gdi
Mentor
Canon designed this lens for prestige. From the few contemporary things I've read about it, it wasn't very well regarded for image quality back in the day. While I don't like images taken with the .95 (or the Noct, for that matter), many people seem to gush over soft, out of focus images taken with them. I agree with those who say that nothing looks really sharp in most images shot with these lenses. And the OOF areas of the .95 are just awful.
Maybe Leica can fix that when they introduce their .85!
Not many people gush over the results from the 0.95, from what I have seen! Noctilux, yes - it's a religion!
Ororaro
Well-known
Canon designed this lens for prestige. From the few contemporary things I've read about it, it wasn't very well regarded for image quality back in the day. While I don't like images taken with the .95 (or the Noct, for that matter), many people seem to gush over soft, out of focus images taken with them. I agree with those who say that nothing looks really sharp in most images shot with these lenses. And the OOF areas of the .95 are just awful.
Maybe Leica can fix that when they introduce their .85!
I would like you to talk out of experience. For now you are just speculating about something you have no idea.
If a Summilux 50 does a good job, a Noctilux does the same. There isn't much more Boke from a Noctilux. And I know what I'm talking about.
Enough is enough!
Krosya
Konicaze
Canon designed this lens for prestige. From the few contemporary things I've read about it, it wasn't very well regarded for image quality back in the day. While I don't like images taken with the .95 (or the Noct, for that matter), many people seem to gush over soft, out of focus images taken with them. I agree with those who say that nothing looks really sharp in most images shot with these lenses. And the OOF areas of the .95 are just awful.
Maybe Leica can fix that when they introduce their .85!
While I agree - the way a lens, any lens, draws - including bokeh, etc is a personal preference, taste. Some like it some dont. Yet, some things are either there or not - sharpness is one of them. If many people cant focus such fast lenses accurtely - doesnt mean that that lens is not sharp. Fact is - these fast lenses are hard to focus. So most images will have tht look like nothing is in focus. Yet, when these lenses are focused correct thn one can really see what is what.
I have seen many so called "experts" here pass judgement on a lens, declaring it poor, while based on my experience it is a much better one. It's a good thing I like to question this type of authority and try things for myself. And only than pass judgement. I think its a good policy.
When someone says that whatever lens is poor, unsharp, etc - and I know from experience it's not to be the case - makes me wonder if they are talking from experience and how capable they really are to use that particular lens. It often helps to support words with photos.
Some of us do so. Others dont. Easy to see who does and who doesnt have credibility.....
Hacker
黑客
Krosya, because of your 50mm f1.2 posts, I'm a believer. But not many people have to go through 4 x 50mm f1.2 lenses to finally see the beauty of the lens. A fifth one just got ordered today
.Back to the f0.95 lens, I think it is great from the ones that are focused correctly and from the results that I have seen. I've a second one that is being modified and I will check for variations (if any). I guess it boils down to a lens being used in certain conditions.
Krosya
Konicaze
Krosya, because of your 50mm f1.2 posts, I'm a believer. But not many people have to go through 4 x 50mm f1.2 lenses to finally see the beauty of the lens. A fifth one just got ordered today
You have 4 Canon 50/1.2 lenses and they all dont deliver the same results s mine? Hmmm. I suppose I could have gotten a really good one, yet I think someone like DAG could bring one back to a conditions it performs well. I wouldn't just keep buying others, but rather have ones you have adjusted.
You know - if you ever want to swap my Canon for your Hex 60/1.2 - we can talk.
Hacker
黑客
You have 4 Canon 50/1.2 lenses and they all dont deliver the same results s mine? Hmmm. I suppose I could have gotten a really good one, yet I think someone like DAG could bring one back to a conditions it performs well. I wouldn't just keep buying others, but rather have ones you have adjusted.
You know - if you ever want to swap my Canon for your Hex 60/1.2 - we can talk.
One 50mm f0.95 is en route to DAG right now.
PS: Looking for 85mm f1.8 and 100 f2 (Black versions).
Gid
Well-known
If someone posts some shots from any lens (regardless of the name on it), then, using your logic, you can only comment if you own and are an experienced user of that lens. I have to disagree.
Credibility has nothing to do with the equipment you own if you are commenting on the results from that equipment.
