Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,707   Posts: 1,548,506   Online: 911
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by goamules View Post
    All the Canon lenses are fantastic, but I'd say you have the best one. Speedy, sharp, contrasty, the 1.4 is a killer lens, but each you listed is radically different. The 1.8 is extremely sharp. The person above must have a messed with one. The 1.8 is as good as any Leica lens, for sharpness and contrast. The 1.5 is a Sonnar, I've tested it a lot compared to Nikkors and Jupiters. It's a very, very good lens. It's look is classic sonnar, very different from the 1.8 and 1.4. The speed lens, F1.2, can flare quite a bit, and is pretty soft.

    Here is a test I did of the 1.2, 1.5, 1.8 a while ago:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrett...7628955481717/
    That's exactly what I remember getting from my 1.2. Mush wide open, not very good stopped down.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    18
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by goamules View Post
    All the Canon lenses are fantastic, but I'd say you have the best one. Speedy, sharp, contrasty, the 1.4 is a killer lens, but each you listed is radically different. The 1.8 is extremely sharp. The person above must have a messed with one. The 1.8 is as good as any Leica lens, for sharpness and contrast. The 1.5 is a Sonnar, I've tested it a lot compared to Nikkors and Jupiters. It's a very, very good lens. It's look is classic sonnar, very different from the 1.8 and 1.4. The speed lens, F1.2, can flare quite a bit, and is pretty soft.

    Here is a test I did of the 1.2, 1.5, 1.8 a while ago:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrett...7628955481717/
    holy cow. this is exactly what i was looking for. Thank you so much.
    ugh, now I want the 1.5 and 1.8 too..

  3. #13
    Fixcinater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    17
    I've got the 1.2 and it's sharp, the DOF is just super thin and the contrast drops off enough to where it might *look* like it is not resolving very well. On celluloid it needs a contrasty film/development combo to look as sharp as the slower lenses.

    The 1.8, 1.5 and 1.4 are definitely better value for your dollar, given that the 1.2 can go for $500 and up these days.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    86
    That test on Flickr that goamules posted is one of the things that made me seek out the 1.5. While the 1.8 is a great, and much more common, standard lens, the Sonnar look is pretty distinctive; if you prefer it over the somewhat more modern look of the double-gauss 1.8 or 1.4, as I do, the decision sort of makes itself.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixcinater View Post
    I've got the 1.2 and it's sharp, the DOF is just super thin and the contrast drops off enough to where it might *look* like it is not resolving very well. On celluloid it needs a contrasty film/development combo to look as sharp as the slower lenses.

    The 1.8, 1.5 and 1.4 are definitely better value for your dollar, given that the 1.2 can go for $500 and up these days.
    The 1.2 I had came on a Leica M3 (with a Leitz screw-to-M adapter). I used it with T-Max 3200 for existing light, stuff like a band playing in a dimly lit bar for example.
    I traded the lens even for a Contax II with a collapsible Sonnar (f:2, uncoated) and got pictures I liked much better under the same conditions with the same film.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,919
    Quote Originally Posted by goamules View Post
    The 1.8 is extremely sharp. The person above must have a messed with one. The 1.8 is as good as any Leica lens, for sharpness and contrast...

    Here is a test I did of the 1.2, 1.5, 1.8 a while ago:
    Dont think so both of mine have the same signature.
    They use the glass catalogue from the 50's the type IV summicron the glass catalogue from the 70's. The later lens will have better microcontrast on a MTF machine, if you tried, e.g. it is better then the type III summicron on a MTF machine.
    The /1.8 will out perform the /1.2 and /1.5 detectable with slow film and solid tripod. but the /1.4 will be pretty good and very close to the /1.8 especially when both are at f/2... otherwise the difference is size and weight.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    Comparing the Sonnar types to the double Gauss types really isn't fair. The Sonnars evolved as a large-aperture lens in the early 1930s, when lens coatings were not available. They gave a very good performance with a minimum of internal surfaces -4- compared to the dG, which has a minimum of 6 internal surfaces. The dG type had somewhat better performance at maximum aperture, but the price paid was flare. The Gauss lenses really had to wait for coatings to do their job well.

    Canon LTM lenses - http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...s/s/50-85.html

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by goamules View Post
    All the Canon lenses are fantastic, but I'd say you have the best one. Speedy, sharp, contrasty, the 1.4 is a killer lens, but each you listed is radically different. The 1.8 is extremely sharp. The person above must have a messed with one. The 1.8 is as good as any Leica lens, for sharpness and contrast. The 1.5 is a Sonnar, I've tested it a lot compared to Nikkors and Jupiters. It's a very, very good lens. It's look is classic sonnar, very different from the 1.8 and 1.4. The speed lens, F1.2, can flare quite a bit, and is pretty soft.

    Here is a test I did of the 1.2, 1.5, 1.8 a while ago:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrett...7628955481717/
    Thanks for sharing. What film was that? They look so soft. Could it caused by using a digital camera with a smaller sensor? Just in jest.

    But seriously . . . By my calculations the best I can observe on my monitor is ~90 dpi or ~3.5 lpmm. Viewing web images for sharpness at that resolution is not very useful.

    Can someone provide actual "test data", such as lpmm resolution data (center and edge) for the Canon lenses in question? That would be helpful.

  9. #19
    Fixcinater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    The 1.2 I had came on a Leica M3 (with a Leitz screw-to-M adapter). I used it with T-Max 3200 for existing light, stuff like a band playing in a dimly lit bar for example.
    I traded the lens even for a Contax II with a collapsible Sonnar (f:2, uncoated) and got pictures I liked much better under the same conditions with the same film.
    Well, that's all well and good but maybe someone else would prefer the other look?

    I've shot stuff with my Jupiter-8 Sonnar clone that I wish I had lugged the Canon around for.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixcinater View Post
    Well, that's all well and good but maybe someone else would prefer the other look?

    I've shot stuff with my Jupiter-8 Sonnar clone that I wish I had lugged the Canon around for.
    That's entirely possible. In just the right circumstances it could be useful. But for what they cost, it's worth knowing what the lens will do before one shells out for it.

    I have a J-8 as well, I've made only a few photos with it, but I'm very pleased with the results. Very similar to the Sonnar it's a clone of.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin