50's that are sharp @ wider apertures?

[venchka]

As for Canon FD I would say a 50/1:4. Considered a legend in the FD family of lenses.

I can vouch for the 50mm/1.4 S.S.C. version from the late 60s through the early 70s, give or take. It is sharp wide open. By f/2.8 it's crazy sharp.

I can also vouch for the Leitz 50mm/2.0 Dual Range Summicron and the Nikkor LTM 50/1.4 rangefinder lenses. There are folks who swear that the Nikkor's best aperture (sharpest) is f/2.8. The D.R. Summicron takes a backseat to no lens. In my opinion.
Happy hunting.

Wayne

 

[Mark C]

Tejasican,

I hadn't refreshed my screen before posting and didn't see yours. It is funny how similar our posts are.

I don't think the f2 Nikkor is sharper than the 1.8's, but has a bit smoother look. I have an extra if you need one. I like them wide open, but they're no Summicron.

 

[gavinlg]

Canon 50mm f1.2L for eos. It's pin sharp at f1.2. Count eyelashes sharp on a half body portrait sharp. Never used a better true 50mm lens.

 

[gb hill]

I can vouch for the 50mm/1.4 S.S.C. version from the late 60s through the early 70s, give or take. It is sharp wide open. By f/2.8 it's crazy sharp.
Wayne

I have just that lens in the old breech mount. I should pull it out of the bag & shoot with it. It's a heavy hunk of glass that's fer sure.🙂

 

[Film dino]

Erwin Puts on high speed 50s, published some time ago (2005?)
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/hslenses.html

 

[seakayaker1]

Ernst Leitz Wetzler Summitar 5cm f/2 (LTM)

Voigtlander Nokton Aspherical 50mm f1.5 (LTM)

Zeiss C Sonnar T* 50mm f1.5

Summilux-M 50mm f1.4 ASPH

I have use all four of these lenses and they are all sharp wide open.

 

[sanmich]

The summicrons, from the rigid and on are very sharp.
the older versions may be problematic flare wise.
the Nikkors F I have are nowhere near the cron sharpness except maybe the micro-nikkor (need to test this one), although the f/1.8 or f/2 are no slouch.
At F/4 the collapsible cron I have is sharper than any nikkor F mount 50 (except again the 55 Micro).
The canon 1.4 ltm is surprisingly sharp, almost equals the cron at f/2-f/2.8 IIRC.
If f/2 is ok, I would take a planar or a hexanon or a modern cron (although the cron have a flare problem due to glossy black paint)

 

[Harry Lime]

Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1,5 is tack-sharp wide open with a fantastic 3-D transition to OOF areas.

It sharp in the center, but the corners are pretty weak at f1.5.
This is the raison d'etre for the Sonnar 1.5/50; that unique wide open characteristic that makes the fingerprint of this lens unique and really great for portraiture.

If we are talking Leica M and LTM RF lenses I would rank them as follows:

The king of wide open and sharp has to be the Summilux-M ASPH 1.4/50. I've shot this lens and looking at negatives taken at f1.4 and closeup is a borderline religious experience. The close focus system really works wonders.

I think it is safe to say there the pre-ASPH Summilux and Voightlander 1.5/50 (ASPH) are a close second.
I own the pre-ASPH Lux and IMO it may be the finest fast 50 I have ever used. The ASPH is sharper, but for me that is not the only criteria. The balance of sharpness, tonality, bokeh and the smoothness of the transition in to out of focus are superb. The lens is a little weak focused at 1 meter and shot at 1.4, but it's great for portrait work. There is a lot of the same magic going on there as with the 1.5/50 Sonnar.

The Sonnar 1.5/50 is a really interesting lens. It has all that magic going on at f1.5, which somehow still manages to produce a sharp and useable image, but once you stop it down a little is becomes very, very sharp. I have pretty much settled in on my kit at this point, but this is one of the few lenses I really lust after.

The Summicron and Planar 50's are very sharp across the frame at F2. I have many models of the Summicron from the collapsible to the current v4 in both R and M mount. Even after more than 20 years on the market this is an exceptional lens.

Once you reach f2.8 and beyond things get messy, but the modern Elmar-M 2.8/50 supposedly performs as good as the Summicron v4. Also don't forget the Summarit 2.5/50.

If you are looking at ultrafast RF glass (f.95, f1, f1.2), then the Noctilux 'Queen of the Night' rules the roost.

 

[mfogiel]

There are 2 questions inside your question: which lens is sharp at f 2.8 and wider, and which is the lens that has the best balance of sharpness and speed in low light. The part of the question, which is missing, is the cost.
What we know, is that you want to shoot high speed film, so this means, that you need a lens, which is SHARP ENOUGH for film - this would rule out stuff like APO Summicron ASPH, a USD 7000 lens, which would be wasted in these circumstances.
First, you have some good f1.8-2.0 lenses, which are very sharp or just sharp enough wide open, and some are really cheap. You might have a look at the latest Nikkor 50/1.8 AFS, or even at the old Nikkor-H 50/2 or AiS 50/1.8. Then you have the Planar 50/2 ZM, and the Summicron M later versions, both tack sharp wide open, plus on a Leica you do not get the mirror slap, so the photos will be sharper anyway. Next level would be the Summilux M 50/1.4 ASPH, which is almost as sharp wide open, but is one stop faster - probably the best choice for the job, but costs around 4000 USD. Higher up, you only get the Noctilux 0.95, but I don't even know the current price, probably above 8000 USD.
A separate category would be some SLR f 1.2 lenses: the sharpest wide open is the Noct Nikkor 58/1.2, but is also picey - about 3000 USD, however, there are some lenses like the Minolta MD 58/1.2, which is not tack sharp at f 1.2, but is so by f 2.0, and anyway it gives you some extra margin when you really need it, the same goes for Pentax 50/1.2. These lenses go for about 400 USD.

