EF 50 F1.4 and 85 F1.8 or Leica lens

[nightlight]

Hi all,

 

I'm doing mainly portraits in the studio and am about to buy the EF 50mm f1.4

and the EF 85mm f1.8 lens. My subjects are stationary, I want the fullest

detail possible, sharpness, with good colour rendition and contrast. I will be

not be caring really about Bokeh or any softness in my portraits, I want

WRINKLES and all! :) So I would be shooting at f8 or higher on the lens.

 

I was wondering if it was worth spending the money on these EF lenses or look

into manual focused Leica lenses such as the Summicron, Elmarit or Summilux?

Like I said the subjects are stationary and I can hand focus, not a problem

there. I understand that the prices of some of these Leica lenses are quite

high but I would rather have all the information first before putting down on

the EF series lenses... I would use an adaptor to put the Leica lens on my EF

body. Looking at the range of Leica lenses out there, what would you suggest I

look at getting?

Thanks Jacek

[michael_a._shapiro]

What cameras are you using or do you want to use?

Michael

[wai_leong_lee]

At f8 the differences are not that big... Mainly subjective ones like colour rendition, bokeh (if you can see it), etc.

[kentish_townie]

If you're going to shoot at f8, or higher, then it would be quite cumbersome to use a Leica

lens, via an adaptor, on your Canon ( I it's a Canon you are using).

 

If you want wrinkles, what about medium or large format?

[ronald_moravec1]

Leica is a cumbersome adaption best used by landscape photogs who don`t work fast usually. There are metering problems and you must manual focus.

 

Get a 60 or 100 macro depending on whether you have small or large sensor camera

[derek_stanton2]

Hi, Jacek.

I've used the R-Summicron 50mm on my 5D via Fotodiox adapter. I compared it to the

Canon EF 50/1.4. I found no advantage in favor of the Leica lens, re: image quality. In fact,

i preferred the results from the Canon. Secondly, consistent focus was achieved at a far

greater ratio with the Canon's AF. Lastly, the issue of stop-down metering with the Leica

lens proved to be inconvenient, except when shooting at the widest apertures. If you're

shooting in the studio at f8 and smaller, you'll be going back and forth for focus and then

aperture selection, and i can imagine that process will be a distraction both to you and the

subject.

 

The Canon lens really is fantastic. It's soft-ish at 1.4, but still usable if you don't have

significant areas of white in the frame (there's a 'halation' effect). But, closed to 1.7 or 2,

it's very nice. F2 on my Canon was equal to/better than my current R-Summicron at f2. Of

course, f2 on the Summicron is wide open, but comparing effective apertures to each

other is what mattered to me. Also, i found the true apertures weren't as marked ? the

Canon may be faster or the Leica slower. Maybe that was just my sample?

 

I recommend the Canon. But, test it, as sample variation is common.

 

I don't know about the 85/1.8. I have the 85/1.2L and love it, but that's a good deal more

money.

 

If you want to 'experiment' with a non-Canon 50mm, maybe you could try the Contax 1.4

or 1.7. Considerably less expensive than the Leicas, and both are supposed to be sharper

wide open than the Canon.

[jtk]

Canon 1.4 FD will be way sharper at most apertures, certainly at f2, as will Canon 100 FD 2.8 down a stop. They kicked Leica's booty with those lenses. Same is probably true with 85 et al, and certainly with Canon macros, which blew away Nikon.

 

The only Canon FD weakness I've found was at smallest apertures with wide lenses. Big apertures are their glory.

[nightlight]

Thanks for the responses guys.

Michael and Ronald, I will be shooting on film, on my Canon Eos30 (Elan 7e), using an adaptor to put a Leica lens on.

 

Wai, Yep so i'll be using f8 or higher (f16 etc), using studio lights to light my subject.

 

Kentish, I have a Medium format camera, but am more intrested in 35mm for now.

 

Thats good information Derek, thanks very much for that. Perhaps I should look at the EF 50mm 1.2L and 85mm 1.2? Though I will look out for the Contax 1.4 to 1.7.

