haempe
Well-known
Another vote for the canon 50/1.8, if you can find a nice and not too expensive (EUR 100-150) example.
I use mine with my zorki1 and the bessa r and I´m really satisfied with the results.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
It's completely pedictable!
My new C Sonnar by comparison has all sorts of issues to deal with ... focus shift, a slight tendency to flare, and not amazingly sharp at f1.5 ... I love it to bits because of these things as it makes me think!
Keith, I SUFFER from the same Illness....
predictability...bah... humbug !
Jan: as for a recommendation...How about the 50 1.5 Nokton
on occasion YOU find one in the Rff classifieds for 350 -390.00 / new $499.00
its FAST, lovely sharp, beautifully Smooth Falloff
though not that small but still EASILY portable for a whole day walk about
take a peek at my flickr w/ the Nokton 1.5 SET
otherwise how about the 50 1/5 Summarit ...another great lens in the 400-500 price range
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
Well, you could do worse than get a FED50/3.5 if money is an issue. Heck, it's not even a bad lens regardless of price.
I've got both a 50/2 M-Hexanon and a FED50/3.5, and I must say that the 50 year old collapsible Elmar-clone sits on my Bessa-T more often than the Hexanon. It may not have the same resolution in the corners as the Hexanon, it flares all over and the build is decidedly socialistic, but the images have character.. it's like being timewarped back into the fifties.
If you're looking for something more upmarket than a $10 lens, perhaps a real Elmar is a consideration..
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Helen,
I never really thought about the Nokton 1.5 - I always figured that it would be a bit too big, but what do I know...
The Summarit is one that I'm considering. I've been impressed with the images that I've seen from it. What is it that you like so much about it?
By the way, those are some awesome shots you have with the Nokton - the night ones I especially love!
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
A Heliar would be very nice to have, but it's out of my price range right now.
I forgot about the Hexanon. I've heard great things about it, and have seen lots of images taken with it. I thought that it was a lot of dough, though. I could have been thinking of the 35 Hex, though. Also, the Hexes don't have the problem with the white spots, do they?
I forgot about the Hexanon. I've heard great things about it, and have seen lots of images taken with it. I thought that it was a lot of dough, though. I could have been thinking of the 35 Hex, though. Also, the Hexes don't have the problem with the white spots, do they?
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I vote for the CV Nokton ... also, if you're patient (not a common occurance for me, I'm afraid) you can get a used Carl Zeiss 50mm F2 for $600 (I picked one up on the RFF classifieds not long ago for that price). A bit beyond of your budget, I know, but what a fantastic lens.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Never thought of an FSU on the Bessa. I have a Jupiter 12 on a Kiev, which I rarely use anymore, and I do like the lens for what it is. Might be worth trying out ( although I'd still want a "Western" or "Eastern"
lens... ).
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The Heliar 50f3.5 has a quality that other lenses lack. There is a "roundness" to the image, an almost 3D feeling. The Hexanon 50f2.4 and the Elmar 50f2.8 II are very good, sharp as tack, smooth rendition - but a bit bland as many of the newer lenses tend to be.
The Heliar formula is usually associated with "portrait" lenses (300f4.5 on huge 5x7 Graflex), but in the f3.5 guise, it has become a very interesting lens, sharp (according to Keppler of Pop Photo, one of the sharpest lenses he ever tested) but that is not the full story. Seems like the Heliar type rendition also gives this 3D effect, partly due to a distinct delineation of focus to out-of-focus area.
The 50f2 Heliar is more of a classic Heliar design, slightly soft at f2 and lower contrast up to f2.8. Great for portraits and "moody" landscapes - more of an early Summicron look. The f3.5 is more like a Red Scale Elmar when they are at their best (M-mount version) and with a unique character. I tend to use it at 3.5-4 mostly as that is when this is more distinct. Stopped down, it is just a damned sharp lens but not significantly different from any other modern lens.
haempe
Well-known
About Canon 1.8/50 Boke
About Canon 1.8/50 Boke
@Bingley:
I don´t think so, "smooth" or "creamy" I would describe the off-focus areas of a sonnar like the canon 1.5/50.
The 1.8/50 is a planar-type lens with a more swirly boke (for my eyes).
Maybe I´m wrong, because I´m not a native-english speaker- in this case: apology.
No doubt, it is a fine lens, but I like it for his sharpness and allround-ability, not for the boke (and hate it for it´s weight- I have the full-brass Version I).
Test-picture with 1.8/50 at 2 or 2.8:
About Canon 1.8/50 Boke
@Bingley:
I don´t think so, "smooth" or "creamy" I would describe the off-focus areas of a sonnar like the canon 1.5/50.
The 1.8/50 is a planar-type lens with a more swirly boke (for my eyes).
Maybe I´m wrong, because I´m not a native-english speaker- in this case: apology.
No doubt, it is a fine lens, but I like it for his sharpness and allround-ability, not for the boke (and hate it for it´s weight
- I have the full-brass Version I).Test-picture with 1.8/50 at 2 or 2.8:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
If you get a reasonably modern 50mm lens, irrespective of its manufacturer, it is most likely going to be good. The 50mm focal length was something just about everybody made - and knew how to.
If you are looking for fast to super fast lenses - it is another case. These were and still are the "holy grail" for a glass maker - and with all the problems that can occur when you are pushing the optical envelope, there are far more variations among these lenses.
