NOT just Another 50mm thread

I have just realised that the 50mm is the most difficult lens to buy. I have had the 50 1.8 II, ef 50 1.4, sigmalux, and a 50mm zs with adapter.

Im now shopping again. Looking at summicron, summilux, zeiss (again), then we have the wild cards:

Rokkor

Zuiko

ai-s 1.2 Nikon

super takumar

please let me know what you are using and why....

Mine is going to be mostly used for portrait or narrow landscape - detail before speed. However a shallow dof is never bad.

for ex I was looking at the ai-s 1.4 but everybody tells me its the same iq as the 1.2 - then the 1.2 is better because you can shoot at 1.2... No?

so then obviously im thinking the takumar, zuiko and the rokkor are about the same quality as the nikon/canon - does that only leave the zeiss and leica? But are they MUCH better??

and is the ze alot better than the 1.7 for ex.


it aint easy, anyone who wants to chip in please do

I answered that to some degree here....
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=815106

Look at my gear list for 50mm or so lenses. You haven't even begun to touch on all the possibilities. Primoplan, Pentacon, Tessar, Biotar, Westagon, Kinoptik, Agenieux, Leica, Cooke, Nikon, Yashica, etc.

But how many of them are worth using

In another way... how many of them would you trust THE shot to.. I'm sure some are crap, some are very good, and some are the cream of the crop.

The Rokkor 50 (which will require a mount conversion) is very good. Bokeh is rough in some situations and wonderful in others. The lens is quite sharp, even at f/1.4. Nice drawing style. I sold my Canon mount version, but I use an unmodified one with adapter on my E-P1 (and my Minolta film body). Great lens. The Super Takumar is nice, but the S-M-C Takumar is even better, and is probably the best bang for the buck all around. Quite sharp, very nice bokeh and wonderful color. Great lens. Also has the nicest build of any legacy lens that I've used (one in great condition will have just a smooth as butter focus ring...it's wonderful). Zeiss 50/1.7 is insanely sharp. As in, only my 100L is as sharp. Unbelievable contrast with that lens too. Only downside is relatively nervous bokeh. The ZE 50/1.4 has nicer bokeh, but isn't as sharp as the Contax 50/1.7.

I second the Biotar 2/58. Its a very special lens. I've taken mine out for shooting outings as my ONLY lens, and I very seldom do that with ANY lens - its VERY VERY VERY sharp, and has a pretty short MFD, and of course that famous Biotar swirly bokeh.

I don't know about the Super Takumar 55/1.2, but I own a SMC Pentax 1:1.2 50mm. Its not the sharpest 1.2 out there, but it is reasonably sharp. What I like best about it is its compactness. Its a tiny little thing. It renders faithfully, but it doesn't have the colors of the Biotar, or the sharpness of the Rokkor 58/1.2 that made me buy one of those. It will be interesting to see a side-by-side test of bokeh from the SMC Pentax 50/1.2 vs Minolta Rokkor-PG 58/1.2 - obviously the difference in FL will play in it, but overall rendering comparison will still be interesting.

I have a Rokkor-PG 58/1.2 I have to convert when I get a free afternoon. But from everything I've seen its likely the last 1.2 I'll ever need. The samples I've seen from this lens put the others to shame.

As for the Summilux and Zeiss, they are both amazing and both 1.4's. If you want a Zeiss 50/1.2 you can go on the hunt for a Contax Zeiss Planar 1,2/50... but they fetch about $3500 on ebay.

The Nikkor is supposed to be kinda boring in its rendition.

The Nikon 58/1.4 is like a Biotar.

Bohdank - the ones I keep are definitely worth using. Each has it's own special character.

I had the 58/1.4 Nikkor for years...was great with Tri-X @ ASA 2000 in my Nikon F, but I prefer the 50/1.4 AIS on the Canon DSLR....

nureality wrote in post #9462826
I second the Biotar 2/58. Its a very special lens. I've taken mine out for shooting outings as my ONLY lens, and I very seldom do that with ANY lens - its VERY VERY VERY sharp, and has a pretty short MFD, and of course that famous Biotar swirly bokeh.

since you own both, does the Helios 44-2 really compare to the Biotar? I think gasrocks has both in his gear list too.

laydros wrote in post #9463745
since you own both, does the Helios 44-2 really compare to the Biotar? I think gasrocks has both in his gear list too.

They are similar... but the Biotar definitely wins. The Biotar produces a sharpness that I haven't seen from the Helios.

I would do a side-by-side test for ya, but the Biotar is in Miami, and I'm in NYC (the Helios is here tho). I can do a side-by-side of the Helios 44-2 vs 40-2 tho... both are here with me.

gasrocks wrote in post #9462993
The Nikon 58/1.4 is like a Biotar.

Bohdank - the ones I keep are definitely worth using. Each has it's own special character.

Ya, I didn't phrase that the way I wanted or rather should have added... some are generally just "better" than others, quirkiness aside. One could argue a Lensbaby is worth keeping but you would not recommend it as one's only lens.

I second Jman's opinion on the CZ 50/1.7....it is insanely sharp but does have an interesting was of rendering OOF areas, contrasty and saturated. The bokeh is fine in the images I have taken so far, albeit I have hardly used it. One fault that I have noticed is CA wide open at very high contrast transitions but that is "repairable".

This has only had WB set. Shot RAW, Faithfull with sharpening turned off to 0 in DPP. f1.7

Ugh... JPG compression has really killed this.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

hehehe i knew it would come to this.... still not much wiser.... Ill probably try out the 1.7 if i find a cheap copy.

zincozinco wrote in post #9465866
hehehe i knew it would come to this.... still not much wiser.... Ill probably try out the 1.7 if i find a cheap copy.

Did you like the Zeiss much better than the Canons?

I'm no expert on this like some others may be. I've used 50/1.8 from Canon, both FD and EOS, 50/1.7 in Minolta AF, and 50/2 in Pentax M. To be real honest, they are the same lens except the slightly better color on the Minolta.

If I understand correctly, most 50s for years have had the same optical design, based on the Zeiss planar. Zeiss still has copyright on the name, but the patent expired long ago. Big differences are going to be in coatings, build, AF, and bokeh. Most are pretty darn sharp.

I stayed up way too late two nights ago looking at this stuff, and to summerize it looked like the Zeiss or Leica will be the sharpest, and a little better in terms if contrast. You buy a 1.2 if you want 1.2, not if you want the sharpest lens (although most are very sharp stepped down). But in reality we are talking about the Canon or Nikon modern 50 1.4 or old 50 1.4 being a 9 if the Zeiss is a 10.

Don't forget you can drop a tidy sum on a Nikon Noct f/1.2. I have a 1.7, the Summicron and Biotar interest me.

my preference for the zeiss is that they are designed for MF, the sigma and the canons i had were not very nice when focusing manual. i really regret selling my planar to get the sigma....

i really dont use the 50 so much, thats one of the reasons i want the luxury of MF. like stated above the reson for a 1.2 is the ability too shoot at 1.2. however i mainly go around 2.0. - 4.5. but im guessing a 1.2 is sharper at 2.0 than for ex a 1.7 at 2.0.

this is the quest...