Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Canon nFD 50/1,4 or Planar 50/1,4 (which version is better)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:22 pm    Post subject: Canon nFD 50/1,4 or Planar 50/1,4 (which version is better) Reply with quote
I wanto to get better gear and have a Canon nFD 50/1,4 lens

It's good to me.

But I want to know if the Planar c/y mount 50/1,4 is better

And the newer Z series is better than the C/Y mount?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon should be sharper than the Zeiss at F1.4?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon I had couldn't come close to the Planar in many regards, I don't have the Canon anymore so can't compare directly, but the fact I sold it and kept the Planar says it all really.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 50/1,4 or Planar 50/1,4 (which version is bett Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
I wanto to get better gear and have a Canon nFD 50/1,4 lens

It's good to me.

But I want to know if the Planar c/y mount 50/1,4 is better

And the newer Z series is better than the C/Y mount?


Got a Planar rollei mount 50 1.4,and a canon 1.4 on the way hopefully by the end of the week,i'll post results.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 50/1,4 or Planar 50/1,4 (which version is bett Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
I wanto to get better gear and have a Canon nFD 50/1,4 lens

It's good to me.

But I want to know if the Planar c/y mount 50/1,4 is better

And the newer Z series is better than the C/Y mount?
Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 wide open.
#1


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not going to fault the FD/FL Canon 50/1.4 lenses as they are optically very good. For me, the C/Y Planar is simply special, there are sharper lenses wide open, there are lenses with more aperture blades and a better MFD, but the C/Y Planar just feels like the perfect lens to me. Great build quality and excellent handling make it the best 1.4 SLR lens out there for me. I've yet to try a Summilux R, but I suspect it will be excellent, but if the Summicron R that I had is anything to go by, the Zeiss will still feel better to me.

Optically, there is very little to choose from between the best 50/1.4 lenses, so I prefer the one that I feel most comfortable with and enjoy the most, and that will be a different lens for different people.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
itsfozzy wrote:

...
Optically, there is very little to choose from between the best 50/1.4 lenses, so I prefer the one that I feel most comfortable with and enjoy the most, and that will be a different lens for different people.


That's quite a reasonable statement. Some manufacturers tend to use more expensive (ie higher nD, lower dispersion) glass to increase performance or to reduce size & weight; others use thicker lenses to reduce aberrations such as astigmatism. Finally, the differences in performance are not that big, at least until you stay with 24MP FF.

I really appreciate the Minolta MC-X 1.2/58mm (handling and optical performance), the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L (optical performance) and a few "ordinary" normal lenses such as the Canon nFD 1.4/50mm, the Minolta MC-X (handling) and MD-III 1.4/50mm, the Minolta MD-III 2/50mm (free from distortion), the Topcor RE 1.8/58mm and the Zeiss CY Planar 1.4/50mm (overall "feeling"). Of course modern constructions such as the Sony Zeiss Planar 1.8/55mm or the Otus 1.4/5mm are even better, but that's another story.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First of all, there two versions of Planar - AE and MM. They are optically identical but have different aperture design - on AE the aperture blades produce a notch or star, whatever its called, at f/2 and f/2.8, on MM they don't. For that reason MM version is considered more desirable by some users. Classic lenses, as Zeiss calls them, - ZE/ZF/ZF2, all retired now, are believed to be optically identical to MM, but are chipped and have automatic aperture - a great advantage if used on native mounts. C/Y is, of course, adaptable to Canon EF which FD isn't.

Personally, when I look at my albums shot with AE 50/1.4 and nFD 50/1.4, I can't fault either lens. Both are sharp, produce beautiful colors and flare and CA appear to be well-controlled. However, I tend to be a real-life shooter, so I don't have a ton of shots that would really challenge each lens. Also, I use them on different bodies which makes direct comparisons hard. Bottom line, I am pretty happy with both of them.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 50/1,4 or Planar 50/1,4 (which version is bett Reply with quote
GrahamR wrote:
Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 wide open. #1


Stunningly beautiful bokeh, but the sharpness is unremarkable.

Here's a Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC on a Canon XS (10.1mp) with a glassless FD to EOS adapter, hence close focus only, but still . . . . All shots are wide open at f/1.4.





Stevemark mentions a couple of f/1.2s in passing, and I believe that aperture could also be a consideration. I have both a Canon FL and Canon FD SSC in f/1.2. I'm positive that they're the same lens formula, although the coatings are different. These two lenses are also very sharp wide open.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all.

For your time and your posts.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
.....I really appreciate the Minolta MC-X 1.2/58mm (handling and optical performance), the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L (optical performance) and a few "ordinary" normal lenses such as the Canon nFD 1.4/50mm, the Minolta MC-X (handling) and MD-III 1.4/50mm, the Minolta MD-III 2/50mm (free from distortion), the Topcor RE 1.8/58mm and the Zeiss CY Planar 1.4/50mm (overall "feeling"). Of course modern constructions such as the Sony Zeiss Planar 1.8/55mm or the Otus 1.4/5mm are even better, but that's another story.

Stephan



I had the MC Rokkor 1,2/58 and the MC PF 2/100.


Both very good lenses to me.


Except one thing.


Not very good coated. Strong CA lateral.


With Multi coated, borh lenses should be excellent


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
And other factor is the price 50mm 1.4 Canon FD is circa 50 euros,

Planar 50mm 1.4 it is far more expansive

But when I look at GrahamR photo, at 1.4, planar is beautiful !


