50mm Summicron vs. Canon LTM f1.4

[nasmformyzombie]

With my M6 I don't get much use out of my 50mm 'Cron (the sweet one

with the thumb tab focus), preferring 21mm ASPH, 35mm pre-ASPH and

90mm Elmarit lenses. I'm not preared to abandon completely the 50mm

focal length, so I'm wondering about Canon 50mm in LTM, especially

the f1.4. I could save a few bucks with the Canon (well save toward

a second Leica M body), and gain an extra stop as well.

[jeff_lu]

the 50 1.4 is a nice performer, though are you asking how it is directly compared to the

cron?

 

you'll probably save...a couple hundred bucks? don't know if it's worth it, but if you don't

use the 50mm much...

[nasmformyzombie]

Yes, I'd like a comparison bewteen the 'Cron and Canon LTM 1.4 or 1.8.

[robert meier]

Gary, I have the Canon 50/1.4 and the Summilux 50 (made in 1970, which ever version that makes it). I have made some comparison shots between them at f1.4, 2, 2.8, and 4. The results surprised me: while they were more or less equal at 2, 2,8, and 4, the Canon was decidedly sharper at f1.4. I didn't test for bokeh or tonal range or ability to bring details out of the shadows, which the Summilux is supposed to be able to do, but just sharpness. I made 6x9 prints and then examined them with my 10x loupe for the comparison. So, does that help you decide? I don't know. The Summicron is supposed to be the sharpest lens there is, so presumably it will be sharper than either of my f1.4 lenses. Bob

[furcafe]

I have a c.1956 "Rigid" Summicron, not the more modern 1 you have, but I do have the Canon 50/1.4 in LTM/Canon RF. The Canon is a very good lens for its time, a great bargain, & well worth owning; it doesn't have quite the build-quality as its Leitz or Zeiss contemporaries, but the performance is certainly comparable, if not superior (I haven't had the opportunity to do a comparison w/the early '60's Summilux like Robert Meier). However, if you really don't need/want the extra stop & want to stick w/Leitz glass, you can get a nice Summicron like mine for about the same price as the Canon.

[aizan_sasayama]

Isn't the Rigid Summicron about two to three times as much as the Canon?

[claude_batmanghelidj]

I have used both, and if I was forced to choose, then the Summicron is the one to keep. It is smaller, focuses closer (0.7 versus 1.0 meters), and the "look" is much smoother.

 

I currently have the Canon 1.4, which is a really nice lens. It is sharp as a tack, but for me the biggest problem is the lack of close focus ability. If you want to do a trade, I would be open to the idea. Mine comes with the M adapter.

 

I think the Canon is a really good deal, I picked mine up here in Tokyo for around $130, in perfect condition, the glass is flawless. I don't think you could get a Leica 1.4 anything in that shape for even close to the price. So if you don't care about the close focus, and you want the extra speed, I would highly recommend it.

 

Personally though, the 50mm summicron is my favorite lens of all.

[furcafe]

I don't think so, Aizan, @ least not in the U.S. I picked up my Rigid (excellent, but not mint condition) for less than $300 off eBay, which is approx. what the Canon 50/1.4 in similar condition fetches on the 'Bay. However, if you're talking about a comparison w/the prices for Canon lenses in Japan, per Claude's post, then you may be correct.

 

---------------------

 

"Isn't the Rigid Summicron about two to three times as much as the Canon?"

[peter_evans4]

Suddenly I'm deeply attached to my Canon 50/1.4, as just yesterday I

got back lovely results from it used wide open. Mine too cost me a lot

less than a Summianything (under 180 euros), plus it screws into my LTM

bodies. But do remember that although it's not particularly heavy it's a

fairly fat lens; it might gobble an irritating chunk from your viewfinder.

The Canon 50/1.8 is no slouch, and quite a bit more compact.