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

[derek_stanton2]

<p>"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5609780">Ilya E</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, May 12, 2010; 08:09 p.m.<br>

</p>

 

<p >Derek,<br />I will have to disagree with you. I did own an M6 with Summicron-M 50mm and it is not even in the same category with Canon 1.4"</p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Sorry, Ilya, but i suppose i don't know what we're discussing at this point. I have owned two different Leica M-Summicron 50mm lenses: the old Dual Range and a 'current' Summicron. But, comparing the M-mount line to the Canon EF in a discussion about which lens to buy for your Canon seems silly/moot. The M-50 Cron won't fit your lens, so you might consider keeping the comparisons to an appropriate 'league.' I did not assert that the M-50 Leica was no better than the Canon EF 50/1.4. In fact, i never compared the two. My comments were about the R-50 Summicron versus the Canon EF 50mm, and my personal tests back up what i tried to convey. Maybe you didn't have a 'good sample' with your Canon? There, apparently, is sample variation. I've read that some people aren't happy with their 50/1.4s until f2.8 or 4. Mine was excellent at f2, and usable in certain situations even at 1.4. Don't be fooled into thinking Leica doesn't have variation, as well. I had a NEW M-50mm Summilux-ASPH that performed worse than a 30+ year old Russian Jupiter-3, a $30 lens. That Summilux, probably the best 50mm lens of all 50mm lenses, was an absolute dog. Softer than a chocolate teapot. Leica eventually, after 6 months of wrangling, replaced it. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, back to actual SLR lenses..... If you compare both lenses WIDE OPEN, yes, the R-50 Summicron is a bit better than the Canon. But, the Summicron 'only' opens to f2. When both lenses are at f2 (the Canon is therefore stopped down a little), they are pretty much even—in fact, i thought my EF50/1.4 was a bit better, actually. But, with the Canon you also get a 'bonus' stop because the Leica doesn't do f1.4. If you want the best 50mm SLR lens, get the Leica R-50mm SUMMILUX with E60 filter size. But, again, you have to deal with stop down metering and trying to manually focus on a camera viewscreen designed for AF. Maybe your eyes are better than mine, but with an AF-purposed camera, at apertures larger than f2.8-4, i ALWAYS get better and more consistently accurate focus with an AF lens. And, that's with the EE-S viewscreen. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I still haven't read where you say what you want to shoot. Which, still, seems to be a pretty important bit of information when helping to assess your needs. You can, of course, try the manual focus, 'other' brand route. I've tried it. Leica, Contax, Nikon, Pentax... all adapted to my Canon 5D/5DMkII. I gave all that up. That was my experience. If you have a different experience, i hope you are eventually and ultimately satisfied by it, and i hope, as well, that you'll come back in a year and tell us where you stand. </p>

 

 

[ilya_e]

<p>Derek, I actually have decided to try out Zeiss. I won't need any adapters and stop-metering. Thanks</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ilya,</p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously the reproduction ratio is much better with the macro, but I almost always carry tubes anyway so I mitigate the problem with the 70-200 and I get great results with my 50mm f1.4 with a 12mm tube too.</p>

<p><a href="00WHLA">This is a very quick example</a> of what I mean by no practical difference in real world use. In all reviews the macro tests way sharper than the zoom, indeed on FF cameras it is effectively diffraction limited (that is as good as it can get), but even at 100% enlargements, that's 30"-40" inch prints, there is no useful IQ advantage when used hand held even at very high shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Take care and enjoy the Zeiss, Scott.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Ok thanks. I am going to test it out over the weekend and actually do some with Zeiss and Canon to see the differences. Will post the pictures here.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I do not know about using it on a Canon, but that Leica f2 is a great lens. I have had one for 11 years and it is my most used small camera lens. Small & light, focuses close and if there is something sharper, I have not used it. </p>

[marcsharp]

<p>Dare I say it? ...Ok, I will.<br>

Look at the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. In my opinion, it's much better than the Canon f/1.4.<br>

I'm just sayin'.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Are some of these comments confusing comparative contrast/micro-contrast of various lenses with "sharpness" ?</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>I have to 50L. I like it, it's my most used lens by far. It's tough to get used to at first with the very shallow DOF but once I became reasonably competent I was very happy with the shots I got and get.</p>

<p>I've recently purchased the 24L II, which is a much easier lens to use than the 50L but the bokeh is nowhere near as good or prevalent.<br>

