This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
p.6 #1€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
Jonas, if you don't subsrcibe to Reid Reviews already you'd probably find it well worth the cost as Sean has tested virtually every RF lens on the market, and also does a bit of testing of Zeiss ZF and some other mounts as well.
He provides 100% crops of both the center and edges at all apertures as well as comparisons of the bokeh, CA, flare and veiling test etc
You can see a 50 lux, against a 50 Cron, against a 50 summarit, against a 50 skopar, against a 50 nokton 1.1 and 1.5 etc all in one review.
Great resource overall
He provides 100% crops of both the center and edges at all apertures as well as comparisons of the bokeh, CA, flare and veiling test etc
You can see a 50 lux, against a 50 Cron, against a 50 summarit, against a 50 skopar, against a 50 nokton 1.1 and 1.5 etc all in one review.
Great resource overall
Mar 31, 2011 at 03:06 PM
p.6 #2€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
millsart wrote:
Jonas, if you don't subsrcibe to Reid Reviews already you'd probably find it well worth the cost as (...)
I actually do subscribe to Sean's findings. I even bought the CV28/2 after having read his positive report. Then I found out about the obvious focus shift this lens delivers... and which Reid missed or forgot to mention...
I'm also not found of the format. I understand his choice of presentation format, at least partly, but I don't like it.
I found the review you mentioned, all on an M8, right? Did he do it all over again using an M9 somewhere?
And Thank you, I hadn't checked that review earlier.
Jonas, if you don't subsrcibe to Reid Reviews already you'd probably find it well worth the cost as (...)
I actually do subscribe to Sean's findings. I even bought the CV28/2 after having read his positive report. Then I found out about the obvious focus shift this lens delivers... and which Reid missed or forgot to mention...
I'm also not found of the format. I understand his choice of presentation format, at least partly, but I don't like it.
I found the review you mentioned, all on an M8, right? Did he do it all over again using an M9 somewhere?
And Thank you, I hadn't checked that review earlier.
Mar 31, 2011 at 03:52 PM
p.6 #3€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
I agree with you on his flash format or whatever it is. I guess its more so people can't just copy and paste his content as easy but it is kind of annoying as a subscriber not to be able to make it full screen.
Regarding the CV28, I'm pretty sure he mentions the focus shift around f2-f4. Perhaps it was a review he updated. I know he wasn't a very big fan of the lens, nor was Steve Huff, even though Sean did like its drawing style quite a bit.
There should be 1 or 2 new reviews of he 50's on the M9 near the top of the page as well. One is of the fast 50's and the other is most of the stuff he hasn't tested yet, all with a Cron and Planar as a reference
Regarding the CV28, I'm pretty sure he mentions the focus shift around f2-f4. Perhaps it was a review he updated. I know he wasn't a very big fan of the lens, nor was Steve Huff, even though Sean did like its drawing style quite a bit.
There should be 1 or 2 new reviews of he 50's on the M9 near the top of the page as well. One is of the fast 50's and the other is most of the stuff he hasn't tested yet, all with a Cron and Planar as a reference
Mar 31, 2011 at 04:07 PM
p.6 #4€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
I'm a subscriber but I doubt that I'll be renewing my subscription. First I hate the format. Completely useless. Second I'm not really a great fan of his photography. It's miles away from anything I shoot in content and style so I really get no idea of what a lens will do for me after reading one of his reviews. The technical sharpness tests are OK, but sharpness is usually the least of my cares.
Mar 31, 2011 at 04:36 PM
p.6 #6€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
millsart wrote:
Regarding the CV28, I'm pretty sure he mentions the focus shift around f2-f4. Perhaps it was a review he updated. I know he wasn't a very big fan of the lens, nor was Steve Huff, even though Sean did like its drawing style quite a bit.
There should be 1 or 2 new reviews of he 50's on the M9 near the top of the page as well. One is of the fast 50's and the other is most of the stuff he hasn't tested yet, all with a Cron and Planar as a reference
To be fair he mentions the focus shift, and he's very clear and explaining on it too, I just checked the CV28/2 Ultron review again. Either he has updated the review or my memory isn't what it used to be. I usually remembers a lot of meaningless stuff, here I bought the lens and yet don't recall the focus shift from the review. That's strange as focus shift that severe immediately puts me off.
