The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Canon 50mm f0.95

robsteve

Subscriber
But I disagree with Robert's contention about the lack of sharpness of this lens.

You can increase or decrease contrast in the post but can never add any details that aren't already there!

I would go as far as to say that the Canon 50/0.95 is a high resolution lens and no less.

I do not have a Noctilux to compare but I would not be surprised if the Canon 50/0.95 beats the Noctilux 50/1, wide open, in terms of resolving ability.
I was referring to film. It is hard to increase the contrast on slides unless you get into special processing for just that lens.

The Noctilux is pretty sharp up at f1. I have never seen a Canon .95 shot where you could see the details in the iris of the subjects eyes. Here are a few examples from a while back. Both were shot at f1 and near the close focus limit for the older son.

You should really try a Noctilux. Mine works well in IR too.

Robert



 

Hacker

New member
I do not have a Noctilux to compare but I would not be surprised if the Canon 50/0.95 beats the Noctilux 50/1, wide open, in terms of resolving ability.
I have the Noctilux (latest batch, 6-bit), and it has been used way much less than the Canon. Time for some shots with the Noctilux too.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hacker, Do that (the comparison) and tell us! :)

Bob Pearson (spelling- last name?) is the one who informed me about the some of the comparative characteristics of both lenses, particularly the light transmission.

Robert, If you look at the earlier shots that Hacker posted in this thread you would find your examples (well, his children's irises won't show the details as yours'). Yes, it is capable of doing that easily.

The one version (Canon 50/0.95) that has light blue coatings (and not yellow coatings) does very well for UV as well as IR.
 

Hacker

New member
I can take out the tripod and everything and shoot some shots of both lenses. Someone better in processing skills has got to take the DNG files and do the comparisons.
 

woodyspedden

New member
Kurt

Wonderful images but, more importantly, wonderful philosophy. I will try to remember this and put it to use when I am looking for images that make a difference.

Your pal

Woody
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Mike, Hope you have decent sample that has the accurate RF coupling (important).
You guys have got to stop talking up this lens, or prices will go up again. Back when prevailing "wisdom" was that they were mushy, unusable doorstops, they were fairly reasonable in price. (The fact that they had a special breech mount that only fit the Canon 7/7s helped. So many seem to be going to M-mount conversion now that I expect the unconverted ones eventually will become rare collector's items.)

Now they seem to be enjoying a second life on digital cameras -- thanks, I suspect, to the fact that a bit of unsharp masking cleans up the mush very nicely, without sacrificing the lens' unusual "signature."

About the RF coupling, yes, it's extremely important; focusing accuracy is critical, as you might expect. And you can't just assume it will be correct; based on my reading of the Canon 7/7s repair manual, I believe that Canon calibrated its RF lenses based on slightly different assumptions about film flatness than the assumptions Leica used. That means a lens that focused perfectly on a 7/7s may not focus perfectly on a non-Canon body, unless checked and adjusted. If you're having one converted, the converter can do the compensation; if you've got an already-converted one that's a bit "off," a good optical mechanic can zero it in by adjusting the "collimation shim," a precision brass spacer (hand-selected for each individual lens during production) that determines the depth at which the optical head sits in the focusing mount.

I know I've linked to these in other threads, but as long as we're on the subject, here are a couple of my own 50/0.95 picture batches: one from back during my "film era" (on a Canon 7s) and the more recent set on an R-D 1:



(This second batch will show you why Vivek says a lens hood is so important!)

It wouldn't surprise me if a Noctilux were at least somewhat better, especially in terms of contrast and flare control. But I use the Canon for its "look"... and besides, there are many, many dollars standing between me and ever owning a Noctilux, whereas the Canon is reasonably accessible.
 

Hacker

New member
It wouldn't surprise me if a Noctilux were at least somewhat better, especially in terms of contrast and flare control. But I use the Canon for its "look"... and besides, there are many, many dollars standing between me and ever owning a Noctilux, whereas the Canon is reasonably accessible.
The Canon definitely flares without the hood, and from what limited experience I have with the lens, I think it is optimized at further distances.
 

cam

Active member
You guys have got to stop talking up this lens, or prices will go up again.

It wouldn't surprise me if a Noctilux were at least somewhat better, especially in terms of contrast and flare control. But I use the Canon for its "look"... and besides, there are many, many dollars standing between me and ever owning a Noctilux, whereas the Canon is reasonably accessible.
"reasonably accessible" -- well, it was.... Hacker said he's willing to sell his on another forum, but won't give a price as he says it's too expensive.....

i am a Noctilux lover but i think the Canon is gorgeous as well. now, it seems, i can afford neither.... sigh.

back to my recalibrated C-Sonnar and looking for the 75mm Summilux, all the while with lust in my heart for two fast 50's i can't afford.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Actually, I think the Noctilux is a beauty while the Canon the beast (look wise). :)

To Robert's earlier post. Yes, I would love to use a Noctilux. But, as Cam says, it may be unlikely. Your sample shots, Robert, they are familiar. Beautiful!

