Looking for a relatively fast quality lens for a IIIc for available light photography. Wondering about the Canon 50/1.8 which seem to be going on ebay for around $150 (price I'm looking to spend). Anybody have actual experience with this lens especially wide open? How would it compare to a collapasible or the famous Rigid Summicron manufactured at about the same time. Have an Elmar 3.5 (not fast enough) also have a Jupiter-3 1.5 sharp but not until at least 2.8-4.0 or smaller.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), November 02, 2001

Answers

I haven't done any extensive comparisons, but the black 50/1.8 that came w/my Canon P seems to compare very well w/my other 50s (Canon f/1.4, Zeiss f/1.5 Sonnars, f/2 Summicron DR, Nikon f/1.4 LTM). Unfortunately, I haven't posted any shots @ f/1.8, just th is.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), November 02, 2001.

What about the Voigtlaender 50/1.5 Nocton?!

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), November 02, 2001.

Would love to have the Voigtlander Nokton, especially for $150.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), November 02, 2001.

Unfortunately, the Nokton is still more than twice $150. And it's big. Gerry, I just bought a black Canon 50/1.8 (because the Nokton is more than twice $150, and big), so I can let you know within a week or so how I like it wide open. That may not help you much, since all I have to compare it to is a Nikkor 50/1.8 AI lens and a 35/1.7 Ultron. At any rate, it's very cute -- smaller than either the Ultron 35 or the Nikkor 50.

I have a related question. When I got my new Canon lens on a camera, I was surprised to find that the rear element of the LTM lens was about 11mm closer to the film than the rear element of my 50mm Nikkor (SLR lens). This was a surprise because I had thought that 50mm was long enough that a 50/1.8 lens would naturally clear the SLR mirror, so that it would not need a retrofocus design -- hence the low cost for 50mm SLR lenses. Is this true, or do even 50mm lenses need to make compromises because of the mirror? Or is the tiny Canon lens really a telephoto design -- physically shorter than its focal would suggest? Anyway, I'm puzzled.

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), November 02, 2001.

Gerry, the only vintage fast lens I ever used that was cabable of sharp images wide open is the old Zeiss 50mm f1.5 Sonnar. No wonder HCB used one on his Leica. The Nikon and Canon offerings from that period were very good lenses, but not so great wide open. Heck, the current Nikon and Canon 50's still aren't that great wide open. I don't think you will see a big difference from your Jupiter 3 with the Canonm 1.8.

You can find the Zeiss Sonnars in LTM from time to time on ebay, but they go for usually in the $225 to $275 range for a good example. If you are a person that shoots a lot in the f1.5 to 2.0 range, and want a compact, vintage lens, I'd be patient and try find an old Sonnar. Here's a shot with Sonnar at f2.0 1/25 indoors in very low light. 50mm Sonnar at f2.0 The original print shows remakable sharpness AND contrast, which unfortunately doesn't show up 100% in my flat bed scan. Except for less depth of field, the images at f1.5 are very similar in thier quality.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 02, 2001.

Andrew if thats your daughter she is a real doll. I also use a flatbed scanner and it is hard to tell on the web but there appears to be real good contrast and color saturation in your example, especially at f2.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), November 02, 2001.

Per Andrew Schank's post, I also love the Zeiss Sonnar, the 1st, & perhaps greatest, high-speed lens for 35mm (access to relatively cheap Sonnars is reason enough to buy a Zeiss Ikon Contax RF). BTW, the Nikkor 50/1.4's have a similar look (no surprise, since they're a slightly tweaked version of the same optical design).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), November 02, 2001.

I'd say the performance of the Sonnar is just a tad below my current Summicron at f2.0, and is sharper with more contrast than either the DR Summicron and collapsible Summicron I used to have. By f4.0 and f5.6, the performance is world class even by today's standards. Not bad for a design dated from the 1930's. The ergonomics take a bit getting used to, however. There are no click stops on the aperture, which rotates around during focusing. I find myself having to look for the f stops sometimes. The version I have does have an Elmer style focus tab with the annoying infinity lock that I will have to eventually disable.