I somewhat like Sean's writing style but his reviews are one touch too little scientific for me. I would like to be able to compare a lens from one review to another, for example. More distant targets would be welcome as well, while I like his flare tests. But, we aren't here to review Seans review site...
I'll go look for the 50mm on M9 review again later, I didn't see it now that I sat staring at the scrolling list.
EDIT; added text: I have to make one more comment on the Sean read compariosn between the 50 Lux ASPH, the CV50/1.5, the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar, the 50Cron and the Zeiss 50/2 Planar, all on an M8 camera.
What's the point in seriously making controlled comparison images and publishing 100% crops while suspecting one of the lenses (namely the 50Lux) is defect?
Sure, a reviewer needs to put the material together and present it. But using a defect, or suspect to be defect, lens for the lens doesn't seem to be the right way.
Furthermore he mentions the fast lenses lose some resolution due to diffraction (the f/8 test) while the slower f/2 lenses do not so as they have been stopped down only four stops as compared to the five stops for the faster ones. ?!
OK, now I'm done. I'm sorry for going so much off topic but I had to vent.
Regarding the CV28, I'm pretty sure he mentions the focus shift around f2-f4. Perhaps it was a review he updated. I know he wasn't a very big fan of the lens, nor was Steve Huff, even though Sean did like its drawing style quite a bit.
There should be 1 or 2 new reviews of he 50's on the M9 near the top of the page as well. One is of the fast 50's and the other is most of the stuff he hasn't tested yet, all with a Cron and Planar as a reference
To be fair he mentions the focus shift, and he's very clear and explaining on it too, I just checked the CV28/2 Ultron review again. Either he has updated the review or my memory isn't what it used to be. I usually remembers a lot of meaningless stuff, here I bought the lens and yet don't recall the focus shift from the review. That's strange as focus shift that severe immediately puts me off.
I somewhat like Sean's writing style but his reviews are one touch too little scientific for me. I would like to be able to compare a lens from one review to another, for example. More distant targets would be welcome as well, while I like his flare tests. But, we aren't here to review Seans review site...
I'll go look for the 50mm on M9 review again later, I didn't see it now that I sat staring at the scrolling list.
EDIT; added text: I have to make one more comment on the Sean read compariosn between the 50 Lux ASPH, the CV50/1.5, the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar, the 50Cron and the Zeiss 50/2 Planar, all on an M8 camera.
What's the point in seriously making controlled comparison images and publishing 100% crops while suspecting one of the lenses (namely the 50Lux) is defect?
Sure, a reviewer needs to put the material together and present it. But using a defect, or suspect to be defect, lens for the lens doesn't seem to be the right way.
Furthermore he mentions the fast lenses lose some resolution due to diffraction (the f/8 test) while the slower f/2 lenses do not so as they have been stopped down only four stops as compared to the five stops for the faster ones. ?!
OK, now I'm done. I'm sorry for going so much off topic but I had to vent.
Mar 31, 2011 at 05:44 PM
p.6 #7€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
Luka, do you own a 35L and lux, or a 50L
I'd love to see those comparisons!
Re: reidreviews. Biggest waste of $30 or whatever it was ever. Can't stand the format, writing style, unscientific results (real world reviews are fine) just generally not worth joining IMO. Though many many disagree.
I'd love to see those comparisons!
Re: reidreviews. Biggest waste of $30 or whatever it was ever. Can't stand the format, writing style, unscientific results (real world reviews are fine) just generally not worth joining IMO. Though many many disagree.
Apr 03, 2011 at 09:08 PM
p.6 #8€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
denoir wrote:
I'm a subscriber but I doubt that I'll be renewing my subscription. First I hate the format. Completely useless.
I subscribed to Sean Reid for a year and likewise, his site format drove me insane. His rangefinder essays were a good read (no pun intended) but for lens reviews I prefer LC's site.
