Canon 50mm f/1.2 or Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=969715">Leo C</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 12, 2010; 07:05 p.m.</p>

<p><strong> </strong><strong><em>"</em>The Zeiss ZE lenses are not f/1.2 either"</strong><br /> <em>The DOF and subject isolation I get from this lens wide open is like that of the 1.2</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. That turns what I thought I knew about DoF all topsy-turvy. I thought, unless lenses are miscalibrated, two lenses of the same focal length, at the same aperture and the same distance would produce identical DoF. The 50mm f/1.2 lens at f/1.4 would produce identical DoF as the 50mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.4. If the DoF at f/1.4 matches the DoF at f/1.2 at the same distance and focal length, now then, I too would buy into the supernatural abilities of that lens.</p>

<p>Edit: Ha, Ha, I just read what Scott Ferris and Jim Krupnik wrote. Exactly!</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>My understanding from published tests is that the 50 f1.4. is disappointing. Likewise the 85 f1.4 - and I am not even talking about bokeh (which is somewhat subjective), but good, old-fashioned, resolution. The 25mm is also disappointing and discontinued. The 35mm is very fine, and maybe the 28mm is too (great curvature of field which is a shame). The 21mm is superb and the 18mm pretty good. I think the macro 100mm is good too. Canon have great 35mm L and 100mm/135mm L lenses too and they are AF. So I think that taken as a whole the ZE line is slightly disappointing - although we can all agree they have beautiful build quality. Personally, I also consider the 50mm f1.2L a bit of a miss, performance-wise.</p>

<p>The latest Summilux f1.4 50mm Leica-R (60mm thread) is certainly a stellar performer on film, although I have not read any accounts of it on digital.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I thought about responding to the Zeiss fanboy repeal of the laws of physics, but glad I wasn't the only one to wonder a little about it.</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p><strong>"<em>The DOF and subject isolation I get from this lens wide open is like that of the 1.2"</em></strong><br /> Let me clarify. I said "like that" meaning reminiscent of. I never said exactly the same or identical to. But I will say this clearly, the Zeiss lenses BLOW away the Canon, Nikon and Sigma 50mm lenses in every way!<strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

[fritz_carlsson1]

<p>Ilya, I get the idea that nobody read your description of dismantling and reassembling the Canon lens. Doing that job in about 15 min is nothing short of amazing and the you didn't tell us which screw was loose, preventing close focus.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I cannot comment much on the new Zeiss lenses - I tested the T series 85 F1.4 and Canon 85 F1.2 II back to back and decided I would save some more for the Canon. the Zeiss was good but not as good as the Canon (and it lacked AF). I can say that the old Zeiss Contax 50 F1.7 is a really good lens and can be bought quite cheaply. it is probably 90% of the Leica for 25% of the price.</p>

[jon_williams2]

<p>I have both a Leica M-Summicron 50mm (curent version) and the Canon EF 50 f1.4. The USM locked up on the Canon. Sent it to Canon USA (they do an online repair estimate and you pre-pay) received it back in just over two weeks, the cost was under $100. I found this to be the most sensable approach... I have no regrets. Good luck. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Leo C,</p>

<p>You see the large shovel in your hand? Stop digging with it, you have made a big enough hole already!</p>

<p>DOF is DOF, you can read into your images what you want but that won't change the physics of the thing. A Canon or Sigma 50mm f1.4 has exactly the same DOF as a Zeiss or Leica 50mm f1.4, but not a 50mm f1.2 when wide open, the backgrounds might be more pleasing to some people from one or the other lens but the DOF and "separation" is identical.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>" But I will say this clearly, it BLOWS away the Canon, Nikon and Sigma 50mm lenses in every way!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not according to various testers, about the only thing it consistently bests them all in is build quality. How's the AF performance? It doesn't blow the Canon away at that does it? Corner sharpness/field curvature is called into question regularly too. How about the focus shift at very narrow DOF's and close focusing? That is surely what the lens is supposed to be a specialist in. Now Cosina might make great lenses but they are not Zeiss or Leica and even if they were they would still have to obey the laws of physics.</p>