 

John, When you say the Canon f1.4 FD is sharper, your comparing it with which lens the EF 50mm f1.4?

[fourfa]

Shooting film? No reason to use an adaptor, film cameras (especially manual focus) are extremely cheap compared to high-quality lenses. If you find a bargain on an FD lens, pick up an AE-1 to go with it for peanuts. The older Leica R bodies are cheap too. Get a Contax to round out the lot while you're at it.

 

If I was shooting mostly film this would be a joyous time filled with endless variety and choice

[john_jovic]

If you are using film then you will definitely see a useful improvement in the image quality from a Leica lenses such as the 50/2 or 80/1.4 especially when stopped down to about f8. Maybe you won't see much difference on a digital body but you won't be dissapointed if using film.

 

Most Canon lenses are in fact very sharp but they tend to do this by also being quite contrasty. Leica lenses sometimes have higher resolving power but don't have the contrast and 'snap' of many Japanese lenses. The resulting images tend to have more information in them, especially noticeably with low speed film, and certainly better IQ than their Canon counterparts in terms of tonal gradation and fine detail rendition.

 

I had the Canon 80/1.2 EF and FD lenses, a Contax/Y 85/1.4 and the Leica R 80/1.4 (all at the same time) and found that the Leica was a clear winner when stopped down to about F8. The Canon 80/1.2 EF was best wide open.

 

JJ

[nightlight]

Thanks for that John, whats the exact model Leica R 80 1.4 you have? Or is that just it? :)

[john_jovic]

I believe there was only ever one optical formulae of the R80 but you can get it in many cam variations, eg 3 cam, R cam, ROM. The cam/ROM only matters when fitting them to a Leica body but any of the above are fine on R4-R8/9 bodies.

 

Some one suggested just getting a cheap Leica body, I agree. I love the R4 (if you can find a good one) because it has a slightly larger viewfinder magnification than RE-R7 so is a bit easier to focus AS LONG AS you replace the crappy original focusing screen with any current R screen of your choice (ie one for the RE-R7).

 

JJ

[stuart_richardson]

Jacek, if you are set on Leica and want an R short telephoto, the 100mm f/2.8 APO macro is

the sharpest, particularly in the close up situations you are talking about. The lens is

freakishly sharp. Here is a (handheld) example of it on the DMR. <P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/yellow-leaf.jpg"><P>And the crop at 100% <P><img

src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/yellow-leaf-crop.jpg"><P>All that said, I doubt you

will see a difference between the Canon and Leica lenses at f/8 unless you choose the latest

and most expensive R lenses. That means not choosing the summicron, but the latest 50mm

summilux (with the E60 filter ring), the 90/2 APO ASPH, 100mm f/2.8 APO, 180/2.8 APO etc.

[samuel_dilworth]

<p>At f/8 you may see some very small differences in colour rendition, slightly less subtle differences in bokeh, and perhaps large differences in flare resistance, depending on precisely which lenses are under comparison. You probably won't be able to detect differences in sharpness at f/8 when comparing good prime lenses, though there are certainly exceptions. Zooms are a different kettle of fish and many of them get a lot sharper well past f/8, particularly in the peripheral areas of the frame.</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure which lenses John Kelly is referring to when he states the Canon FD 50 mm f/1.4 and 85 mm f/1.8 would be "way sharper at most apertures", but it seems unlikely regardless. And I have no idea which Canon macros "blew away" the equivalent Nikkors. Photodo's MTF tests certainly don't support that notion, and it doesn't sit comfortably with the fact that Nikon also make ultra-high resolution high magnification lenses for lithography. Here are the MTF charts for two comparable macro lenses:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF5025MACR.gif">Canon EF 50 mm f/2.5 Macro</a></p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/NIFMICR5528.gif">55 mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor AI-S</a></p>

 