All of the shots posted in this thread so far are either soft or (and) have quite distracting OOF areas (in my opinion). If you or any other owners like that then that is just fine. However, I have read posts about other lenses where softness wide open or distracting OOF backgrounds have been used as excuses to castigate the lens (CV 40 1.4 is one example that I have never owned BTW). So, I'd be interested in understanding why some lenses seem to be held in such high regard when their performance, at least to my eyes, is pretty average at best - based upon examples posted.
Sonnar2
Well-known
gdi, bravo for your 3rd picture.
The 50/0.95 hasn't a great reputation just for the reason that it is a tool not so easy to use. Your picture clearly shows that you're capable to master it.
f/1 is f/1. DOF at f/1 is smaller than on f/1.4 at a given focal length. Simple physics, period. You need it, or you want it, or you simply don't. Personal taste.
cheers
The 50/0.95 hasn't a great reputation just for the reason that it is a tool not so easy to use. Your picture clearly shows that you're capable to master it.
f/1 is f/1. DOF at f/1 is smaller than on f/1.4 at a given focal length. Simple physics, period. You need it, or you want it, or you simply don't. Personal taste.
cheers
Last edited:
gdi
Mentor
From my perspective, all are welcome to comment.
I agree with you, the sharpness of this lens wide open is average. I don't think I would bother with it at all if it were a 1.4 or 1.5, there are too many other options. But is is 0.95. Have you seen Ned's Noctilux shots? When he posts his wonderful street shots, the last thing I consider is that the subject isn't tack sharp. The point is that he got the shot, and I, as a viewer, am able to experience a brief moment in his world.
As for OOF areas, there are many lenses that I really don't care for in certain situations. I still have several of them, one is a Nokton 1.5. But, it is situational, as I am sure you are aware. Do you really find the OOF areas in the first shot objectionable? In those really lowlight shots, it seems quite fine to me. I know the person shot is more questionable - the bubbly highlights are not to everyone's taste (maybe not my own, FWIW).
I recently I got a Hex 1.2 and it is, IMO, critically sharp at 1.2. I thought I might get down to one very fast lens with it. But the fact that I have to consider, and reconsider, whether the Canon's characteristics are good or bad is, in the end, an asset. The fact that it draws strong condemnation from the majority of photographers reinforces that, IMO.
"Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness. Picasso"
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Here's my favorite image shot with the .95 last January. If anything more was in focus other than a few of the branches at the bottom, it just would not work. I think many people buy these and other fast lenses used and shoot with them without getting them cleaned and calibrated. My experience with the .95 is that after both it and my 1,2 were cleaned and calibrated, the .95 is sharper at 1.4 than the 1..2 is. The bokeh from the .95 is smother as well. These may be just my samples, but one should not judge these lenses without getting them calibrated in my experience if one wants the optimum result. All the other factors regarding the thin zone of focus and technique won't make sharp images from a lens that is out of adjustment.
Attachments
Hacker
黑客
This is a fun lens for me. I don't even think that it is sharp at f8 compared to many more lenses we have today. And it is very heavy. However, the silly bokeh is just unique to me. For more serious photography, I would not consider this lens.
Without deliberately taking shots showing the bokeh, it can still be used normally wide open.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
I really love the vintage lens look. Sharp enough in the center, creamy soft on the edges. My favorite lens right now is the 50 1.5 ZM which is the ultimate for that type of image. Of course the Dual Range Summicron can do it up close. I shot some stuff yesterday with a 125 Hektor. It has the added effect of glowing highlights. I find all of this interesting. As I got older, I became more aware of how my eyes actually worked like these lenses. The brain's computer, keeps stitching together all the sharp centers as our eyes dart around so when we are young we get the impression that everything is sharp. As we age this process is not so quick and seamless. If you pay attention, you start to notice the sharp center and fuzzy edges more. These vintage lenses help you to capture what your eye actually sees without any of the brain's computing. I find that very interesting and I am much less interested in the clinically sharp rendering of the best modern lenses, unless I am dong documentation. One is not better than the other. It is a matter of taste and always will be. Some of my first .95 images on this post. The first wide open, the second at 1.4. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51003
Krosya
Konicaze
Well,
That depends. On what one says. If comments is made that whatever given lens (lets use Canon for example) is unsharp - it could really mean several things - that person's lens is unsharp. Or that person cant focus this particular lens correctly. or this person can't can't focus any lens of this type correctly - i.e super fast lens wide open.