<p>Your lens might have admirable contrast and colour (but these features are close to irrelevent in the digital age) but please try to keep some objectivity.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>"<strong>I</strong><strong>lya, I get the idea that nobody read your description of dismantling and reassembling the Canon lens. Doing that job in about 15 min is nothing short of amazing and the you didn't tell us which screw was loose, preventing close focus</strong>."<br>

<a href="http://www.fotomozaic.ro/artikel.php?idstory=225&s=1">http://www.fotomozaic.ro/artikel.php?idstory=225&s=1</a> It s the screw in picture # 8 that holds white plastic guides.<br /></p>

[ilya_e]

<p>"<strong>My understanding from published tests is that the 50 f1.4. is disappointing.</strong>" I provided a link above to POTN thread on Zeiss 50mm including a lot of examples. Test is one thing and actual usage by photographers is another. I did not buy Zeiss before because of the tests. But now I started talking to people who actually own this lens and yet to find one who would say that it sucks. I am going to get it tomorrow and will post my findings.</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p>Scott,<br /> I know exactly what focus shift is, the 50L f/1.2 had it to the 10th degree. The only "L" I ever returned because it was a piece of cr@p. The Canon 50mm and the Sigma 50mm have such terrible focus issues why bother? My Zeiss does not demonstrate any focus shift or focus issues at all. It has manual focus that is extremely precise. Why are you so anti- Zeiss and MF focusing? AF is sh!t if doesn't work properly.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p> I did not buy Zeiss before because of the tests. But now I started talking to people who actually own this lens and yet to find one who would say that it sucks</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, unlike you, I like to see what I can expect when I am buying something, particularly when it is that expensive. There is nothing much more unscientific than a few snaps on the web and someone gushing that it's great. I am sure the Zeiss is fine in practice, but that is not really the point - is it actually any <em>better </em>than the much cheaper lens?</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>I don't really care what you like and how you do it. I am buying lenses not because of some idiot "scientific" comments but rather after speaking with professionals and what they think about it. And they say that it is much better than Canon 50mm. Do you have any experience using this lens? If yes, please share it with us. Or you are condemning a lens just because its "expensive"? If you think that this is expensive try 50mm Summicron-M or other Leica lenses. I think its actually pretty cheap.</p>

[rick_shimonkevitz]

<p>llya, I tested the Zeiss ZE 50mm f1.4 (from a local store) vs my Canon EF 50mm f1.4 on my Canon 5D MkII body, on a tripod with mirror lock set and using the remote switch. Central sharpness at f1.4 was slightly soft for both and indistinguishable between the two lenses (three of us looked at the images). The Zeiss had slightly better sharpness in the outer areas, but not by much. The Zeiss bokeh was terrible while the Canon lens had a dreamy look to the out of focus areas. This is what the Canon lens is noted for. By f2.8 both lenses were equivalent centrally and in the outer areas. In comparison, the Zeiss ZE 85mm f1.4 lens was noticeably better than either of the 50's. I use a 50mm f2 Summicron, c.2002, on my M8. This lens is better than either the Zeiss or Canon, but the comparison is unfair -all of the textbooks I read state that aberrations are much more readily controlled in a f2.0 lens than a f1.4 lens of equivalent focal length. Plus, there is no mirror shake to deal with and the Leica lens costs 2-4X the Zeiss or Canon. Try manual focusing on the Canon before you buy -even with the special Canon screen (EG-S?) for manual focus I found it imprecise. But then I am used to split image rangefinders. Hope that helps. Rick</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Rick, thanks for the input on sharpness. I've read that after 2.8 or 4 Zeiss is extremely sharp. How about saturation and contrast? I hear that both are much better than Canon's. Plus you can't go wrong with build. Canon is very unreliable. I can't afford for it to break when I am doing something important. Oh and I've already bought it. I was growing up using manual cameras so it definitely not new to me. I actually prefer to tell camera what to do and not other way around. :)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Leo,</p>

