if I decide to get Leica. Any input is appreciated.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>Why not get the 50/1.4 fixed?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilya_e Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>I am considering this option plus getting 1.8 as well. But I want to know what kind of difficulties I will encounter if I get a Leica. Its a possibility that I will get M9 in a future so if I get Summicron now I won't have to buy it when I get M9.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>You can't use an M lens on a Canon body as you will not attain infinity focus. This info at least can streamline your thinking...You could get a Leica R Summicron or Summilux (there are 2 versions of each): they will work on your EOS with a manual aperture and aperture priority, or manual metering. But no M lenses unless you want to do close-up photography only.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgpinc Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>Apples and tangerines I think. Stay with EF lenses. I don't think you can attach and use the M Leica lenses on your reflex camera. Maybe with an adapter you can use the R Leica lenses but it is very inconvenient without AF or automatic diaphragm. Occasionally I use one of my R Leica lenses on an EOS DSLR but I usually end up wondering why I bothered. Get your 50mm 1.4 fixed or get the 1.8 version or both. I use the 50mm 2.5 macro lens that is very good. Good luck! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilya_e Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>I am actually Ok with manual focusing and aperture so this would not be a huge issue for me. How about metering. I've hears that metering has to be adjusted as well. is that correct?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>You can in fact use a Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 or other manual-focus Nikkor f/1.2 lenses quite easily on any EOS camera with a circa $15 adapter and a willingness to focus manually and stop-down for TTL meter readings. I did a series of hand-held pictures inside a cave with some lights run off a portable generator (the generator outside the cave, I hasten to note). I would show you some, but they are covered by a non-disclosure agreement.<br /> The non-AI versions are often cheaper than many other f/1.2 lenses because they will not work on more modern Nikons.</p> <p>Of course, you have to be aware that any and all f/1.2 lenses are pushing design limits and something like your f/1.4 may actually be sharper at many, even most settings. These days the push to ever higher ISOs is also making f/1.2 lenses somewhat less necessary than they were in the days when the fastest film was ASA 500.</p> <p>For razor-thin depth of field there's still no beating them, unless maybe with a 500mm mirror lens. ;)</p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focuslightstudio Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>Why not get either one of the Canon mounts that Zeiss offers? the 50 f/1.4 or 50 macro f/2. Both of those lenses out perform the Canon 50L in every way. I have the Zeiss Normal 50mm f/1.4 ZE Planar T* and it's fantastic. You have control of everything from aperture to focus indication in camera. It's built like no other.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_bryant2 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>If you want as good or better than Leica performance with ease of use and no adapters check out the Zeiss ZE lenses. They will out perform any Nikkor or Canon prime. They aren't inexpensive but they are superb.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilya_e Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>I actually considered 50mm ZE but according to reviews it's not any better than Canon 1.4 but cost twice as much. 21mm ZE Distagon is another story and it is on my to get list<br> In any case I actually fixed the1.4 myself and it took me about 15 minutes. I took it apart (<a href="http://www.fotomozaic.ro/artikel.php?idstory=225&s=1">http://www.fotomozaic.ro/artikel.php?idstory=225&s=1</a>) and one of the screws inside was loose. After tightening it up the lens works as new. It does not looks like the lens was previously taken apart so not sure why the screw was loose.<br> Thanks everybody for the input.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_oleson Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>Metering in my 400D gets dodgy at very large apertures using manual stop-down lenses, overexposing as you open up farther. At normal apertures (probably from about f/2.8 down, I haven't paid real close attention to just where it starts) the metering has been okay.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>I wonder if that is really true that Zeiss lenses (presumably all of them, since none is named) "out perform any Nikkor or Canon prime" ?<br> Some reviews I see (e.g., <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx">link</a>) don't show all that stellar performance in regard to vignetting, corner sharpness, and other objective variables.</p> <p>The Zeiss ZE lenses are not f/1.2 either, but the one thing they do have is a working auto diaphragm with the EOS cameras.</p> <p>Anyhow, it's not a true Zeiss lens if it isn't made in Jena. If you want the real thing, get one of the still-hard-to-surpass Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2.0 lenses. Since when does a Planar (1896 design) outdo a Biotar? :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focuslightstudio Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p><strong>"according to reviews it's not any better than Canon 1.4"</strong><br /><em>Ilya that is so far from the truth. It's MUCH better then the Canon version. Before you believe me or the reviews test it for yourself. You are going to see for yourself. Seeing is believing. Give it a try before you dismiss it. It's stunning.</em><br> <strong><em>"</em>The Zeiss ZE lenses are not f/1.2 either"</strong><br> <em>The DOF and subject isolation I get from this lens wide open is like that of the 1.2</em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilya_e Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>JDM,<br> by the way, how do you like that 55mm Nikkor-S.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>As for metering with MF, stop-down lenses, most of the time using aperture priority will do it spot on. Occasionally with a few lenses, a little compensation needs to be dialed in. The nice thing about digital is that you can see more-or-less right after you've shot by doing a little chimping. I have found it impossible to identify why some lenses need the adjustment. Maybe some internal reflection?