Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikkor 50/1.4 vs. Canon 50/1.2 vs. Summilux 50/1.4
From: "Patrick \(Washington, DC\)" <patotts@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:19:45 -0700 (PDT)

I was faced with the same issue a while back and finally deciced on a
latest version 50'lux.  I mainly shoot available light environmental
portraits, thus the corner sharpness is not a big issue for me, in
fact, it many times enhances b&w portraits at f1.4 or f2.0.

Combine that 'classic' look with the fact that it is relatively
speaking compact, leightweigh, carries the same filter size as many
other Leica lenses, has a superior build quality/feel, and finally
holds it value better, it wasn't such a hard choice.  If one is
strapped for cash, paying $1,000 for a minty 50'lux might not be the
"value" per se.

Cheers,

Patrick

- --- Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net> wrote:
> At 10:23 PM 9/13/03 -0700, "Richard F. Man" <richard@imagecraft.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Yes, one of the perpetual comparison question. Which one is "best"
> wide
> >open at 1.4, and how soft is the Canon at 1.2?
> >
> >Looks like there's a Nikkor 1.4 and a Canon 1.2 for sale right now,
> I am
> >somewhat tempted....
> 
> Richard:  Go to http://www.dantestella.com/technical.html
> Peruse the sections "Canon lenses for Leica" and "Nikkor lenses for 
> Leica."  They will tell you a great deal about these lenses, with
> some 
> sample pictures.
> 
> I used to have a 50/1.4 Nikkor.  It was decent wide open and close
> up, with 
> a kind of retro look.  Low contrast, but quite usable with some
> contrast 
> adjustments for printing.  Because it is optimized for wide open and
> close 
> up, the outer areas of the picture suffer even when stopped down.
> 
> Both the Nikkor and the Canon are Zeiss Sonnar deriviatives.  This
> means 
> that they are very sharp in the center stopped down even one stop,
> with a 
> noticeable fall-off of sharpness towards the edges.  They also give
> ni-sen 
> (double-line) bokeh.  Out-of focus highlights can have a dim core and
> a 
> bright edge.  Lines can actually double.  Some find this 
> objectionable.  Some don't care.
> 
> I sold my Nikkor and picked up a used Voigtlander (really Cosina)
> 50/1.5 
> Nokton, which remains my available light 50 today.  At $260-$275 for
> a good 
> sample used, it is a real bargain, and may actually be cheaper than
> the 
> older lenses.  You can see some sample pictures on my Web site 
> at:  http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/lhsa2002/  (click on the .htm
> files 
> that begin with 2 digits).
> 
> Some samples pictures with the 50/1.4 Nikkor, all wide open:
> http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/paula_harpo.htm
> http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/charlie_xmas.htm
> http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/marianne.jpg
> 
> I don't own a 50 Summilux, but my friend Mark Davison does.  A while
> back 
> we got together and had a shootout between my 50 Nokton and his 
> Summilux.  What we found was consistent with what Erwin Puts says. 
> The 
> Summilux is a tiny bit sharper in the very center, the Nokton is 
> significantly sharper overall.  The Summilux is smoother in terms of 
> transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, and has a bit better
> flare 
> control.  It has a classic look.  The Nokton has more "bite" to the
> image, 
> a more modern look, with wirier out-of-focus rendition.
> 
> The Nokton can have a "bokeh" problem--sometimes out-of-focus
> highlights 
> stand out glaringly. The Nokton gives such highlights a sharp edge,
> while 
> with the Summilux, they usually fade out at the edge.  However,
> either lens 
> can give ugly bokeh under some circumstances, and it's hard to
> predict 
> exactly when.  And I must say that my 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH can give
> bokeh 
> just as ugly as the Nokton sometimes, but nobody complains about that
> lens.
> 
> Bottom line is that either lens will give you good pictures, with the
> 
> Nokton giving you an occasional bokeh hearbreak.  Other than that,
> lighting 
> and technique are more important than the mostly subtle differences
> between 
> the optics, especially with ISO 400 and higher film.  I would
> recommend 
> either lens over the old Nikkor or Canon unless you are looking for a
> truly 
> "retro" look.
> 
> One of these days I may pick up a 50 Summilux or Noctilux.  In the 
> meantime, the Nokton is so good and such a bargain that I am content
> to 
> wait until the right time and the right lens comes along.  Others 
> disagree--Nathan Wajsman had a Nokton, which he sold because of the
> bokeh, 
> and bought a Summilux.  On the other hand, B.D. Colen uses a Nokton
> in his 
> professional work.
> 
> If you do get a 50 Summilux, make sure to get one with a serial
> number over 
> 1,844,001.  The 50/1.4 Nikkor will edge out the earlier Summilux. Any
> 
> Summilux over the above serial number is the current optical formula.
>  I 
> believe the most recent one focuses a little closer, 0.7 meter
> instead of 1 
> meter.
> 
> Hope this is helpful!
> 
> --Peter Klein
> Seattle, WA
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html