<p>Like all expensive lenses the Canon 50mm f1.2L has many adoring fans, and some disillusioned former owners/users. For sure, again, like all lenses it seems nowadays, there appears to be a fair bit of sample variation, also user expectations and inexperience along with the ability to enlarge pictures far greater than we ever normally did with film images can lead to disappointment and unrealistic criticism.</p>

<p>I have owned probably fifteen to twenty 50mm prime lenses over the last 32 years of serious camera buying, all but one is manual focus. I have nothing against MF, indeed when it is the tool for the job I will still use it. But there in lies a point, a job, if it is results you want sensible people use the tool that gets them. I sell a lot of images I take with my 50mm f1.4, I have tried to justify getting the f1.2 but the performance from my 1.4 is too good, center sharpness to make your eyes bleed and after running several AF tests on it after reading about others "problems" I couldn't be happier. Given contrast it nails focus every time at 1.4, in one shot, in Servo, in bursts etc. My modest and much maligned 50mm f1.4 gets me the results I need. I happily accept that it might not get you the ones you want though.</p>

<p>Now I am not anti Zeiss, I am not against camera equipment enthusiasts either, but you made some stupid claims. How can a piece of equipment that doesn't have all the features of another one "blow it out of the water in every way"? It makes you sound like a zealot or fanatic. That you like, and strongly prefer, your lens to others is admirable, for you to make the claims you do for it, however, is farcical. Do you really believe that people looking at your images and mine could tell the difference in lens quality? Try it some time with a mixed bag of your own images from different lenses, it can be a real eye opener.</p>

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>Whilst I have every respect for your personal choice, it seems to me slightly comical to buy a lens that doesn't have the feature set of another, is way more expensive than its competition and needs to be stopped down to match them! Colour and contrast are the least important features of a lens nowadays, if you are using digital, they are still as important as they always were if you are shooting slides to project though. But how many people do that? Reliability is something that would make me think twice, but as I almost always have a 24-70 in the bag my 50 dying is of no real concern.</p>

<p>My take; if it takes mirror lockup, cable release and a tripod to tell any difference in IQ then it is of no interest to me, but then I am not a landscape shooter, but if I was they all perform the same at f8 anyway and FF digital would not be my medium.</p>

<p>Let common sense and free choice prevail, Scott.</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>"speaking with professionals.."</p>

<p>I'm a "professional". What utter tosh is all I can say!</p>

[rick_shimonkevitz]

<p>Ilya, in my experience Zeiss (and Apo/ASPH Leica) lenses have always yielded higher contrast and saturation straight out of the camera (pre-manipulation) than anything else I've used. These days, with photoshop, this can be less of an issue. This sharp, crisp rendering is the hallmark of Zeiss glass and these design characteristics undoubtedly contribute to the sharp irregular nature of the out-of-focus areas, or lousy bokeh. But, if you want images that jump out of a print at you, it is the way to go. On the other hand, I prefer that Canon 50mm f1.4 for weddings, portraits, etc. Good luck! Rick</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Scott, what feature are you talking about? AF? Is that how you compare lenses? By comparing features?<br>

Robin, thank you very much for a constructive dialog. Your comments are invaluable to members of this forum. <br>

