35 or 50mm fast lens with reasonable price

Jupiter 50mm 1.5: Get one from someone that has used it on a Leica. A really good one is as good as a Canon 50/1.5, Nikkor 50/1.4, and Zeiss 50/1.5. Bad ones are muddy. My best luck is with the 1950s J-3's. Worst luck is with the 1980's lenses.

Nokton 50mm 1.5: Mine is from the 1950s, and you probably meant the modern one. The modern one is sharp and contrasty. The 1950s one is great. Slightly Swirly bokeh wide-open.

Canon 50mm 1.2: I like mine. Low contrast, very interesting Bokeh, sharp enough wide-open. Watch out for damage to the rear element. Canon used a lubricant that tended to run. It can range from haze to etching the glass.

Summarit 50mm 1.5: Buy one that has been recently cleaned, or budget for a cleaning. Soft wide-open, sharp at F4. Swirly Bokeh.

Nikkor 5cm F1.4: sharper wide-open, harsh Bokeh.

Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f1.5 in LTM: uncommon, sharp, will run probably over $500 for a clean one.

Canon 50/1.5: faithful Sonnar formula lens in LTM, closer in rendition to the Zeiss lens. Getting Pricey! Same issue as other Canon lenses: watch for damage to rear element.

Canon 50/1.4: Planar formula lens, higher contrast, sharper than the 50/1.5. Bigger than the Sonnar lenses, uses a 48mm filter. Again: watch the rear element.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Jupiter 50mm 1.5: Get one from someone that has used it on a Leica. A really good one is as good as a Canon 50/1.5, Nikkor 50/1.4, and Zeiss 50/1.5. Bad ones are muddy. My best luck is with the 1950s J-3's. Worst luck is with the 1980's lenses.

Nokton 50mm 1.5: Mine is from the 1950s, and you probably meant the modern one. The modern one is sharp and contrasty. The 1950s one is great. Slightly Swirly bokeh wide-open.

Canon 50mm 1.2: I like mine. Low contrast, very interesting Bokeh, sharp enough wide-open. Watch out for damage to the rear element. Canon used a lubricant that tended to run. It can range from haze to etching the glass.

Summarit 50mm 1.5: Buy one that has been recently cleaned, or budget for a cleaning. Soft wide-open, sharp at F4. Swirly Bokeh.

Nikkor 5cm F1.4: sharper wide-open, harsh Bokeh.

Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f1.5 in LTM: uncommon, sharp, will run probably over $500 for a clean one.

Canon 50/1.5: faithful Sonnar formula lens in LTM, closer in rendition to the Zeiss lens. Getting Pricey! Same issue as other Canon lenses: watch for damage to rear element.

Canon 50/1.4: Planar formula lens, higher contrast, sharper than the 50/1.5. Bigger than the Sonnar lenses, uses a 48mm filter. Again: watch the rear element.
Click to expand...

wow that is really precious amount of information Brian...I really thank you...

why doesnt anyone summ all those into tables and make a comparison table for the lenses, I know it is really huge amount of info and maybe subjective but...
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
thanks, you really defiened my situation very well...I think it is absolutely nice idea to start with jupiter and see, as it is rather cheap I can then decide for another one even keeping J-3...

Canon 50/1.4 would be in my list now too :) and nikkor,
Click to expand...

Glad to help, although I also think Brian Sweeney sums things up very well.

The Canon 50/1.4 is reputedly similar in its rendering to the modern Nokton 50/1.5. It's very sharp and well made, and prices on good samples have dropped recently into the $250 range, so it's also affordable. OTOH, if you're looking for a lens that will give you a softer look wide open, I'd recommend one of the sonnar clones. As Brian points out, a good clean J-3 competes very well in this crowd, and will be quite different from your 'cron. Check out the M-Mount group on flickr to see examples of many of the lenses on your list.
 
The Nikkor 50/1.4 is interesting because wide open it has a completely different look than it does a stop or a half a stop closed down. It has a funky flarey halo thing going on and also a hazy dreamy look. Stopped down a little bit it's very sharp.
 
I can only speak for the one I have - the Summarit. It's fast, soft contrast (but good detail), and has a distinct personality.
 
To me, the OP is talking about a sonnar lens. There are other substitutes for it, but given the 300 to 500 dollar budget, there is no need. I would recommend checking the M-mount group on flickr for image samples of the various sonnar clones. I am saving my loonies for one these days, too.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Some test photo's with a Summarit 5cm F1.5 here:

http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=113

This lens had haze on each surface adjacent to the aperture, cleaned up nicely. Cleaning marks on the front element. This was a ~$200 Fast Leica lens.

And a collection of J-3 photo's, from 1953 to 1986 lenses.

http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=97
Click to expand...
yeah, the differences btw 50s and other years for j-3 can be seen very clearly...1950s looks much better without muddy colors at wide open...

to my taste, summarit gives really nice effect I am looking for at wide open...it appears little muddy though, is it normal?

but it looks amazing at 4! then it is not fast if I dont use it at 1.5 :))

When I think twice, as I mostly shoot BW, being muddy really doesnt matter...
 
Last edited:
The Summarit is lower contrast and is wonderful with black and white.

These are some older pictures, with my CLA'd Summarit wide-open on the M3.

picture.php


picture.php


This lens, with the CLA, was under $250.

The lower-contrast lens preserves shadow-detail in harsh lighting situations.

Well... I'm sure this all makes decision making easier... One rationalization for having so many lenses...
 
Last edited:
This is the rear module from a Canon 50/2.8. The surface behind the aperture was badly etched and could not be cleaned up. Some serious polishing would be required to save it, and that would probably change the focal length of the element.

picture.php


For some reason, this occurs more often to Canon lenses than others. I bought a 5cm f2 collapsible Nikkor for "Very Cheap" as the surface behind the aperture was opaque. Oil had deposited on it. Cleaned right off, the coating underneath was perfect. I've cleaned 1950's Leica lenses, many Jupiters, and others. Some get etched by fungus, and that will damage coatings and glass. But the Canon lenses seem affected by Oil in a much worse way.

So: when getting a Canon RF lens, get a good look at the inner elements. Either get it cheap and take a risk, or be able to return it if the damage is permanent. About the only way to know if the oil will leave a clean surface is to take it apart and try to clean it. And yes, that means that clean ones are worth a premium.
 
those shots are gonna make my mind change for buying a summarit! Lovely...which film did you use Brian? I bet it would go good with HP5.
 
I used Kodak C-41 Black and White for these shots. That film tends to be too contrasty, and the Summarit tames it. I need to mix up some D-76...
 
I enjoy using the Summarit for color. Here's a typical example of what it does: low contrast, softness, "creaminess", "glow". Its rendering is "impressionist", not "photorealistic". My lens has no haze, but numerous cleaning marks on front and back elements.

40730015.jpg
 
of the listed lenses i've only had the canon 1.2, and i've only had mine for about three months now, but it is exactly what i was hoping it would be. it's only come of the camera once or twice since i got it. real sharp at 1.2 but with great swirly softness behind. contrast hasn't been noticiably bad to my eyes- just normal photoshop work and all looks good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom