I didn't mean to start a flame war! The difference is obviously very subjective. What's good is that we have a choice! I've found though that, to my taste, every shot with the Canon 50/1.4 and some other lenses as well need a little bit of an "S" curve in PS. Hey, it's just my taste, OK!
I too have done similar tests with my Novaflex adapter. It is amazing that most Leica lenses seem to out perform Canon counter parts. If you realy want to see the Leica quality, test the 35mm Sumicron-R. It rocks.
I realised this difference long time agao when I used to have only NIKON equipment. Basically ran a slide through my Nikon system and then changed mid rol into a Contax (Zeiss). They were world apart. The sharpness, bokeh and shadow details of the Zeiss lenses were far more superior.
I still use my my Leica lenses on my Canon. This is obviously not easy but it surely is fun.
This difference is more apparant when the lenses are wide open. The only Canon/Nikon lens I have owned which performs equal to Leica/Zess is the Canon 85MM 1.2L. This is the only lens I am not worried to use wide open.
This is no suprise to me because the Canon 50-1.4 is wide open really soft. You'll have to stop it down to f8 to get real sharp pictures. Even my old pentax SMC A50-1.4 performes better wide open.
No official pricing on the R-D1 yet (only the various conflicting figures tossed around by various Japanese sites), nor is any USA vendor taking pre-orders for them.
Who knows what's going on, but I'd like to hear some more news on that rangefinder. Those Leica lenses look like some serious performers.
I did a similar test last year after getting my 10D and Canon 50mm f/1.4. The comparison lens was a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. The results were similar...the Canon showed more flare and CA wide-open while the Zeiss kept both well under control. Sharpness-wise there isn't that much difference between the two. The Canon isn't as soft wide open as it's often accused of being. The issue is veiling flare, not resolution. You can see it in Jan's example. In real-world photography I've been more than happy with the Canon, though I admit if manual focusing weren't such an utter PITA on the 10D I'd use the Zeiss a lot more.
daverk wrote:
I did a similar test last year after getting my 10D and Canon 50mm f/1.4. The comparison lens was a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. The results were similar...the Canon showed more flare and CA wide-open while the Zeiss kept both well under control. Sharpness-wise there isn't that much difference between the two. The Canon isn't as soft wide open as it's often accused of being. The issue is veiling flare, not resolution. You can see it in Jan's example. In real-world photography I've been more than happy with the Canon, though I admit if manual focusing weren't such an utter PITA on the 10D I'd use the Zeiss a lot more.
As I become more familiar with my 1.4, I think that you're right about the "veiling flare". It does seem soft wide open at first glance, but its the high-contrast situations where the greatest "softness" occurs. That would be a good indication that flare is weakening the contrast with that veiling effect (and a good choice of words on your part).
As for Jan's test, I am impressed by the Leica lens. I noted some minor differences in the two shots WRT the actual angle of the shot, but I don't think that's enough to make any serious difference. There also "seems" to be a slightly higher exposure level on the Canon - maybe 1/3 stop at most. That's most likely within what might be expected calibration tolerances of the two lenses. Again, that shouldn't be enough to create the differences I see here. That Leica lens is really a fine piece of glass.
If this Canon 50/1.4 is like mine, it improves drastically through the first 2 stops, becoming quite fine by f/2.8 and excellent above that. But I wish it were more like the Leica.
Breaking news from Leica is the redesign of the Summilux-M 50mm (that's f/1.4) after several decades. Element count bumped to 8, and one ASPH surface. Not that comparing MTF between companies is kosher, but this looks like a marked improvement over the Zeiss 50/1.4, itself no slouch. 50mm is my favorite FL: I have the EF 50/1.4, and CZ 50/1.4. Pity the new Lux is 10x the price of the others. Ouch
Folks, I think this test and some comments by those with Zeiss/Leica experiences tell us the same thing. The widest aperture number that Canon is producing is really a "stretch" or a marketing scheme. The 50/1.4 EF should have been 50/4, if more strict quality requirement had been enforced. I don't buy the notion that 50/1.4 lens becoms sharp at only f/8. If the lens becomes sharp at f/8, then it's a f/8 lens. The only advantage that f/1.4 spec gives us is simply to be able to have brighter virefinder. I can cut clear glasses and bottles to make f/1.0 "glasses" that don't make sharp images.
