[Leica] IMG: Comparison of Canon and Leica lenses - a lens test

[photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman)]

Funny. When I compared the chimney pictures with the Canon at f1.2 and f2 I 
thought "what a dramatic difference!". But then, looking at the picture of 
your wife, you are right, for this kind of situation this lens is indeed 
very usable wide open.

Cheers,
Nathan

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog

YNWA







On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:42 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:

> In 1968 I bought a used Canon VT Camera with a Canon 50 mm f1.2 lens. I was
> curious to find out how this lens stacked up against the older Leica lenses
> I owned at that time, a 1954 50 mm f2.0 Summicron and an uncoated pre-WW2 
> 50
> mm f3.5 Elmar. So I ran an informal lens test.
> 
> Here is a very bad landscape picture of my house in full sunlight taken 
> with
> the Canon f1.2, wide open, without a sunshade. Obviously it is full of 
> flare
> and quite overexposed. The picture is of no account but merely serves to
> show the stone fireplace chimney that was the subject of the test. But
> clearly, the Canon lens is not the best to use at full aperture for 
> brightly
> illuminated landscapes. The remaining pictures are taken of with my Leica 
> M3
> camera on a tripod.
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/House+Canon+f1_2.jpg.html
> 
> 
> Canon 50 mm f1.2 lens.
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Canon+f1_2+.jpg.html
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Canon+f2_0+.jpg.html
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Canon+f4_0+.jpg.html
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Canon+f8_0+.jpg.html
> 
> 
> Summicron collapsible f2.0 50 mm lens.
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Summicron+f2_0+.jpg.html
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Summicron+f4_0+.jpg.html
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Summicron+f8_0+.jpg.html
> 
> 
> Elmar 50 mm f3.5 lens.
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Elmar+f4_0+.jpg.html
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Lens+test+Elmar+f8_0+.jpg.html
> 
> 
> The Canon lens surprised me because it is almost a match for the Summicron
> at smaller apertures. It is extremely difficult to tell which lens took
> which picture at f4.0 and down. The Summicron appears a bit better than the
> Canon at f2.0 but not by much. Both are clearly better than the Elmar,
> Leica's mainstay for several decades and the one that built it's 
> reputation.
> 
> Naturally lenses bearing the Summicron name have improved since the '60s 
> and
> the results of my informal test have little relevance today. Except for the
> conclusion that the Canon f1.2, while not a Noctilux, is not such a dog as
> some photographers make it out to be.
> 
> Even wide open the Canon takes likable portraits in dim light. Here is an
> unflattering picture of my wife, taken in 1969, with the Canon lens at 
> f1.2.
> The film was relatively slow Plus X and the restaurant was much darker than
> it appears to be in the picture. Don't anyone tell her I posted this 
> picture
> on the LUG.
> 
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/No+toothpick.jpg.html
> 
> Larry Z
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>