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For anyone curious, this is what my Planar looks like with expired slide film and a Contax RX.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:

I had the MC Rokkor 1,2/58 and the MC PF 2/100.

Both very good lenses to me. Except one thing. Not very good coated. Strong CA lateral.


With Multi coated, borh lenses should be excellent


Minolta lenses were the first Japanese lenses to be multicoated. In fact, all the Minolta SLR lenses were multicoated right from the beginning (1958) if it made sense: Multicoating is effective only on high refractive glass.

Coating and lateral CAs are not related; better coating would not influence lateral CAs.

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's a comparison of the resolution. The Planar 1.4/50mm - an older design from around 1970 (patented in mid-72) is outperformed by the newer nFD 1.4/50mm.

Click on the image for full resolution of the crops!



PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Here's a comparison of the resolution. The Planar 1.4/50mm - an older design from around 1970 (patented in mid-72) is outperformed by the newer nFD 1.4/50mm.

Click on the image for full resolution of the crops!



Nice edge sharpness test. I'm sensing some sample variation there, especially with the ML 50, which I found to out resolve my Planar (despite it probably being optically identical).


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Here's a comparison of the resolution. The Planar 1.4/50mm - an older design from around 1970 (patented in mid-72) is outperformed by the newer nFD 1.4/50mm.

Click on the image for full resolution of the crops!

Thank you for the test!

This test confirms the Canon nFD being really amazing. Given its price it gets truly insane. The only downside is its a bit plastic feel. Olympus OM also shows how strong performer it is. Regarding the Yashica ML it really seems weird - I wouldn't expect this bad coma(?) at f/4.0. Interesting samples are the Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2s - the early thoriated version sample seems to be better than the newer one.

The corner test clearly separates the 60s designs but still, I won't stop loving SMC Takumar 50/1.4 or RE. Topcor 58/1.4.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
itsfozzy wrote:
For anyone curious, this is what my Planar looks like with expired slide film and a Contax RX.


Like Dog

Top frame,that's some alchemic combination you used Laugh 1 Laugh 1 Laugh 1 Laugh 1


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 50/1,4 or Planar 50/1,4 (which version is bett Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
GrahamR wrote:
Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 wide open. #1


Stunningly beautiful bokeh, but the sharpness is unremarkable.

Here's a Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC on a Canon XS (10.1mp) with a glassless FD to EOS adapter, hence close focus only, but still . . . . All shots are wide open at f/1.4.





Stevemark mentions a couple of f/1.2s in passing, and I believe that aperture could also be a consideration. I have both a Canon FL and Canon FD SSC in f/1.2. I'm positive that they're the same lens formula, although the coatings are different. These two lenses are also very sharp wide open.



Happy Dog

Magical frames..there's something about the glow that i like about these legacy lens,I hope my Canon FL 50mm 1.4 ll that's arriving soon renders similarly. Like 1 small


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Canon nFD 50/1,4 or Planar 50/1,4 (which version is bett Reply with quote
GrahamR wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
GrahamR wrote:
Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 wide open. #1


Stunningly beautiful bokeh, but the sharpness is unremarkable.

Here's a Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC on a Canon XS (10.1mp) with a glassless FD to EOS adapter, hence close focus only, but still . . . . All shots are wide open at f/1.4.





Stevemark mentions a couple of f/1.2s in passing, and I believe that aperture could also be a consideration. I have both a Canon FL and Canon FD SSC in f/1.2. I'm positive that they're the same lens formula, although the coatings are different. These two lenses are also very sharp wide open.



Happy Dog



Magical frames..there's something about the glow that i like about these legacy lens,I hope my Canon FL 50mm 1.4 ll that's arriving soon renders similarly. Like 1 small


Thanks for the earlier comment!

My friend Karl Havens uses the FL 50/1.4 and he loves it on his A7 II.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
itsfozzy wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Here's a comparison of the resolution. The Planar 1.4/50mm - an older design from around 1970 (patented in mid-72) is outperformed by the newer nFD 1.4/50mm.

Click on the image for full resolution of the crops!



Nice edge sharpness test. I'm sensing some sample variation there, especially with the ML 50, which I found to out resolve my Planar (despite it probably being optically identical).



    Friends

    Agreed on sample variation at work here,i'll have to conduct a similar test with my 1.4's ,i pretty much had a shootout done today between three 85mm's...a Canon 1.2, Samyang 1.4 ,and Opteka 1.8.

    There definitely was something about the Canon rendering which looked more pleasing to me and it was pretty sharp at 1.3,but i'm not sure yet if it was 10 times the price better.

    But then i haven't properly checked the images on my computer yet.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:

I had the MC Rokkor 1,2/58 and the MC PF 2/100.

Both very good lenses to me. Except one thing. Not very good coated. Strong CA lateral.


With Multi coated, borh lenses should be excellent


Minolta lenses were the first Japanese lenses to be multicoated. In fact, all the Minolta SLR lenses were multicoated right from the beginning (1958) if it made sense: Multicoating is effective only on high refractive glass.

Coating and lateral CAs are not related; better coating would not influence lateral CAs.

Stephan


Yes you are right

Coating and CA are different things.

I did not express my idea correctly.

there are two different cons, one: not good coated to avoid glow, two: strong lateral CA from F/1,2 to F/ 5,6

With a newer coated (like the MD lenses) they were an excellent lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1