<p>If you open both charts in side-by-side windows you'll see that, if anything, the Nikkor is better, being slightly sharper wide open and essentially identical at f/8. Photodo don't have a chart for Canon's 100 mm macro, but <a href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/CAEF18035LMACR.gif">this is the chart</a> for the EF 180 mm f/3.5. It's pretty good for a lens of these specs but hardly spectacular.</p>

 

<p>The <a href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/LEIRAPO10028.gif">100 mm Leica APO-Macro-Elmarit</a> is ridiculously sharp: much better at full aperture than the <a href="http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/NIAFMIC10528.gif">AF 105 mm Micro-Nikkor</a>. But at f/8 it's not greatly superior to the Nikkor except perhaps at the extremes of the frame, because the Nikkor is a very sharp lens when stopped down.</p>

[Robin Smith]

I too have never heard that those particular Canon lenses are particularly stellar. I had the 50mm f1.4 FD version and it was not bad at all but suffered terrible coma and astigmatism wide open and below f2.8. Certainly the Summicron 50(either R versions) I find to be a superb lens in every way.

 

I don't think anyone would really suggest that for ultimate resolving power you should use the R80/1.4. It's a glorious portrait lens but the premier lens for detail is the Apo-Macro Elmarit as others have suggested. Or indeed the 90/2 Apo.

 

I have to say I suggest you try the Canon lenses though. Using the R lenses on an EF body can be done but it is cumbersome and in my opinion only necessary if you already have a set of R lenses and want to use them on something.

[john_jovic]

Robin, "I don't think anyone would really suggest that for ultimate resolving power you should use the R80/1.4. It's a glorious portrait lens but the premier lens for detail is the Apo-Macro Elmarit as others have suggested. Or indeed the 90/2 Apo. "

 

I may have been the only one to suggest the R80 but never suggested it was the 'ultimate in resolving power', I believe that's your interpretation, not my words at all. The OP was looking for a lens in that focal length, hence the comments on the R 80.

 

Some have mentioned the 100 and 90 apo, they are most likely sharper than just about any other lens in that range but if you want to go to that focal length then the humble Canon EF 100/2.8 USM is quite astounding even wide open, but much, much cheaper. I have the EF 100/2.8 USM and the R80 and usually use the 100 but only out of convenience, being AF. I don't really know how it performs stopped down because I ususually use it wide open for tight head shots. excellent!

 

JJ

[Robin Smith]

Jacek said "I want the fullest detail possible, sharpness, with good colour rendition and contrast"

 

Hence my comment about the 80mm...

[john_jovic]

Robin Smith , Oct 07, 2007; 04:53 p.m.

 

"Jacek said "I want the fullest detail possible, sharpness, with good colour rendition and contrast"

 

Hence my comment about the 80mm..."

 

And Jaceks questions were about the 50 and 85 canons, hence my comments on the 80mm...

JJ

[charles_tuthill]

This post is a few days old so I don't know if this will do the original poster any good. I own both the 50mm 1.4 and the leica 50mm summicron.

 

If I were shooting with a canon, I would probably use the canon lenses - there is not too large of a difference when stopped down. There is a difference, but using an adapter can be a pain sometimes.

 

Overall, I prefer the 50 summicron. For some shots, it just looks sharper than the canon and I prefer the colors. The canon lens is also excellent (stopped down). You said that you are not interested in bokeh, but just in case, I think the canon is better in this department. The leica is less expensive when bought used - less than 225 with shipping on e-bay if you look closely (I'm not joking).

 

In terms of the 85mm, I don't know. I have a canon 100mm f2 and I find it to be an excellent lens. If you want super sharpness without spending a ton of money from Leica, look at the newer version of the 90mm elmarit-r. I haven't used it but I hear its razor sharp but not quite up to the 100mm macro elmarit - you can find it for around $400 on ebay.

 

I only own a couple of leica lenses, and I use them on an older Leica film camera. When I use my canon digital, I use the canon lenses because for many situations they are more convenient than using an adapter and they are excellent (for my purposes anyways). Using an adapter is not bad, but if I have the choice, I generally avoid it.