Ranger, Thanks for your samples and the additional information.

One other factor for some lenses to be more successful could be due to the matched modulation frequencies of the lenses and the sensor. The Canon lens (later used for c-mount CCD cameras). Higher and medium frequencies are better covered and not the lower ones- this helps with the digital capture but not film.

So, in this respect, it would be very interesting if that rare person who has all the Noctiluxes, the Canon 50/0.95 and the new Noctilux 50/0.95 would do a comparison and report on their performances.

Hacker, When are you getting your new Noctilux 50/0.95 (if you already do not have it)? :)
 

Hacker

New member
I met an old high school classmate when he returned from London where he was working. He wanted to check out the Noctilux, so we shot for an hour or so. He ended up getting one from Red Dot. Some samples, all shot wide open @ f/1:







 

Hacker

New member
Hacker, When are you getting your new Noctilux 50/0.95 (if you already do not have it)? :)
The market here is very small, so they usually combine the orders. Nevertheless, Feb is the date when I'm told is the delivery at the earliest.

 
V

Vivek

Guest
Nice, Hacker. I look forward to your take on the new Noctilux. :)

(keep posting, they are a delight.)

BTW, the 2nd shot in post #51, I have been to that area once. I forgot the name of the street (Toronto somewhere, SriLankan Tamil neighborhood). The OOF board says it is an Idli shop (steamed rice cakes). Breakfast item.
 

woodyspedden

New member
"reasonably accessible" -- well, it was.... Hacker said he's willing to sell his on another forum, but won't give a price as he says it's too expensive.....

i am a Noctilux lover but i think the Canon is gorgeous as well. now, it seems, i can afford neither.... sigh.

back to my recalibrated C-Sonnar and looking for the 75mm Summilux, all the while with lust in my heart for two fast 50's i can't afford.
Sadly CAM the 75 lux, in good condition, is in the $2500-$3000 range as well. You might want to consider a Konica Hexanon 1.2. I bought an absolutely mint silver chrome (actually might be titanium but I can't tell for sure) from a Hong Kong seller for $2100. Still very pricey but not compared to the Nocti. I find it very easy to focus whereas I couldn't seem to get the handle on focusing the Nocti so I sold mine. I guess I could have had Don Goldberg match the Nocti to my M8's but I didn't want to screw things up for all my other lenses which work great on both my M's.

Anyway, just some thoughts and not much science

Woody
 

Hacker

New member
BTW, the 2nd shot in post #51, I have been to that area once. I forgot the name of the street (Toronto somewhere, SriLankan Tamil neighborhood). The OOF board says it is an Idli shop (steamed rice cakes). Breakfast item.
It is actually at the other end of the world, Little India, Serangoon, Singapore. :)
 

cam

Active member
Sadly CAM the 75 lux, in good condition, is in the $2500-$3000 range as well. You might want to consider a Konica Hexanon 1.2. I bought an absolutely mint silver chrome (actually might be titanium but I can't tell for sure) from a Hong Kong seller for $2100. Still very pricey but not compared to the Nocti. I find it very easy to focus whereas I couldn't seem to get the handle on focusing the Nocti so I sold mine. I guess I could have had Don Goldberg match the Nocti to my M8's but I didn't want to screw things up for all my other lenses which work great on both my M's.
thank you, Woody. i know the cost of the Lux and passed on an absolutely brilliant one (i.e., focused perfect on my R-D1 and the store's M8.2 that i was checking out) that cost around $3300 with tax. the draw of that lens is just too delicious and, as i already have two fifties (50 Lux pre-asph and ZM C-Sonnar), it's a the top of my list. it was also in a class of its own as far as any lens i've tried and liked (except the 35 Lux Asph or 28 Crom) with a bokeh that made me weak at the knees. so it's on my must have list :p

i haven't been bowled over by the Hexanon 1.2 -- it actually seemed to sharp with less of a signature but, perhaps, i'm wrong? do you have photos up somewhere to show the magic? that's always a difficult bit when you can't play with the glass in person... i would love to see some of your work as i know i usually like your taste in glass -- even if i'm still kicking myself for not grabbing your 35 Lux Asph and buying the pre-asph instead (love the size, get cranky at the near focusing limitations).
 

Hacker

New member
i haven't been bowled over by the Hexanon 1.2 -- it actually seemed to sharp with less of a signature but, perhaps, i'm wrong?
Then you need the Hexanon 60mm f/1.2! ;) It is less clinical in its signature.
 
Top