A Couple new Canon 50mm f0.95 Images

[charlie lemay]

I did a few shots with my Canon 7 and the 50mm f0.95 lens. Just

thought I would share. It has a very nice look wide open close-up, but

is critically sharp stopped down to f1.4<div></div>

[charlie lemay]

Another<div></div>

[charlie lemay]

One more time<div></div>

[stephen_w.]

What good is a 0.95 much less than a Noc't have wide open? I had a Noct' but the center was only 1.0 and stopping down to 1.4 wasn't as good as my 50 'lux, plus much bigger, not to mention the horrindous (sp?) bokeh. I hae settled on a chrome 'lux and am happy with it.

[andrew robertson]

Shoots in less light? Has much less DOF? There are many potential benefits to an ultra

fast lens. It probably cost about 1/3 of a new Leica 50mm f/1.4 lens, as well!

[pete1]

Nice photos. I am amazed with the detail in the shot at f=1.4. I too have settled on a chrome 50 'lux for most shots at 50mm but have a Noct for those times when only f=1.0 will do. The lux is so much smaller and lighter. Recently I picked up a 50/1.2 Hexanon - it is larger than the 'lux but quite a bit lighter. I don't have a black 'lux so I cannot compare the weight there. I've always been intrigued by the Canon 0.95 - it is an impressive handfull of glass.

[pensacolaphoto]

I like the statement "stopped down to 1.4". Many photographers don't even own a 1.4 lens.

[charlie lemay]

These are full frame shots, scanned with no "burning in>" Vignetting seems to be nil. Field curviture is another story. Look how sharp the lower right corner is on the Pond Ice image. I too had a Noctilux until recently. It was a fine lens, but I decided to keep this monster and let the Noktilux find a new home. The Canon is huge and if it was my only lens, I wouldd complain after an hour of carrying it around, but, hey, as a special optic to pull out every now and then, it's a real treat to see what it "sees."

[Robin Smith]

I doubt myself that I would find the Canon "critically sharp" at f1.4. It depends on what you consider sharp. Not that the image cannot be nice etc. etc. (PC awareness mode switched on). Critically sharp to me implies that the full resolution capability of the lens is on view.

[charlie lemay]

It is only critically sharp in a very thin slice of the image. At f1.4 you would not expect everything to be sharp. The transition to out of focus is also very pleasant and serves to make the sharp slice look even more sharp. I make no claims about resolution. I have no doubt that any Leica lenses would beat this lens on resolution. Apparent sharpness is another thing, and this lens is definitly not the dog people on this forum like to think it is. This is equally true for the Canon 50mm f1.2. The Canon lenses of this vintage seem to be stellar pictorial performers even though their MTF pedigree might not be the highest. If you take pictures of light on things as opposed to test charts, these Canon lenses are the best value in rangefinder photography today. Other lenses that will surprise you include the 100mm f2 and 3.5, 85mm f1.8, 35mmf1.8, 135mm f3.5 and the 50mm f1.4.

[john dorfman]

I use Canon 50/1.8 (late model black) and 35/2 and think they're great. Small and

light, too.

[frank_reidelbach]

"these Canon lenses are the best value in rangefinder photography today."

 

True.

 

At f/1.4 the Canon 0.95/50 is sharper than some newer 1.4-lenses plus having better contrast. Contrast is also fine at f/0.95. I wonder which user of this lens will demands stellar sharpness wide open, when the question is getting the picture or miss it. Also the focus area at f/0.95 is very small and mostly focussed in the center of the picture. Very seldom your object at very low light isn't concentrated in the center where you need sharpness at f/1. Canon 0.95/50 delivers it (the Noctilux as well)

 

Of course the 0.95/50 is a BIG, heavy lens, which focussing is slow. This (not the performance issue) makes it a "not everyday usage lens"

 

More frequently I use my 1.5/50 Canon (compact, quite good performance; no real need to upgrade to the well-reputated f/1.4)

 

Another "gem" is the Canon 2/35. In terms of color definition and contrast I prefer this one over my Voigtlander 1.7/35 (at least around f/5.6-8). Very fine details are sharper with the Ultron but overall the pictures are more dull. Handling and weight is another big advantage for the Canon. All sources say the 1.7/35 is sharper than the 2.5/35, so I don't see any need to buy the compact Skopar half a stop slower than my Canon to compare these two. My next 35mm lens could be a late Summicron, or new Zeiss Biogon...

 

My last buy is the 2.5/75 Heliar. It's seems to be a good lens, better than my Jupiter-9 2/85, but in the same league as the Canon 1.8/85 and 3.5/100. It probably ranks between them in terms of sharpness at f/5.6-8. As could be expected from a new lens, flare protection is better (shooting against light). So again, old 60's Canon lenses not in the last class today.

 

see some pictures at http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF.html

 

(Sorry, lots of German text :-)

 

Frank