Rick, I like doing everything with the camera. Not spending time in front of the computer in post. I am not a professional so I want to enjoy my time away from the computer. I've never used 50mm for portraits. I only use 85mm 1.2 for that purpose. I use 50mm when I don't want to bring 24-70mm with me. A small walk around lens.</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p><strong>" needs to be stopped down to match them!"</strong><br /> I do respect/accept your experience with many lenses and you sharing your knowledge <em>regarding <strong>them (the ones you used) </strong>but it doesn't sound to me that you have actually used any of the Zeiss 50mm's.</em> Do you actually think I would buy a lens that is over double the cost of the Canon version and only used it stopped down? Of what use is the fast aperture to me if it has lousy IQ? The Zeiss lenses have all the features of the Canon EXCEPT auto focus. It's sounds like you have a great copy of the Canon version and that's good to hear. But for me, it was always hit or miss. I am just sharing my excitement. I am neither a Zealot or a Fanatic. I may be a "fan boy" of this one lens but I am also a "fan boy" of the Canon 35L, 85L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS....</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>I base my decisions on the tool that will get my job done, any features, speed, AF or not, full time MF if AF, thread size, flare resistance, IS etc are all very relevant. Be it a lens, a $20,000 body or a $20 coldshoe. I find AF invaluable, but as I said, do not use it, or AF lenses, exclusively, I have certainly found it to be far more accurate than I am at focusing most of the time and much much faster, even if it needs a tiny MF tweak to get exactly what I want sometimes. With regards the bottom line, I stated exactly what standards I judge a lens by, and why.........</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My take; if it takes mirror lockup, cable release and a tripod to tell any difference in IQ then it is of no interest to me, but then I am not a landscape shooter, but if I was they all perform the same at f8 anyway and FF digital would not be my medium.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are looking to not spend time in front of your computer then you must be shooting jpegs, if that is the case picture styles preferences give you far greater control over contrast and saturation etc than any lens choice, it also means you are losing way more image quality from the jpeg compression than you think you might gain by using what you think might be a "better" lens. If you are shooting RAW a custom profile takes an hour to fine tune to perfection and basically enables any lens/body combination of colour, contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc to be emulated by any other.</p>

<p>But again, as I said, I respect your decision to choose whatever you want, even if it were as bizarre a reason as because it looks good. If you are happy then go for it, but don't kid yourself that you will see any measurable or practical difference in IQ, especially if you don't do the tripod, mirror lockup etc routine.</p>

<p>Leo,</p>

<p>I was quoting Ilya's words about the stopping down. My "legendary Leica" days ended years ago, to be honest I never really got the bug, I found any lens could be used when you pushed 400 and 800 asa film, the IQ was limited by the film never the lens, even wide open, and SLR's were always far more practical for my slow speed slide film work. I have certainly never owned or used one of the modern, non German, breed, but so what? They are certainly no better than the older ones and there are so many professional review sites out there that seem to agree that my opinion would add nothing of value. If they were that noticeably better though then I am surprised that more top end pros don't use them, indeed you would expect them to be standard fare, they are not. When you look at the Canon using pros (who buy their own gear) a surprising number of them use the 2.8 zooms.</p>

<p>I am very glad you are so happy with your lens, I am glad it gets you the images you want, but I don't believe for one second your customers or friends could tell you which images were shot with which lens if you gave them a selection to look at.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

 

[ilya_e]

<p>Scott, do you have real life experience using this particular lens? If yes, I need to know exactly what you did not like about it. Thanks</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Please understand that all I was asking from the start is to hear actual users of Leica and later Zeiss what they liked and disliked about the lens so later I could make my own decision. I don't care if I pay $400, $725 or $1000 for it. Canon is a non-remarkable lens and now it's proven to be unreliable as well. Without even seeing Zeiss I know that I will get a nicely built lens so it's already very positive sign for me. And manual focus sounds very attractive to me, even if somebody thinks that it's "slow". And in the worst case if I don't like it I will sell it for $50-$100 less.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>I apologise, I thought I made it quite plain that I have not used the lens about which you ask. I only entered the thread when Leo made some fairly outlandish claims.</p>

<p><br />My advice, for what it may be worth, get it, you will always be curious if it is the one for you, as you correctly point out, resale values are very high and you won't lose much money, certainly cheaper than renting. I recently went through a similar process with the 100mm L IS macro, when I compared it to my 70-200 there was not enough difference for me to keep the macro, I was really looking forward to that lens too :-)</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Interesting. How about focusing distance? Isn't 100mm is much better in that regard?</p>