If you are looking for fast to super fast lenses - it is another case. These were and still are the "holy grail" for a glass maker - and with all the problems that can occur when you are pushing the optical envelope, there are far more variations among these lenses.
thomasw_
Well-known
I would be very hesitant to shoot a fast 50mm on a r4*. That said, within your budget, the canon 50/1,4 is a very useful, uncomplicated lens to shoot. But I wouldn't recommend shooting a 50mm at f2,8 and faster on a r4*; there are challenges in focusing with its smaller base length. I would recommend a slower 50mm, such as the older, extremely well-built Elmars, which are available in user condition for well under $500.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Jan,
As I understand your post, you want a 50 to have with you when you carry your R4M, which is usually shot with wides...
When I was making that identical decision, I went for the 40 1.4 to be used on my R4M, and I feel I did the right thing: I got a normal lens to have at hand when I am shooting with other (wider) lenses... It was the right thing because the lens is fast, small and sharp, even wide open, and because I get perfect focus with it at 1.4 on my R4M... I wouldn't carry any big 50 for my R4M: only a small as possible normal in case I want a narrower angle of view.
The way I see things, another option is having two 50s... A small one (anyway) to carry with my R4M and wides (like the 50 3.5 Heliar) and another fast 50 for other body (maybe I'd choose a Sonnar in that case...)
You should ask yourself if you prefer two 50's for different situations or cameras, or if you prefer to get along just with one... You might have one or more already... If you plan to have only one, then speed is important... At least one fast normal is necessary...
Cheers,
Juan
As I understand your post, you want a 50 to have with you when you carry your R4M, which is usually shot with wides...
When I was making that identical decision, I went for the 40 1.4 to be used on my R4M, and I feel I did the right thing: I got a normal lens to have at hand when I am shooting with other (wider) lenses... It was the right thing because the lens is fast, small and sharp, even wide open, and because I get perfect focus with it at 1.4 on my R4M... I wouldn't carry any big 50 for my R4M: only a small as possible normal in case I want a narrower angle of view.
The way I see things, another option is having two 50s... A small one (anyway) to carry with my R4M and wides (like the 50 3.5 Heliar) and another fast 50 for other body (maybe I'd choose a Sonnar in that case...)
You should ask yourself if you prefer two 50's for different situations or cameras, or if you prefer to get along just with one... You might have one or more already... If you plan to have only one, then speed is important... At least one fast normal is necessary...
Cheers,
Juan
Bingley
Veteran
"I don´t think so, "smooth" or "creamy" I would describe the off-focus areas of a sonnar like the canon 1.5/50.
The 1.8/50 is a planar-type lens with a more swirly boke (for my eyes)."
@ haempe:
I have never encountered "swirly boke" w/ my Canon 50/1.8 (I have the first version chrome and black). However, I don't doubt there could be sample variation... YMMV.
No swirls here:
The 1.8/50 is a planar-type lens with a more swirly boke (for my eyes)."
@ haempe:
I have never encountered "swirly boke" w/ my Canon 50/1.8 (I have the first version chrome and black). However, I don't doubt there could be sample variation... YMMV.
No swirls here:
haempe
Well-known
Hmm, interesting. Possibly a question of the coating?
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Thanks for all the help, people. I've got a lot to think about. If I could afford it, I'd probably get a Heliar and an older-style lens, but such is life. I may just see what comes up for sale and just try one out, as there are several that I'm interested in.
And Juan, the 40mm CV always intrigued me, but it's too close to a 35mm for me to want to carry both.
And Juan, the 40mm CV always intrigued me, but it's too close to a 35mm for me to want to carry both.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
If you already have a small 35 1.4 or faster, the 40 doesn't make sense. In that case, as the 35 you have is a fast normal, without any doubt I'd go for the 50 3.5 Heliar for its unsurpassed image quality.
Cheers,
Juan
Bingley
Veteran
The OP asked about the Canon 50/1.5 and the Summitar, too. These are beautifully made older lenses, each w/ its own unique character. The Canon 50/1.5 is a sonnar design, and quite heavy for such a small lens. I think it's a lovely lens, and does nice things w/ color film as well as bw. It's much sought after, and not that easy to find these days. And note the comments above about focusing a fast lens on an R4M. The Summitar is a collapsible lens made by Leica between 1940 and the early 1950s (the later versions are coated), and is a precursor to the Summicron. If you're interested in a lower contrast lens that will give you creamy whites, this may be worth looking for. It's soft wide open, but sharpens up nicely around f.4. Check out the "Summitar the Star" thread over on the LTM forum for examples of shots w/ this lens. Note, however, that many older Leica lenses (incuding the Summitar) may suffer from haze, so you should shop carefully and budget a CLA. A Summitar in good condition can be had for around $200 USD these days. A good alternative among older lenses to the Summitar is the Leica Elmar 50 in either the 3.5 or 2.8 versions, which are lower contrast lenses but quite sharp and very good w/ bw. Again, good copies can be found well w/in your budget, and would work well on an R4M.
You also asked about the Summaron, but that is a 35 lens.
I agree w/ Juan, that if you've already got a 35, it doesn't make a lot of sense to get a 40 instead of a 50.
You also asked about the Summaron, but that is a 35 lens.
I agree w/ Juan, that if you've already got a 35, it doesn't make a lot of sense to get a 40 instead of a 50.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Well, it looks like I just bought a Canon 1.8/50mm. I'll be anxious to see how it shoots.
triplefinger
Well-known
nikkor 50/1.4 in LTM - it's a gem
ZeissFan
Veteran
A collapsible LTM Summitar with a LTM => M adapter would work very nicely. Great lens.