50mm lens comparrison

[mojobebop]

thinking of buying a 50mm.
cost is key factor.

in terms of the old, cheaper used leica
elmar 50mm 2.8, and the summicrons
vs. the voigtlander 50mm's,
i was wondering how the voigtlanders stack up.

would really like a leica lens.
have read however the old ones often do have haze, and
other problems that aren't readily apparent.
(read you need to shine light through the lens from both sides)...

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

Hi,
I've used 3 50s:
DR Summicron: Very sharp lens. Had haze/dust. Didn't matter. Beat newer Canon FD lenses. Heavy on camera. Just needed slight contrast boost in Photoshop.

Collapsing Summicron, early: As sharp as above, but lower contrast, easily visible on negatives. Main dislike was ergonomics, like locking infinity. Never could grab focus collar quickly. Needs bigger contrast boost. Good shadow detail.

Current: Elmar-m 50. Seems like a good lens so far, but no sharper than either of the above. Better coatings, though, so less flare. Better ergonomics.

The modern Elmar-m is found for cheap now--mine was $450. The others above are half the price if you don't need the DR's goggles. I wouldn't obsess about a little dust or haze. It just doesn't seem to really matter than much. My Bronica S 200 Nikkor has an obvious spot of fungus on the rear element, but the pictures are very sharp. Cleaning is not terribly expensive.

 

[maddoc]

Cost is a key factor ? Get yourself a nice Canon 50/1.4 in LTM mount + adapter ! 🙂 I just recently bought one and like the results so far a lot. Should not be much more than ~ $200 but check for haze by shining with a flashlight through the lens.

 

[vol72]

If I needed a 50 lens and did not need 1.4, I would check out the Zeiss 50 Planar ZM.

 

[Bingley]

If I needed a 50 lens and did not need 1.4, I would also check out the Canon 50/1.8, for a fraction of the cost of the Zeiss Planar. If your list includes older summicrons, you should take a look at this Canon.

 

[Assaf]

what's the budget?
For about 500-550USD you can get a used Zeiss Planar 50/2 which (to my taste) is one of the best lenses available.

 

[payasam]

The CV 50/1.5 has a good reputation, but the slower CV 50/2 is said to be better at the same apertures. The even slower CV 50/2.5 is also spoken of well. For 17 years I used a Canon (Serenar) 50/1.8 and was satisfied. I've found, though, that eBay is always something of a lottery.

 

[cmogi10]

I just got to borrow a mint Canon 50/1.4 screwmount and had fun with it on my M's.
Now there's a damn good 50. I would reccomend it to anyone. It wont win any sharpness charts but hot damn. Who cares when your prints look good.

 

[Doug]

I believe CameraQuest has the 50/2.5 Skopar used for $229. This is a fine lens, quite compact, and Sean Reid gave it an excellent review, a bit sharper than either the Summicron or Planar! I've had mine several years and like it...

 

[trev2401]

U can try the hexar 50. 350-450ish, rivals the current cron from what i've been hearing. Has it's own unique signature and is built like a tank.

 

[OurManInTangier]

The Canon 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 are both excellent budget lenses...the 1.8 being very cheap and one that I've used the most with good results. I also have the Zeiss Planar f2 which is more expensive, sharper and contrastier and the 50mm I now use the most.

Budget and effect/signiture are the considerations you need to decide upon most before making a decision. Having said that, if you need a 50mm then almost anything will do so long as you use it to the best of it's ability.

For what it's worth, if I had to buy just one 50mm on a tight budget I'd go for the Canon 1.8 or 1.4 depending on price and condition.

The lens won't make a good picture you will, the lens will only make a good picture slighty better...and if a picture is good enough nobody will care about the lens characteristics.

Hope you're happy with the choice you make.

Cheers

 

[like2fiddle]

I've got to jump in with a recommendation for the Canon 50/1.4 too. It's "big" for a rangefinder lens, but it can handle just about any lighting you're apt to come across, and the out of focus....really nice. 😉

 

[raid]

The Canon 50/1.4 can be very sharp. My example is very sharp. I am unsure whether the Canon 50/1.5 is somehow "better" or not. Do you like the Sonnar look? The Jupiter 8 is an excellent lens, for example. The Canon 50/1.8 is as good as the earlier Summicrons, with maybe a 5% lower quality [maybe not!].

 

[santi-u]

And how about the Nikkor 50/1.4 S.C in screw mount? I bought one few days ago in very good condition and i'm curious in how it would perform.
I've read that you have to close a little bit if you focus at medium/long distance. I wan't it for shoot open at closer distances though,

 

[Turtle]

I believe CameraQuest has the 50/2.5 Skopar used for $229. This is a fine lens, quite compact, and Sean Reid gave it an excellent review, a bit sharper than either the Summicron or Planar! I've had mine several years and like it...

on centre at f4 and beyond only. The edges lagged well behind the others on an M8 so prob even more pronounced on FF. If shooting stopped down it looks a good bet although I would be suspicious of the edge performance on film at anything other than middle apertures. The planar is like a tack at 2.8 and beyond, centre to edge. Who knows if his sample was typical because we all know there can be a fair bit of sample variation with CVs

 

[funkaoshi]

There is a thread somewhere on this site about the Zeiss Planner, and reading it will make you want one.

 

[Tim Gray]

The Zeiss Planar sounds like a great lens for the price, or any price. If a lens like that was made for SLRs, I bet people in Canon/Nikon land wouldn't be complaining so much about their 50's.

The last Summicron was nice, but for the price, I'd get something else. The Elmar-M gets rave reviews if you can stand f/2.8. I'm thinking of getting one for a small alternative 50.

The Nikon 50/1.4 is fun. It's a bit fuzzy at f/1.4, but usable. It's pretty sharp closed down and pretty small too.

So, if you want around $250, look at the Nikon (or Canon or CV). If around $500 is fine, look into the Zeiss or the Elmar-m.

I'm sure the Hexanon M lenses are nice, but they've lost their appeal to me in the last couple of years as their prices have shot up. They're not really any cheaper than the Zeiss lenses, and are used to boot.

 

[tritiated]

The canon 50 1.4 is my awkward little demon, hot damn has already been said!

 

[raid]

These photos are from my thread on 50mm lenses.

1. Nikon 5cm 2.0 LTM @2.0:

2. Jupiter 3 50mm/1.5 @ 2.0:

3. Canon 50mm 1.8 @ 2.0:

4. Canon 50mm 1.5 @ 2.0:

5. Canon 50mm 1.2 @ 2.0:

6. Zeiss 5cm 2.0 LTM @ 2.0:

7. Summitar 50mm 2.0 @ 2.0:

8. Rigid Summicron 50mm 2.0 @ 2.0 [this lens got adjusted afterwards]:

9. Summarit 50mm 1.5 @ 2.0 [this lens is not optimized for sharpness]:

 

[Erik L]

i have a DR Summicron and a the voigtlander nokton f1.5

they are both very good, both plenty sharp at all speeds to me.