Which is better? LTM Canon 50/1.4 or Nikon 50/1.4

[c_d5]

I am looking for a cheap fast lens for my foray into wedding

photography. I can't afford Summilux,( I can't even afford Nokton).

Right now, KevinCamera is offering the Nikon at a lower price than

Canon. Kevin insist that Canon's 1.4 is better. What do you think?

Can you show me examples from these two lenses? What is the minimum

focusing distance of these lenses?

 

I know and have read Dante's website, and David Douglas Duncan thingie

with Nikon's(more computed for close up). But, I am looking for some

opinion from users and some pics if you will. Let me know. Primarily,

I'll be shooting b&w, but also the occasional color.

[c_d5]

Of course, I am talking about Nikon and Canon's LTM(screwmount) lenses, which is diferent from their SLR lenses.

[rgh]

I have a Nikkor and am very happy with it, sorry no comparison to the Canon but I would

think you can't go wrong with either. Usually the Nikkor cost is more and a mint lens not

much less than a Summilux, so I'm surprised you found one cheaper than a Canon which

usually is 'bargain' priced. Get the Nikkor if its in good condition. BTW the distance and

stopped down performance is great also (everyone talks about the wide open and close

correction), a compact well made lens - I sold my Summilux to keep this lens.

[peter_evans4]

<p>In my part of the world, at least, the Canon is a lot cheaper than the

Nikon.</p><p>I've never used the Nikon but I do have the Canon and like

it. Since it's decades old, some examples will have been mistreated but

those aside you can't go wrong. It's good (or better) whether wide open

or stopped down.</p><p>I've read -- more than once, and from people

who were credibly claiming to be writing from their own observations,

not recycling the same old gossip -- that the Nikon is outstanding close

up and wide open. These suggest that stopped down, the Canon (whose

design and manufacture are a decade or so newer) is better.</p><p>I

imagine that the Nikon would take a smaller chunk out of your

viewfinder, though. The Canon isn't particularly long or heavy, but it's

fat: 48mm filter thread.</p><p>Kevin's a good man to buy from. Actually

I received my first ever toy from him just yesterday. First America's

fun-loving "Department of Homeland Security" opened the package, then

opened the inner package, then stuck tape on the inner package without

closing it at all (just decoration, I guess), and then sealed the outer

package. Then the Japanese customs presumably thought "Ah, if the DHS

has looked into this, it may well contain anthrax, porno, or Semtex!" So

they opened the opposite end, sniffed around inside, and sealed it. The

lens has a slight fingerprint on the front and I'll bet a thousand to one

that the finger is not Kevin's.</p>

[peter_evans4]

PS sorry, for "Nikon" (!) above, read "Nikkor", of course.

[dan flanders]

I have the Nikkor and have had a Cannon in the past. For my purposes there is no percievable difference in picture quality but I kept the Nikkor primarily because of the close up focusing ability, but also because I just liked its looks better. On my M6 I can kick it over the hump and it will still activate the RF down to about 2'-7". Other than that it is a toss up. I don't use it a lot but it sure comes in handy when I want to cover all eventualities yet carry a minimum of gear. The mount is brass and it is heavy, thus I prefer my Summicron C for most applications. If the price is right, grab it! You won't regret it and if you ever want to part with it you can probably get back what you paid for it.

[leicamshooter]

I've owned both. The Nikkor is much more compact than the

Canon and great on a M3 camera. The nikkor is also better built

than the canon. Optically they were both made for differet types of

photography. I would go with the Nikkor for wedding, but the

canon is cheaper. Check out dantestella.com for a lot of good

info in these two lenses.

[nicholas_s._marco]

Mr.Evans

 

This is America's 'Department of Homeland Security' speaking. We saw your posting (above). And now we will be watching you. Please have a good day, under the circumstances. And enjoy traveling (heh heh).

 

 

Yours Truly,

America's Funloving Department of Homeland Security

 

PS We know that you are not an American citizen.

[christopher_a._junker1]

I have both and performance is similiar. However the Nikon is smaller and doesn't obscure as much of the viewfinder on LTM's as the Canon. With a converter on an M series body I prefer the Canon. Maybe the Canon is a poor example, but I think the Nikon is sturdier. Also, the Nikon f stop ring works in reverse from all my other LTM lenses. Don't know if that is the same for all Nikon 1.4's. However if you are looking for soft focus neither will work well as they both seem to be "contrasty" and edgy compared to my LTM Summicron. If I had to have one or the other, I'd go for the Canon and low contrast film for a wedding

[al_kaplan1]

Other Nikkor LTM lenses also have the backwards f-stops. This might be because the Nikon S mount lenses turn backwards (by Leica standards) to focus and the same lens assembly was adapted to both focussing mounts. I've always regretted selling my 50/1.4 Nikkor but I'd just purchased my brand new Leica M2-R with its 50/2 D.R. Summicron for $375.00 and needed the sixty bucks!