I'm a subscriber but I doubt that I'll be renewing my subscription. First I hate the format. Completely useless.
I subscribed to Sean Reid for a year and likewise, his site format drove me insane. His rangefinder essays were a good read (no pun intended) but for lens reviews I prefer LC's site.
Apr 04, 2011 at 02:57 AM
p.6 #9€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
I also subscribed to Sean's site for exactly one year... He is a nice guy, and I thought that his reviews gave a good sense of what the lenses were like, but his shooting style and mine don't overlap at all, and his writing also got to me a bit, with all the his and her stuff, the "this author" stuff (an annoying affectation Lloyd Chambers shares, incidentally; what is wrong with writing "I"?), and the general verbosity. It seemed to me that Sean often needed a paragraph to say something which could be better said in a single sentence. The flash reader though was what clinched it. I tried talking to him about it, but he was completely closed to arguments, being certain that he would have his material stolen if he went to HTML. I wonder what would ultimately lose him more sales: HTML or the flash reader?
Apr 04, 2011 at 03:54 AM
p.6 #10€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
Does anyone here tried the new Canon 50mm 1.2 RF lens vs Leica 50 Summilux 1.4? The canon RF lens lately is getting a lot of buzz both Bokeh and sharpness from close, mid and infinity shooting distances.
Apr 15, 2019 at 03:05 AM
p.6 #11€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
bushwacker wrote:
Does anyone here tried the new Canon 50mm 1.2 RF lens vs Leica 50 Summilux 1.4? The canon RF lens lately is getting a lot of buzz both Bokeh and sharpness from close, mid and infinity shooting distances.
Having shot both, though not at the same time, I can say for sure the RF is sharper, smoother bokeh IMO. But not sure why it matters since they're really apple and orange.
Does anyone here tried the new Canon 50mm 1.2 RF lens vs Leica 50 Summilux 1.4? The canon RF lens lately is getting a lot of buzz both Bokeh and sharpness from close, mid and infinity shooting distances.
Having shot both, though not at the same time, I can say for sure the RF is sharper, smoother bokeh IMO. But not sure why it matters since they're really apple and orange.
Apr 15, 2019 at 09:15 AM
p.6 #12€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
For those who have not seen it, Optical Limits ran the RF 50/1.2 Canon through their tests. It went as expected, but the real surprise are the images. I'm no fan of the company but these are very impressive. At 950 grams it is only a little heavier than Sony's f1.4 competitor, and much lighter than many recent others. Two thumbs up for the fine balance of aberrations and performance characteristics here.
test: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12
images: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=2
test: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12
images: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=2
Apr 15, 2019 at 03:57 PM
p.6 #13€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
hiepphotog wrote:
bushwacker wrote
Does anyone here tried the new Canon 50mm 1.2 RF lens vs Leica 50 Summilux 1.4? The canon RF lens lately is getting a lot of buzz both Bokeh and sharpness from close, mid and infinity shooting distances.I know it’s different lenses... 1.2 vs 1.4.... manual vs AF, rangefinder lens ( although people adapted to mirrorless ) vs mirrorless.
What i meant was its rendering ... so you are saying the canon got smoother bokeh and sharper at 1.4 at all shooting distances?.
Apr 20, 2019 at 04:05 AM
p.6 #14€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
philip_pj wrote:
For those who have not seen it, Optical Limits ran the RF 50/1.2 Canon through their tests. It went as expected, but the real surprise are the images. I'm no fan of the company but these are very impressive. At 950 grams it is only a little heavier than Sony's f1.4 competitor, and much lighter than many recent others. Two thumbs up for the fine balance of aberrations and performance characteristics here.
test: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12
images: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1055-canonrf50f12?start=2
Thanks man.... the guys at optical limits test bokeh at very close distance. Not your usual normal distance shots atleast from 1 meter to 3 meters or 10 feet range.
Apr 20, 2019 at 04:21 AM
p.6 #15€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
bushwacker wrote:
What i meant was its rendering ... so you are saying the canon got smoother bokeh and sharper at 1.4 at all shooting distances?.