I have no clue about the alt lenses but I can say that don't be swayed by the naysayers on the 50L. If I'd listened to them I would have missed out on this lens and the skill set I gained from using it.</p>

<p>The 50L is well built and gives results that I can't get with any other of my lenses.<br>

Sure it's a bit soft at 1.2-1.4 but at F2 it's well sharp and wide open it gets shots that most other lenses can't and at F1.2 it's a 50mm lens that can't be matched.</p>

 

[focuslightstudio]

<p>OK here is a grab shot wide open with the 5D Mark II (focus on eye). Looks sharp to me.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Got the Zeiss and had a chance to take a few. So far I can already tell that I like it more than lifeless Canon. Colors are incredible. And please don't give me that post crap comment. Focusing through a viewfinder is not advisable as the focus can be way off. LiveView 10x is the way to go and so far I did not get one out of focus image. Hand shake becomes a bit annoying at 10x but nothing major. And the build is exactly what a lens should be. I wish Canon made lenses like that. I did a few portraits wide open and liked the way they came out. They remind me of soft focus lenses which can be a very positive sign if you do portraits. Although it's nowhere near 85mm 1.2. And stoped down it is incredibly sharp. I think sharper than Canon. But maybe I am just too excited about Zeiss and not seeing clearly. LOL Ok, off to shoot some more.</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p>Congrats! I knew you would like it!</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Ok, I did few dozens of shots with f/2 and larger and I am quite sure that it is sharper than Canon. I did not do side-by-side yet. Will do that tomorrow. But from what I saw so far it is obvious that Zeiss is a much much better lens than Canon. I think all negative posts came from people who never owned this lens. Thanks Leo for pointing me in a right direction. Just another proof that one should never depend solely on reviews and to test it yourself.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>Focusing through a viewfinder is not advisable as the focus can be way off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your camera has replaceable focusing screen and you don't have one that is designed for manual focusing, consider getting it. For example, for EOS5D2 it would be the Eg-S type. These screens show more realistic preview of DOF and allow manual focusing with lenses faster than 2.8. If your manual focusing is still off, you can get special metal shims to adjust position of the screen and make the viewfinder focusing more precise.<br>

You can also confirm focus using the red AF rectangles, they will blink if in focus. I have 4 ZE lenses and I found that the focus confirmation is not perfectly calibrated, but I do not bother with micro adjust since what I see on the focusing screen seem to be good enough and if I need really precise focus, there is LV.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>Very glad you are so happy.</p>

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

[mirek_elsner1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you want the real thing, get one of the still-hard-to-surpass Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2.0 lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't Biotar just a name for Planar made in Eastern Germany?</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Thanks Mirek, I will look into it. Looks like you are correct about focus confirm function as it is somewhat off. If you are totally dependent on the beep I'd say you could get plenty of out of focus images.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are totally dependent on the beep I'd say you could get plenty of out of focus images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you use the microadjustment feature to fix it...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>NTIM<br /> The Planar was originally a symmetrical lens design of the late 19th c. The Biotar was also a double Gauss design that is related, but not quite the same since it was especially developed for 'fast' normal (and short tele) lenses where the basic design still reigns today. It is true that Zeiss Stuttgart did use the name <em>Planar</em> to distinguish their lenses from the Zeiss Jena lenses in the Cold War era, but <em>I</em> don't know if these later lenses are really Biotars in the Zeiss Jena (pre- and post-war) sense under the skin or not.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>I am looking forward to these side by side sample images...............</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Scott, unfortunately I've sold my Canon within 2 hours after posting an ad on Craigslist. I just didn't want to take my chances and keep the lens plus the price was good. I wanted to see them by myself as well but it didn't work out. Otherwise I'd post them by now. But I am having a friend in a couple of weeks and he owns Canon 1.4 so I will do it then.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ilya,</p>

<p>Despite your initial enthusiasm it <a href="00Wb8w">seems you have returned</a> both your Zeiss 50 (for the Canon 50 macro?) and the Zeiss 85 (as the Canon 85 f1.2 seems superior). A short love affair indeed. At least they still have Leo to fly the Zeiss banner :-)</p>

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

[ray .]

I have a Zeiss 21 in M mount that I love for Tri-X, but it was a bit unforgiving with contrast on a digital Leica (M8).

I wonder if the situation is similar with the Zeiss ZE mount lenses.