pensacolaphoto Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 I wonder how a Canon 50mm/1.2L FD lens would compare overall with a Leitz Summilux lens. In particular, is the Summilux sharper at all apertures and how is the bokeh of both lenses. I don't have a Summilux (I own a Summicron 50) but I do own a Canon 50 1.2L. I have attached a recent photo taken wide open with a Canon 50 lens, using Ilford XP2 Super at 1/20-1/30 without any filter.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 It is impossible to judge sharpness on a monitor and there is nothing in the corners here that is in the plane of focus. Also a low contrast subject like this will not look sharp ever. The `62-`04 version is a crummy lens in my opinion. It has distortion and really doesn`t sharpen well to f8. In my humble opinion, the first version was better and the same as my Summarit. Now the new one is probably a dream based on the company`s published data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 Maybe I am hoping that someone here has used both lenses and can give me his/her opinion. I am assuming that in your comment you are referring to the Summilux lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 It's only impossible to judge sharpness on a monitor with a downsized image. With 100% pixels, it's actually easy to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richie chishty Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Raid: I know I am looking at a JPEG image on a computer monitor, but I think your Canon 50mm/f1.2L FD lens is quite sharp with relatively nice bokeh. I had a Leica 50mm Summilux in the past, although at this moment I can't find any images taken at f1.4 with it. I am sure the Leica lens is sharper at smaller apertures, but at f1.4 the Canon lens certainly looks good! This summer I used a Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-D lens extensively and was very pleased with the resulting photos which were usually taken in the f2-f8 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richie chishty Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Raid's image.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 Richie, I already have a 50mm Summicron, I am sure that it is as sharp as a Summilux at larger apertures. Since I already own a Canon FD 50mm/1.2L lens and other fine Leitz and Canon lenses, I wondered whether buying the (expensive) Summilux lens actually gives me something "more" compared to the Canon lens. I also liked the look of the 1.2 lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Raid, I'm assuming that the Leica lenses you're referring to are M mount. If you need something faster than the Summicron on your M bodies then get the Summilux. If you can live with just having a fast lens on an SLR then stick with your Canon f/1.2, which is 1/2 stop faster than the Summilux. Are you guys all cleaned up and back to normal from the hurricanes yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert meier Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 I have owned and used both the Canon FD 50/1.2 L and the M Summilux (mine was from the 70's). But I never compared them directly. But my own conclusions were that the 50/1.2L was sharper wide open and at f1.4 than the Summilux was wide open. I have used two other Canon lenses as well, the FD 50/1.4 and the LTM 50/1.4. Of all four of these lenses the sharpest wide open was the Canon LTM 50/1.4. I did make direct side-by-side comparison shots of the Canon 50/1.4 and the Summilux, and the Canon was the obvious winner wide open. Stopped down to f2.8 and further they equalled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 Al, We survived Ivan very well, but Pensacola over all is still messed up. There are thousands of workers from out of state still removing trees abd debris, but eventually we will all bounce back. By the way, the photo above is of our new born baby last Wednesday. She was the main reason for evacuating Pensacola on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 Robert, Your conclusions match my guts feeling about the sharpness of the 1.2L lens. While the Summilux may have better overall quality (if so), the Canon lens is not inferior. As Al has pointed out, the real question for me is whether I need to use an SLR whenever I want a lens that is faster than 1.8 or 2.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_mcdonough3 Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Hello Raid, I had the Canon 50mm/1.2L and have the 75mm Summilux. The Canon was a sharp and snappy lens, especially in the f/2 to f/5.6 range. The Summilux, however, blows it out of the water at all aperatures. The Canon, on occasion, blew out the very highest values. The Summilux does not. Both are excellent lenses. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Well, the closest comparison that I can offer is the 1.2L to Konica M-Hexanon 1.2 Limited. Here are shots with both lenses shot wide open. Film in both was Delta 100 developed in Xtol. <P>Canon 50mm f/1.2L at 1.2 and 2.5<P><img src="http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/ ~srichardson/roseandsalt.jpg"><img src="http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~srichardson/ rose.jpg"><P>Here is the Konica 50mm f/1.2: <P><img src="http:// www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~srichardson/jodie-800.jpg"><P>I think the Konica might be a bit sharper wide open, but it may be a number of things, fewer vibrations from the camera body, the better hand-holding capability of an M camera than an SLR...Either way, I think the Canon is a phenomenal lens. I don't think the summilux (unless perhaps the new one) can do anything that it cannot. The 50mm summicron is certainly sharper than the 50mm f/1.2L, but I find this as a benefit to the summicron, not a failing of the Canon, if that makes any sense. Overall, I don't think it merits buying the summilux unless you really want the speed for the Leica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 "The Canon, on occasion, blew out the very highest values. The Summilux does not." What did you mean by the statements above, Peter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djl251 Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Raid - My Summilux is the worst 50 I have. I am planing to dump it and keep the Canon 50/1.4. Here are some comparisons: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=362016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 Donald, I have the Canon Serenar 1.8 lens. How would you compare it to your 1.4 Canon lens? I can clearly see from your pics that the Canon lens appears to be sharper than the Summilux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adnan Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Donald, Intersting shot with the 50/0.95! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koo_kookoo Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 My Summilux R 35mm at f 1.4 w/ nice bokeh even used on olympus e-1 DSLR body.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djl251 Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Raid, I think the black Canon lenses like the 50/1.4 have a better reputation than the serenars. It's hard to beat the 50/1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 There is no simple quick answer. These two lenses are both very expensive. The Canon lens is a 'professional' lens made in in Limited quantities.('L')! It seems Canon is no better at cost effectiveness than Leica, or its for both, whatever the market will allow. I have had and used such lenses. The Summilux definitely is way better. The 1.4 very usable. The Canon needs it for focussing! You then should stop down slightly to gain a little depth of field. An easier way is to use a Summicron wth its so slow, pathetic and miserable aperture of 2.o!! One slightly faster film speed and one is ahead in every way! I hate the 'bokeh' of most 'speed' lenses. The Summilux is the single exception.The image has an 'airy' light feel about it. I guess here in this forum its always about 'sharpness' not the special 'signatures' of different lenses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Jason, I love my Summicron for its performance at all apertures, and I agree that using a faster film makes partially up for a "slow" 2.0. I find focusing very easy with the bright 1.2 lens, as you have pointed out. Focusing with M lenses of course is indepenent of their max aperture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 KOOKOOKOOKOOKO the bokeh in that shot is classic bad doughnut bokeh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 Andrew, I have seen doughnut bookeh with some lenses, but I don't think that the bokeh of the 50 1/1.2L lens falls into this category. I would agree with the statement that older Zeiss, Schneider and Leitz lenses often have wonderful bokeh, and I am aware of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Raid, I was referring to the bokeh in KOO KOOKOO's shot, a few posts up, with the 35 f/ 1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 5, 2004 Author Share Posted November 5, 2004 Andrew, OOps ... and yes, you are right that the 35mm lens is displaying some unattracive bokef for some reason. 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