</p> <p>This is my experience with almost a hundred lenses from Zeiss Jena, Nikon, Contax/Yashica, Exakta-mount, and many others starting with a 20D, also a XTi, and most recently a 5D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>I love the Nikkor-S f/1.2. I've had it since it was a pup, originally (and still) used it on non-AI Nikon cameras. It is not the absolute sharpest lens in the world, but it can practically hum the national anthem when asked to do so politely.<br /> I always kept my Nikkor 50mm f/2.0 lens as well, and now have a whole range of various 50-58mm "normal" lenses.</p> <p>Did I mention that I like cameras and lenses and such things a lot?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilya_e Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>Leo, can you post a few images taken with 50mm ZE?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>I haven't seen the part where people ask what you need/want to shoot. </p> <p>As pointed out above, you can't use M-mount lenses on the canon. The R-50mm Summicron is a nice lens, but it's not small or light like the M-50 Summicron, and: <br> 1. The only appreciable difference between it and the Canon 50/1.4 is with bokeh. And, that difference is just that - a difference. It's not better or worse than the Canon. What you do get with the Summicron is MUCH better feel. It's a solidly constructed lens. The Canon 1.4 is just an 'okay' consumer-grade lens. <br> 2. If you're not concerned with bokeh differences and are shooting it at smaller apertures, you're not going to see any difference because they perform at similar levels when stopped down. If you notice any difference in color or contrast, those variables are too easily adjusted in your RAW developer. <br> 3. You lose a LOT by not being able to both focus and control aperture without the clumsiness of stop-down metering>exposure. If you're dealing with people, it's a pain. If you're shooting landscapes and static stuff, again, chances are you're stopped down and you're dealing with the nuisances without much/any benefit.</p> <p>The Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 may be sharp, but every example i've seen from it or the ZF version shows absolutely fugly out of focus rendering. Even when the owners say, "hey, look at this beautiful bokeh." They're just wrong. It's bad. Sadly. I wanted that lens before it was even announced. I've had Zeiss 50/1.4s for a Contax N1 (AF), and Contax RX and Arias (MF) and loved them. I have 80/2.8 Planars for Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, and the 45/2 Planar for Contax G2. But, whatever they're doing with the new SLR lenses is a travesty. </p> <p>The Sigma 50/1.4 is a decent alternative. It's bigger/heavier than the Canon 50/1.4, but it does bokeh even better. And, the Canon is already very good in that regard. I wouldn't recommend the Sigma unless you have a body that has micro-focus adjustment. Same with the Canon 50/1.2L. They just don't focus accurately without that feature. Both the Canon L and Sigma feel much better than the Canon 50/1.4, but again, at the sacrifice of size/weight. </p> <p>Which camera are you using? I'm assuming it's full-frame. Best option, if size/weight really is the concern, and you aren't shooting consistently for max DOF, is probably a new Canon 50/1.4. You didn't indicate any issues with the images from yours before it tanked. Is there a reason why you want something else? I'd only get the Summicron if you've searched for images (try flickr) and can easily identify a Summicron's 'signature.' I really only believe it's even possible to see that in images with a lot of bokeh. Also, try not to project too much of a lens' signature on the accompanying processing. Dudes that shoot Leica-R tend not to be complete hacks, and if they are, they still take their photography seriously. So, you might see a higher percentage of 'nice' R-50 Summicron pictures than Canon EF 50/1.4 pictures, but the reasons why may have little to do with the lens' characteristics. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilya_e Posted May 12, 2010 Author Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>Derek,<br> I will have to disagree with you. I did own an M6 with Summicron-M 50mm and it is not even in the same category with Canon 1.4. Don't get me wrong, Canon is a very good lens and I've been using 1.4 for quite a while but IMO Leica was much much better. I've never owned 50mm 1.2 so I don't know how Leica would compare to it. But I do own Canon 85mm 1.2 II and still I liked Leica better. Even though I consider 85 1.2 to be one of the best lenses I've ever owned. After mastering 85mm 1.2 I have no problems operating with large apertures. But yes, when I first bought it I was disappointed because I could not focus correctly for quite some time.<br> And even though I fixed my 1.4, I've decided to give Zeiss a try. In the worst case I'll sell it on eBay and loose $50.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 <p>I hope someone from Canon is reading this.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 <p>you could also try the contax 50 f1.7 or 50 f1.4 on an EOS adaptor. I have used the F1.7 lens and it is superb. I believe they make a new one in their T series but I think it will only mount on Nikon it is the 50 f1.4.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilya_e Posted May 13, 2010 Author Share Posted May 13, 2010 <p>I actually came across a nice thread on Zeiss at POTN (<a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=627124">here</a>) with a lot of examples. After seeing this thread I ordered one from B&H. Should be here on Friday. I will post some samples as soon as I get it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 <blockquote> <p><em>The DOF and subject isolation I get from this lens wide open is like that of the 1.2</em></p> </blockquote> <p>That has to be the best<em>, </em>and most ridiculous, Zeiss elitist comment I have ever seen! So if you buy Ziess they are so good they defy the laws of physics? Do they really give you narrower DOF? Why do people write such rubbish?</p> <p><em><br /></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_krupnik Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 <p>Scott Ferris nailed it. I always thought that narrow DOF was dictated by natural law. That's why I use a variety of camera formats to suit a variety of shooting needs. I had no idea that a brand name can modify the physical nature of light, even though I have been studying that very nature for nearly 50 years. Good call, Scott....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorgen_dalen Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 <p>I can't believe the level of brand loyalty some members of this community has. Statements like "Zeiss is better than anything else on the planet" reminds me of kids saying their father is the strongest person in the world.<br> I don't give a f*** if the lens is a sigma, canon or tamron as long as it does the job it is supposed to. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now