So, if statemenet is made that, for example, Canon 50/1.2 is not a sharp lens - I say it's not true cause I have seen sharp photos from one. And I did get sharp photos from one (sorry never use a .95/50 Canon).
So all this is very much user related, sample related, etc. And i'm not even talking about lens's "artistic" character such as bokeh, drawing, etc. Sharpness is something specific and easy to check. So, when people use words such as "unusable" or "incapable" because it's not sharp - I tend to question their ability to use one or their sample.
So, if someone who can't get any sharp results from any lens of a particular type - ie superfast lenses, I question their credibility.
Now, if someone I know for a fact who knows how to use such lenses, based on their previous results, gets poor results from ONE PARTICULAR lens - I can say - it's safe to say that that particular lens is a poor performer.
And as far as photos in this thread go - I have seen worse performance (read - sharpness) from photos shot with Summicrons. So, it's all relative.
Stop it down a little bit and it could cut a razor.
(By the way, he's not a bum, he's a multi-millionaire with 4 houses)
(By the way, he's not a bum, he's a multi-millionaire with 4 houses)
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
M. Valdemar, the shots above are fantastic and, as you noted, sharp enough to shave with. The point about stopping down any decent lens to achieve this, is also a valid point. But really, none of that matters if you are happy with it. Everyone has an opinion. My favorite (normal) lens of all time (in daylight) is the Helios 103 (53mm f/1.8) that I have on my Kiev 4AM. And if I needed to, I could buy a replacement for $15. So what? I love it anyway.
My only wish? That it came in a LTM.
My only wish? That it came in a LTM.
Some people are just nuts and like to use this lens, such as myself.
Anyway, when these lenses were first marketed, the "fast" films weren't so fast, even if you pushed the film quite a bit, so f0.95 capability might have made the difference between getting a publishable shot or not. This could be very useful to a news photog.
Even if a little off-focus, or a LOT off focus, ANY shot is better than no shot.
Anyway, when these lenses were first marketed, the "fast" films weren't so fast, even if you pushed the film quite a bit, so f0.95 capability might have made the difference between getting a publishable shot or not. This could be very useful to a news photog.
Even if a little off-focus, or a LOT off focus, ANY shot is better than no shot.
Gid
Well-known
What I said was that none of the images posted were sharp / in focus, not that the lens (in general terms) is no good. I'm not trying to p*** on anyone's bonfire, just being honest. If you really need f 0.95 or 1.0 or 1.2 because the type of photography you do demands it then your options are going to be fairly limited and you'd better have very good eyes.
I can produce crap shots at f8 with a summicron, doesn't have to be wide open
The tiniest little incremental nudge while focussing the 0.95 can throw off the focus badly.
If you're a hair off in the rangefinder, or even normal sample variation in rangefinder adjustment does not exactly match the lens, you get bad results, ESPECIALLY up close.
Aging eyes also don't help.
A lot of people try this lens a few times, get back fuzzy prints from WalMart or crummy digital shots and spout "bad lens", when actually their technique is ruining the shots.
This lens is a temperamental beast, not for casual dillitantes.
If you're a hair off in the rangefinder, or even normal sample variation in rangefinder adjustment does not exactly match the lens, you get bad results, ESPECIALLY up close.
Aging eyes also don't help.
A lot of people try this lens a few times, get back fuzzy prints from WalMart or crummy digital shots and spout "bad lens", when actually their technique is ruining the shots.
This lens is a temperamental beast, not for casual dillitantes.
Ororaro
Well-known
Waldo,
Wasn't the f0.95 lens video lens? If so, how come you are talking about the lens being created for PJ use and getting a publishable shot? I don't get it.
Wasn't the f0.95 lens video lens? If so, how come you are talking about the lens being created for PJ use and getting a publishable shot? I don't get it.
Gid
Well-known
I did say either soft or distracting background - the first shot background is OK. The portrait of the old guy is just surreal. The shot of the guy with the cell phone I like, even if soft, (was this shot with an M8? - magenta jacket). I like Fred's shot of the guy with the umbrella - his expression. Hacker's first shot background is weird, but the second is fine. Valdemar's closed down shots I like a lot. However, a lot of these shots are in good light and could have been taken with just about any lens with sharper results (not that sharp is necessarily everyone's goal). I just feel that sometimes cult status overrides honest critique.