Here's a shot with Rokkor 58/1.2 wide open:


201213022 by mfogiel, on Flickr

and here at f 2.0


201213725 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[Addy101]

The Minolta Rokkor 50/1.4 lenses are better wide open then the rokkor 50/1.2 or 58/1.2 lenses. Take a look over at the Rokkorfiles for a comparison between lenses. He concludes that the 1.4 lenses wide open are as good as the 1.2 lenses at f/2.

As I said before, it all depends on what you consider sharp....

 

[jsrockit]

Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1,5 is tack-sharp wide open with a fantastic 3-D transition to OOF areas.

Only if it's been optimised for 1.5 and then only in the center though...

 

[ferider]

Unqualified, "Sharp" has no meaning.

You have to specify desired contrast, focus distance, and where in the picture you are measuring.

All my 50s (including my oldest Nikkor from 1950) are "sharp" in the center even wide open. The older lenses have noticably less contrast until you stop down at least one stop (this includes my rigid Summicron). Pick almost any 50, if your lens is not good enough in the center for, say, 8x10 prints, it most likely means that your RF, or in the case of an SLR, your focus screen are not calibrated for the aperture that you are using (all lenses shift, it's just a matter of degree).

The differences come when you compare contrast, areas off center, and resolution depending on the focus distance. Off center resolution comes often at a price of distortion or coma.

If you cann't spend the money on a super corrected, apo/aspherical Summilux 50/1.4, the trick is to find a good allrounder, that is sharp _enough_ in the corners and at all focus distances, with as little distortion as possible, and has little coma/pleasant bokeh.

At f1.4 my best allrounder is the Pentax SMC 50/1.4. At f2.4, my Hexanon beats any other lens I have, across the field.

Roland.

 

[waynec]

What I have found is that although a lens can be sharp in the middle once you get to the extremes you can find quite a bit of falloff. Now, for this gig I photograph that doesn't quite matter that much since the stage is of little concern. The problem I've encountered is shutter speed. Performers can have a habit of moving around a bit and in order to prevent a lot of lost photo's due to blur you have to time your shot for what may look like a still opportunity. Some performers can be seated, which generally works out fine, but I have lost many photo's to those standing. When I shot rock bands in bars it was worse; What I'm doing now are folk artists.

I'll attach a B&W shot from Delta 3200 at 1600 in Tmax from my best lens. I had to sharpen this up a bit.

 

[VinceC]

For SLR lenses, the Nikkor 50/1.8 and f/2 AIS lenses are exceptional.
For RF lenses, the Milleneum 50/1.4 is considered on par with its more costly and more mordern Leica counterparts. The optical formula also appears to be very close to the classic SLR-version of the 50/1.4.

 

[waynec]

At f1.4 my best all rounder is the Pentax SMC 50/1.4. At f2.4, my Hexanon beats any other lens I have, across the field.

Roland.

Roland, which iteration is the Pentax? K, M, A(?), FA.

 

[ferider]

The M that I converted for use on my Leicas, Wayne (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113676).

Note that I have compared it against my Summilux v2 and my 1.1Mio OM Zuiko 50/1.4, and the SMC is noticeably better.

Roland.

 

[Snowbuzz]

Olympus Zuiko 50mm f2.0 Macro: great wide open.

 

[hepcat]

Voigtlander Nokton Aspherical 50mm f1.5 (LTM)

I have use all four of these lenses and they are all sharp wide open.

I second the Nokton 50mm f/1.5. The combination of speed, sharpness, and rendering in a modern aspherical optic is hard to beat, especially when discussed in terms of value for the price.

Here's a practical comparison of the Nokton f/1.5 to the Summilux asph. f/1.4. When you consider that used, you can buy the Nocton for roughly 10-20% of the cost of the Summilux aspherical, it becomes quite the bargain.

 

[ferider]

Here's a comparison of the Nokton f/1.5 to the Summilux asph. f/1.4. When you consider that used, you can buy the Noctilux for roughly 10-20% of the cost of the Summilux aspherical it becomes quite the bargain.

Here is a fun reality check: compare the test photos in that blog to Marek's portraits above (post #29). Which are "sharper" ? And why ?

 

[furcafe]

I think you meant "Nokton" rather than "Noctilux".

Here's a practical comparison of the Nokton f/1.5 to the Summilux asph. f/1.4. When you consider that used, you can buy the Noctilux for roughly 10-20% of the cost of the Summilux aspherical, it becomes quite the bargain.