Canon 50mm f1.8 LTM vs Nikkor 50mm f2.0 H.C. LTM

[g_alex]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I was wondering whether anyone had been able to compare, besides the minimum distance, these two lenses, in terms of:

- color rendering wide open and at f4.0-5.6

- B&W rendering wide open and at f4.0-5.6

- performance wide open and at f4.0-5.6

on both full frame digital and film?

They are both of similar eras, and mainly competing against Leica at the time, but I can hardly find anything putting these two lenses side-by-side.

Many thanks in advance!

[TomB_tx]

I've used both on film, and they are nice lenses. I haven't tried to define why, but I prefer the Canon f1.8, perhaps because mine is in better condition, or because I use the canon on Canon IVSB ltm bodies, and the Nikkors on other ltm clones. Back when I was collecting clones the Canon tended to be less expensive.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ecar]

I have/had both. Still have the Nikkor in several versions, and had several copies of the Canon in both v1 (the heavy chrome one) and v2 (the lighter black and silver one) before settling for a good v1.

Never ran side-by-side comparisons on these lenses - and don't intend to. Both are very, very good lenses that punch well above their price tag. However, they do render very differently: the Nikkor is a sonnar design (with surprisingly little focus shift, just like its f/1.4 and f/1.5 siblings), while the Canon is a double gauss. You could say the Canon is more "modern" and less "glowy", actually closer to the Leitz products (Summitar / Summicron) of the era in terms of rendering than the Nikkor. The Nikkor colours are warmer than Canon's in my experience, but I prefer both of them in B&W anyway. If I had to pick one, I'd go with the Nikkor, just because I love Sonnars.

A word of caution: if you are considering getting the Canon, avoid the later v2, no matter what the seller says: the rear optical block is prone to recurring haze, likely due to the interaction between the glass/coatings and the focus helicoid grease. I went through multiple copies, discussed the issue with knowledgeable technicians and could expand on this for a while, but just take my word for it and do yourself a favour by steering clear of these.

If you are considering the Nikkor and can stretch the budget, take a look at the 50/1.4. A true milestone IMO. 

I didn't answer to the original question, but I hope it helps nonetheless...

[spydrxx]

I have the Canon 50/1.9 rather than the 1.8, and also have the Nikkor 50/2 HC. I enjoy using both lenses on film and digital, which are different in design and rendering. I mostly use them for B&W photography and my comments apply to that only. I've found the Nikkor, wide open, to be very slightly sharper than the Canon, and noticeably more contrasty...ie deeper blacks and whiter whites. By f/4-5.6 they pretty much even out both in sharpness and contrast. Both good lenses with a more classic rendering than modern optics. The key to good performance on both of these lenses is to have clean copies...no haze, fungus, separation of elements, and few, if any, cleaning marks on either the front or rear elements. The other things to look for, I've found out by trial and error, are ease and smoothness of focusing. Since I periodically shoot them at long distances, I've removed the infinity lock buttons. The one other point about the Nikkor, is if you are using it on a m4/3 or mirrorless body (not Leica M rangefinder), which is a big plus is that it has close focusing capabilities down to 1.5 ft. Whichever you choose, I'm sure you'll enjoy using.

[g_alex]

Many thanks for your answers Ecar, Spidrxx and TomB_tx.  These are very good insights. 

The reason I was asking was because I already have the two lenses (later Canon model, not the earlier referred to as better by Ecar above), but almost never found time to use the Canon which came with a Canon P that I coupled with a 35mm. 

The rare occasions I used the Canon 50mm f1.8, I couldn't really see anything that was significantly different from the Nikkor f2 H.C, but I attributed this mostly to not shooting it enough and maybe my shooting "style" or interest not pushing the lenses to their strengths and therefore differences. 

The reviews of the Canon 50mm f1.8 are usually very positive when put on digital, but again, it was mostly in absolute terms and not in comparable terms to the Nikkor.  

The slighly bigger aperture of the Canon is not that much of a differentiator, while the minimum distance of the Nikkor is a huge plus on digital cameras like Sony and Fuji where piping is through the lens.

Interestingly, in reference to Spydrxx's comment, I had the impression that the Nikkor 50mm f2 H.C is slighly less contrasty than the Canon 50mm f1.8 wide open, but this could be either because of the f1.8 and not f1.9 aperture or just an impression, as I had initially compared the Nikkor to the Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 ltm v1 which I shoot often when looking for a modern look, or plenty of sharpness at f2 - f2.8.  Your comment actually makes me want to shoot more with the Nikkor.

Thank you very much for the advice on the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 Ecar!   I was actually initially considering trying to get the canon equivalent, but you definitely shifted my focus onto the Nikkor.

TomB_XX - I actually agree with you on the use of the Canon.  Although both my lenses, I find it more pleasant to use the Canon, as the Nikkor is a little stiffer, and with the revered aperture ring, is less ergonomic.  This is exactly why I wanted to have some help to distinguish the two lenses.

Next steps on my side:
- sell the Canon 50mm f1.8 I have
- look for the Nikkor 50mm f1.4, AND
- look for the brass version of the Canon f1.8.

Thank you! and happy to have more insights.

Edited July 14, 2022 by g_alex
missing line

[Ecar]

6 hours ago, g_alex said:

Thank you very much for the advice on the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 Ecar!   I was actually initially considering trying to get the canon equivalent, but you definitely shifted my focus onto the Nikkor.

The Canon 50/1.4 LTM is an excellent choice too. Taking a shortcut, you could say that any rendering differences between the 50/2 Canon and Nikkor get magnified on the respective 50/1.4 lenses. The Canon 50/1.4 is solid, reliable and predictable (no small feat for a fast lens at the time) - arguably even more so than the contemporary Summiluxes - while the Nikkor's rendering can be all over the place wide open and in the "wrong" light. However, the Nikkor is sometimes able to deliver the "Sonnar magic", for lack of a better word. Check out this thread for examples - or Flickr for a larger selection. Fortunately, both lenses were produced in relatively large numbers, so that many have survived - and prices are still acceptable unless you are looking for special versions of the Nikkor.

On the topic of recurring haze, the Canon 50/1.4 seems to be immune from it. Not so for the 50/1.2 (should you be looking for one at some point 😉), but compared to the black 50/1.8, which will inevitably haze, anecdotal evidence would perhaps suggest that the v1 version (before serial 36000) suffers less from this issue than v2. Also, opening up the rear of a 50/1.2 for cleaning the offending element is much easier than on the 50/1.8, as long as you have a proper spanner. There are ways to get rid of the haze permanently, but the solutions are nearly as expensive as the lens itself.

Oh, and a final piece of advice: if you haven't already, get your lenses CLA'd by a competent technician. This is the only way to enjoy vintage lenses and get good results from them. Neither the Canon nor the Nikkor should feel stiff or jittery or loose. And they are not too difficult to calibrate (especially the Canons) for accurate rangefinder use at all distances.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agree that the Canon 50 f1.4 is a good option also, if rather large for an ltm Leica (finder intrusion). There were two versions of this lens also, and the v2 is the only one I have.