Canon 50/f1.4 LTM -- Any Good?

Sharp but low contrast. The aperture and focus rings go the same way as the Leica, opposite to the Nikon in LTM. Usually cheaper than the Nikon as well. This picture was taken at 1/15th, 1.4 with Fuji Press 800.

Aw jeez. Here comes the b-word.

I recently posted some photo's from each of these lenses. I am attempting to post some pictures with each of the lenses that I use. I used a Canon 7 for each set, as well as the 50mm F0.95. The Canon is the only 6 element true Xenon formula F1.4 lens that I am aware of. The other Xenon derived 50's used 7 elements, usually splitting either the first or last element of the Xenon formula. According to Neblette's "Photographic Lenses", Canon used newer glass in the late '50s to reduce the number of required elements.

The Canon 50mm F1.4:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=354594

The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 in LTM:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=347210

The Canon 50mm F0.95:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=345808

The Summarit 50mm F1.5 on my M3:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=347529

Michael your example looks good. You can always increase contrast in PS or in the darkroom.

I just looked at the Nikkor, Canon, and Summarit. All focus in the same direction. The Nikkor aperture ring operates in the opposite direction than the Canon and Leica lens. On the Nikkor, the focus rotation in LTM is opposite of the S mount lens on the body. Of course, Nikon had nothing to lose as the S-Mount lens has no helical.

Of the two lenses, I have the most experience with the Nikkor. It is sharp wide-open and is high contrast. The shots with the Canon were made at F2.8~F8 outdoors. Wide-open it did quite well, but I have not scanned the photos yet.

The Summarit is very close to the early Summicron. It is best stopped down past F5.6. It renders a more pleasing portrait than does the Nikkor, which is too harsh. I can use the Summarit outdoors for face shots. The Nikkor's higher contrast can work against you in direct sunlight.

Each of the three lenses ran under $150. The Nikkor was from Midwest Photo Exchange recently and ran $95 with slight cleaning marks. The Canon F0.95 ran $200 on an EBay BIN. Patience more than luck.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003ysx

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004OP Y

Had one a while back but cosmetically it was not in great condition (but optically perfect) so I sold it. Found it to be a fine lens, very sharp and nice plasticity to the image (same as the overused "b" word if you don't know.) Have recently bought an f1.8 which has a reputation at least as good, (many would say better.) Still to get my first roll developed so I can't say for sure. I also have the Summarit and find that I like it also but for different reasons - (Can be used creatively) Compared head to head, I think the Canon 1.4 is a better lens for pure optical quality.

I use a late 50 Canon1.4 as my low light lens rather than either the Summarit or the Summicron wide open. The comments above are accurate, especially as to contrast. Center is quite sharp, but falls off on the edges. Better than the Summarit stopped down, but not as good as the Summicron. Does not seem overly sensitive to flare. In the later black aluminum it is light and balances nicely when used with an adapter on the M3. I've even used it on a CL as it is light and is small enough not to block the viewfinder. If you can buy a late one cheap and in good shape, I don't think you will be disappointed.