FD 50mm 1.2L vs. Leitz Summicron 50

[doug_nelson1]

I have the Canon F-1 and a Leicaflex SL. I use an adapter to put Leica

28 and 90 R lenses on the F-1. It has occured to me that the Canon

50mm L might be a better use of about $400 than a 50 f2 Summicron. It

matters little that I can't use the "L" on the Leicaflex; I carry the

F-1 as a backup, anyway, because of its real mirror lock up and

general toughness. Anyone use both of these lenses?

[daniel_fusion]

@Dough,

I prefer my Summicron 50. At f 1.2 I remark less contrast and sharpness at my Canon FD 50 1.2L.

The Summicron 50 2.0 is very small and handsome, even collapsible.

With my Leica Ms I am not missing 1.2 because with Leica M I use 1/15 sec. instead of 1/60 with Canon FtB.

I have made hundreds of color-slides with both lenses.

If you compare directly - same picture, same situation etc. - you will prefer the Leica lens soon, too because of better colours and more details.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Doug, please note that the lens Hans is referring to is the 50-M Summicron, a totally different design from the 50-R Summicron.

 

Having said that - the 50-R Summicron is outstandingly contrasty and sharp, as you'd expect, even wide open. The 50/1.2L is a pretty good performer too. I think it would be a toss up as far as image quality goes in all but the very most extreme and critical testing.

 

So, do you want small and compact with decent speed, or large and heavy with greater speed. Thats the real choice.

[john_fleetwood]

My FD 50/1.4 is as sharp and contrasty as my summicron 50/2 starting at 2.8. The summicron is better at 2.0. Just my subjective $0.02. Oh, and a FD 50/1.4 can be had for less than $50.