The Canon will be sharper wide open and more consistent across the frame. The Lux ASPH is a very good lens, but it has some imperfections that can affect sharpness and bokeh quality. I've used and loved one for ~7 years now, on Leica digital and in a nutshell: it's not ultra sharp wide open, rather with a bit of SA mixed in that IMO is a nice look. More so at closer distances. Background blur can be very Gaussian, but it doesn't quite hold across the entire frame depending on camera to subject to background distance ratios. There is a mid-zone dip in sharpness and related funky field curvature that becomes more pronounced in the f/2.8-f/4 range until depth of field starts to tame it. That field curvature also appears to swing strongly towards the background at the very edges of the frame. If it swung towards the camera, background blur in this region would look nicer when there isn't a lot of subject/background separation. Also, the Lux's aperture takes on a noticeable 'ninja star' shape past f/2. Apparently this is to tame focus shift, but results in potentially unattractive OOF specular highlights.
I've briefly shot with the Canon RF 50/1.2L, though not yet in situations where I could take the images home with me. Its rendering feels like a modern lens - generally clean and neutral. There is some character wide open but in respect to sharpness it's a much more consistent performer through the aperture range. The Lux is somewhat dual-character. As mentioned, the touch of SA wide open takes some edge off sharpness. Stopping down just to f/2 and the central area really increases a lot in sharpness and contrast. I generally use it either wide open or at f/2 depending on how much on-subject sharpness I want while retaining its very pleasing background rendering. I avoid f/2.8-4.5 unless the subject is centrally located and bokeh rendering is not a consideration (or the background lacks strong OOF speculars) and will use it again at f/5.6 and higher when I need depth of field and optimum across-frame sharpness.
IMO, the 50 Cron APO ASPH is probably a closer competitor to the Canon, though obviously a fair amount slower. It has much more consistent across-frame performance through all apertures and is already blazing sharp from wide open, though with pleasing rendering (some still prefer the Lux ASPH).
The original post by Luka was certainly an inspiration for my acquisition of the Lux ASPH that year (I'm also a Canon user and definitely felt the system lacked a great 50, which wasn't addressed until the recent TS-E 50/2.8 and now this RF 50/1.2), but a lot has changed in 50mm lens options the relatively few years since then, such as the 50 Cron AA, Sony 55/1.8, 50/1.4, Canon RF 50/1.2, Nikon Z 50/1.8S, Voigtlander 50/1.2 Asph, 50 Lux-SL, 50 Cron-SL (coming soon), Panasonic 50/1.4, Sigma Arts... to the point where the 50 Lux ASPH-M is no longer in a class of its own.
What i meant was its rendering ... so you are saying the canon got smoother bokeh and sharper at 1.4 at all shooting distances?.
The Canon will be sharper wide open and more consistent across the frame. The Lux ASPH is a very good lens, but it has some imperfections that can affect sharpness and bokeh quality. I've used and loved one for ~7 years now, on Leica digital and in a nutshell: it's not ultra sharp wide open, rather with a bit of SA mixed in that IMO is a nice look. More so at closer distances. Background blur can be very Gaussian, but it doesn't quite hold across the entire frame depending on camera to subject to background distance ratios. There is a mid-zone dip in sharpness and related funky field curvature that becomes more pronounced in the f/2.8-f/4 range until depth of field starts to tame it. That field curvature also appears to swing strongly towards the background at the very edges of the frame. If it swung towards the camera, background blur in this region would look nicer when there isn't a lot of subject/background separation. Also, the Lux's aperture takes on a noticeable 'ninja star' shape past f/2. Apparently this is to tame focus shift, but results in potentially unattractive OOF specular highlights.
I've briefly shot with the Canon RF 50/1.2L, though not yet in situations where I could take the images home with me. Its rendering feels like a modern lens - generally clean and neutral. There is some character wide open but in respect to sharpness it's a much more consistent performer through the aperture range. The Lux is somewhat dual-character. As mentioned, the touch of SA wide open takes some edge off sharpness. Stopping down just to f/2 and the central area really increases a lot in sharpness and contrast. I generally use it either wide open or at f/2 depending on how much on-subject sharpness I want while retaining its very pleasing background rendering. I avoid f/2.8-4.5 unless the subject is centrally located and bokeh rendering is not a consideration (or the background lacks strong OOF speculars) and will use it again at f/5.6 and higher when I need depth of field and optimum across-frame sharpness.