[john_woo3]

Nikon 50/1.4

[furcafe]

Already asked & answered quite a few times, e.g.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006emd (includes links to other threads)

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007q8d

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007znv

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009pPA

[Troll]

Forget them both and get a nice f:2 Nikkor or Summicron. Much, much better than the f:1.4 lenses.

[furcafe]

My personal take is the 50/1.4 Canon is "smoother" overall (Planar-like bokeh, etc.) & more flare-resistant, but since my favorite lens is the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar, & the 50/1.4 Nikkor-S is a tweaked version of the Sonnar, I prefer the look of the Nikkor & its smaller physical size (weight may actually be more than the Canon).

 

However, the modern Cosina Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton is a fine optic (a better performer than the classics in objective terms, albeit w/less character) & a used example should cost about the same, or even less than the Nikkor-S, & not much more than, & also perhaps less than, the Canon (@ least @ current prices here in the U.S.), i.e., roughly the $300 range.

[victorm.]

I use a Canon 50/1.4 frequently and have only one complaint: it focuses 'slow', in other words, it takes a lot of rotation to focus. My Nikkor 50/2 is a 'fast' focusing lens, taking less rotation to focus. It also focuses closer than the Canon. I suspect the focusing mount on the Nikkor 50's, 1.4 and 2, is the same. The Nikkor is much easier to work with than the Canon when photographing people.

[johnmarkpainter]

I would listen to Kevin. I have bought several lenses from him and he has never steered

me wrong.

 

jmp

[c_d5]

Thanks, I am sort of leaning towards the Nikkor right now. Partly it's because of the optimization for up close and wide open performance, and mostly it's because of the price. Beside, I have the Canon 50/1.8 to cover the other situation.

[c_d5]

Anybody got a comparison picture from two lenses, on the same subject?

[furcafe]

I stand by what I told you back in March (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007q8d): I don't believe the Nikkor-S is really "optimized" for close-in & wide-open shooting than any other f/1.5 or f/1.4 lens of the same era.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>I am looking for a cheap fast lens . . . I can't even afford

Nokton . .  I have the Canon

50/1.8. . . .</em></p><p>How about using that, and

pushing development half a stop?</p><p>Rather irrelevantly, I wonder

what the LTM Simlar/Topcor 50/1.5 (often found on a Nicca) is like. Apparently it was designed

in 1940 (a decade or so before it was sold), and it's very heavy.<p><em>This is America's 'Department of

Homeland Security' speaking.</em></p><p>Dear Mr Marco, your homeland is

more secure now that it harbors 20 nanograms less thorium. Purely for

academic purposes, I'm now studying how other persons less scrupulous

than myself could turn these into a WMD. I'll let you know if I make any

significant discovery.</p>

[furcafe]

OT: Peter, how do you know it was the Dept. of Homeland Security that opened your package? Did they actually leave a calling card?

 

Less OT: I'm also curious about the various Simlars (which were actually sold w/the Leotax LTM copies, not Niccas).

[frank_reidelbach]

They are complete different - period. The Nikkor-S 1.4/5cm is a (7/3) Sonnar designed ~1948 whereas the Canon 1.4/50mm is a (6/4) Planar designed ~1958. Worlds between...

"Better" is what look you like more. In terms of sharpness and contrast the Canon should be much better. Its precurser was a 1.5/50, also a Sonnar type, very similar to the Nikkor, better at longer distance but not well at portraits... I think there was a reason for the change. But I'm happy with my Canon 1.5/50mm. The pictures have the classical Sonnar look, sharp and contrasty but not harsh.. the edges quite soft.. and not a bad night shooter.

 

just my 2c

regards Frank

[c_d5]

Christopher,

Hi, Do you have any image that shows the flare on the Nikkor?

[gerald_widen]

Is the 1/2 stop between the Canon 1.8 and either 1.4 going to make that much of a difference?

[furcafe]

For examples of what I call the "Sonnar Ring" go to this old thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003uuy

 

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

 

"Christopher, Hi, Do you have any image that shows the flare on the Nikkor?"