I'm not sure what your beef against fast lenses is all about, Pondria. The 50/1.4 is sharper at f/1.4 and f/2.0 than many consumer zooms at f/8--if the 50/1.4 should be marketed as a 50/4 lens, then the other lenses shouldn't be marketed at all.
It doesn't really matter to me that not all lenses are equally sharp--the 24-70/2.8L isn't as sharp as the 200/1.8L or the 300/2.8L, but photographers will use the focal length, zoom range, and aperture that they need. I agree, it's a shame that Canon's 50/1.4 isn't the best wide open, especially compared to some other 50/1.4's out there, but for its price I can't really complain. And for the times I need f/1.4 at 50mm, I'm glad I have a lens opens up that wide. The lighting for when I need f/1.4 is probably bad enough to lead to shutter speeds that won't result in critically sharp results anyway.
Not everyone shoots in good light with a tripod to count every line of resolution. Happy shooting!
daverk wrote:
The issue is veiling flare, not resolution. You can see it in Jan's example.
I think you're right. Metering is a little odd with the summicron, not sure why. (I noticed the same with Marco's CZ 21 on the 1D.) So I exposed both by aligning the highlights to the right end of the histogram. The flare in the Canon reduces the highlight brightness and increases brightness elsewhere, and the resultant slightly reduced highlight spike in the histogram combined with the increases elsewhere probably accounts for the slight difference in apparent exposure. But reducing the exposure on the Canon wouldn't in my experience make that much difference, it would still look the same -- just a little darker.
In real-world photography I've been more than happy with the Canon, though I admit if manual focusing weren't such an utter PITA on the 10D I'd use the Zeiss a lot more.
Couldn't agree more on both points! MF is better on the EOS3 though, but a total PITN on the D30!
Pondria wrote:
Folks, I think this test and some comments by those with Zeiss/Leica experiences tell us the same thing. The widest aperture number that Canon is producing is really a "stretch" or a marketing scheme. The 50/1.4 EF should have been 50/4, if more strict quality requirement had been enforced. I don't buy the notion that 50/1.4 lens becoms sharp at only f/8. If the lens becomes sharp at f/8, then it's a f/8 lens. The only advantage that f/1.4 spec gives us is simply to be able to have brighter virefinder. I can cut clear glasses and bottles to make f/1.0 "glasses" that don't make sharp images....Show more →
Umm.. sure. That makes a ton of sense; if the lens does not meet your sharpness standards at anything less than..say.. f/8, then it should not be used at anything lower.
Photography is not just about the sharpness of your lenses; it's also about being able to capture and represent the moment, and represent it in a way that is clear to the intended audience. This comparison shows that the Leica lens controls flare better than a Canon lens that costs a lot less. The Canon, however, can STILL render that little cracked glass candle holder in a manner that is clear enough for just about anyone to see what it is. If you had not seen the image off the Leica, you might not even be so unimpressed with the Canon rendering. But to my eye, I am still impressed that the f/1.4 Canon can render as crisply as it does given its far costlier competition in the Leica.
The f/1.4 (or f/1.2 spec on my 85mm) do a lot more than give me a brighter viewfinder. They allow me to capture properly exposed images in lighting conditions that would render a slower, sharper lens completely useless. And I don't think I am in the minority here when I say that a less than optimally sharp picture properly exposed is certainly better than a black frame.
Canon 50/1.4 is about $300., Leica 50/2 is $1000. You can get a Leica 50/1.4 for around $2200. The EOS adapter is probably a couple hundred more.
Truth is, I love the Canon lens, but the Leica glass is amazing. I have an acquaintance who shoots a D60 with Leica lenses for product photography, and I am always a little envious...
but I try to not pay much attention to what I don't have.
The Zeiss option is quite a bit less expensive. You can pick up a used 50mm f/1.4 from KEH for under US$200. Having owned & used both the Leica Summilux and Zeiss Planar I'd say they're both great.