I had no intention of getting this lens, having just picked up the Russian f1.5, but I got a deal you'd all hate me for, so I grabbed it. Somebody else was talking here recently about becoming a 50mm collector, and I have to laugh because now I have a 3.5 Elmar, Summicron, Jupiter 3, and Sonnar all in 50mm. What is wrong with me? By the way, the Jupiter 3 may be a Sonnar copy, but the one I have does not compare to the Sonnar at all, especially at the wider apertures where it is much softer, but it still gives a nice look for portraits and sharpens up stopped down.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 02, 2001.

The 50mm Nikkors in LST mount are at least as good as the Sonnars, in much nicer mounts. Lots of the f:2 lenses around. The f:1.4 is somewhat scarcer.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 02, 2001.

Gerry:

A long time ago, in a far galaxy, I had one of those. I used it on my IIIF. It was as at least as good at all f stops as the Leica lenses of the same period. I just printed some prints from it last week. They look good. It doesn't compare with my 35 f/2 ASPH wide open; but for its time, it was good.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), November 02, 2001.

I have a Jupiter 50mm f2 that came with a Zorki for 25 lb sterling 5 years ago in a small shop in Lincoln Eng.

The lens is an LTM and works great on the Zorki but also on my M6 with the adadpter plate. As Andrew proved f2 at 1/25 can make a great shot.

Thanks & Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), November 02, 2001.

I have a chrome Canon 50mm F1.8 and I quite like it. No match for the 35 Asph Summicron I purchased (in LTM mount), but heads and tails above the 50 Elmar I was using. Much better coatings, (at least as far as flare reduction is concerned), and man, the times I wished the Elmar was faster couldn't be counted on 10 fingers! I don't know how it stacks up against the same era Summicron (I would imagine about the same performance), but it was about 1/2 the price.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 03, 2001.

One thing someone should warn you about is that Canon LTM lenses have oddball filter threads & it can be very difficult to find screw-in filters. Basically, if you're a serious filter user you'll probably have to invest in a Series VI, etc. adapters.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), November 03, 2001.

"Unfortunately, the Nokton is still more than twice $150."

Just saw a Nokton (new) for $269 at the Camera Trader, Lakewood, Colorado. I belive they also have a website. Shot some test frames - a little better than the 'lux wide open, not quite as good stopped down.

I used the Canon 50 f/1.8 (chrome barrel) a couple of different times on Canon P bodies. A decent performer, but I got sharper/crisper results from all of the following, on average: 50 Elmar collapsible, 50 1.4 SMC-Takumar (Pentax screwmount), Canon SLR 50 1.8 FL. The SM 1.8 was roughly comparable to the Nikon RF 50 1.4, IMHO, and a little sharper than a Petri 45 f/2.8.

Wide-open the Canon has a 'soft/sharp' look for fine details - a slight overlay of a soft image on an underlying fairly sharp image. This can be cleaned up by printing to a higher contrast. Overall it is a lowish contrast lens, but this made for great long-tonal-range slides on Kodachrome 25.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 03, 2001.

Finally found some old negatives. Here's a shot with the Canon 50 f/1.8 chrome barrel (AKA serenar) The blow-up at right is at my max scanner res to show fine detail. This was shot at f/1.8 - and in 1974 (!!). .

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 07, 2001.

I have a question about the f1.5 Sonnar M 39 (LTM): Are they all uncoated (prewar finished) ? Or has anyone seen a T* Lense ? Thanks from Germany were no one knows anything about such old pieces ...

-- Christoph Wagner (diewagners@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

Gerry. The correct vintage Leitz fast 50 for a IIIc would be the 50/2.0 Summitar (ca. 1939-1953 or so). It's not the best 50 they every made (not as good as the 50/2 Summicron which replaced the Summitar), but it is not bad either. A post-WWII coated Summitar is your best bet. Those from WWII or before were not originally factory coated. The good news is that a decent 50/2 Summitar can be had for $ 150-175 or so. This is the lens found most commonly on IIIc cameras when they were in production

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 28, 2002.