IMO, the 50 Cron APO ASPH is probably a closer competitor to the Canon, though obviously a fair amount slower. It has much more consistent across-frame performance through all apertures and is already blazing sharp from wide open, though with pleasing rendering (some still prefer the Lux ASPH).
The original post by Luka was certainly an inspiration for my acquisition of the Lux ASPH that year (I'm also a Canon user and definitely felt the system lacked a great 50, which wasn't addressed until the recent TS-E 50/2.8 and now this RF 50/1.2), but a lot has changed in 50mm lens options the relatively few years since then, such as the 50 Cron AA, Sony 55/1.8, 50/1.4, Canon RF 50/1.2, Nikon Z 50/1.8S, Voigtlander 50/1.2 Asph, 50 Lux-SL, 50 Cron-SL (coming soon), Panasonic 50/1.4, Sigma Arts... to the point where the 50 Lux ASPH-M is no longer in a class of its own.
Apr 20, 2019 at 12:19 PM
p.6 #16€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
Agree with most of what you say objectively and the only difference for me is: it is a still a class of its own
I figured this out much later into my ownership. I don’t like it as much as Luka did and this is one of few Leica glass I paid full retail but regret initially.
I think this lens offered all the requirements for me as fast glass: small, sharp (enough I guess) WO in most of frame, beautiful and reliable bokeh over most conditions, extreme sharp after f8 cross frame. Even give nice tasteful sun star than modern aggressive ones.
This is the pinnacle in lens design in my book. Not otus, not art, not gm, not RF. IMHO
rscheffler wrote:
The Canon will be sharper wide open and more consistent across the frame. The Lux ASPH is a very good lens, but it has some imperfections that can affect sharpness and bokeh quality. I've used and loved one for ~7 years now, on Leica digital and in a nutshell: it's not ultra sharp wide open, rather with a bit of SA mixed in that IMO is a nice look. More so at closer distances. Background blur can be very Gaussian, but it doesn't quite hold across the entire frame depending on camera to subject to background distance ratios. There is...Show more →
I figured this out much later into my ownership. I don’t like it as much as Luka did and this is one of few Leica glass I paid full retail but regret initially.
I think this lens offered all the requirements for me as fast glass: small, sharp (enough I guess) WO in most of frame, beautiful and reliable bokeh over most conditions, extreme sharp after f8 cross frame. Even give nice tasteful sun star than modern aggressive ones.
This is the pinnacle in lens design in my book. Not otus, not art, not gm, not RF. IMHO
rscheffler wrote:
bushwacker wrote
What i meant was its rendering ... so you are saying the canon got smoother bokeh and sharper at 1.4 at all shooting distances?.Apr 20, 2019 at 12:54 PM
p.6 #17€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
Michael, I wholeheartedly agree with your points in favour of the Lux ASPH, especially about the tasteful sunstars. There's nothing better in an overall package that's f/1.4 at this size.
There's nothing better in an overall package that's f/1.4 at this size. Apr 20, 2019 at 02:07 PM
p.6 #18€350 vs €3500 50mm lens test
rscheffler wrote:
The Canon will be sharper wide open and more consistent across the frame. The Lux ASPH is a very good lens, but it has some imperfections that can affect sharpness and bokeh quality. I've used and loved one for ~7 years now, on Leica digital and in a nutshell: it's not ultra sharp wide open, rather with a bit of SA mixed in that IMO is a nice look. More so at closer distances. Background blur can be very Gaussian, but it doesn't quite hold across the entire frame depending on camera to subject to background distance ratios. There is...Show more →
thanks man.... will check this 50/1.2 RF
bushwacker wrote
What i meant was its rendering ... so you are saying the canon got smoother bokeh and sharper at 1.4 at all shooting distances?.thanks man.... will check this 50/1.2 RF
Apr 27, 2019 at 05:06 PM