Bill Pierce
Well-known
I recently went through one of those gadget-bag packing days and realized how many “normal” lenses I have. Three for the rangefinder bodies running from big superspeed through collapsable. Four for the DSLR’s from big and fast to slow and small plus a macro. (Of course, there are also the 50mm equivalents within the range of the zooms on not only the DSLR’s, but a bunch of small, pocketable digitals.)
Yet I don’t think of any of these 50’s as redundant. Each has its advantages and disadvantages that make it particularly useful for a certain kind of photography.
Take, for example, the 50/1.8 on my Canon DSLR’s. It’s a $90 lens, and it’s tiny. It’s so small that it turns my hefty DSLR into a relatively low profile camera good for street shooting.
Not suprisingly, stopped down to f/5.6 it’s as good as anything I’ve got for street shooting. Nonetheless, I was still surprised when DxOMark rated it slightly higher than my far more expensive f/1.2 in their broad usage tests. Fast, it isn’t. But central sharpness is good even at 2.8. So, when I’m shooting on the street, most of the time I have a $90 lens on camera that cost several thousand. Odd, two of my sharpest 50’s are the slow ones, this and the 50 position on the Leica Tri-Elmar.
I have a suspicion that many of you have more than one normal lens. What’s your favorite and why? Any surprises?
Yet I don’t think of any of these 50’s as redundant. Each has its advantages and disadvantages that make it particularly useful for a certain kind of photography.
Take, for example, the 50/1.8 on my Canon DSLR’s. It’s a $90 lens, and it’s tiny. It’s so small that it turns my hefty DSLR into a relatively low profile camera good for street shooting.
Not suprisingly, stopped down to f/5.6 it’s as good as anything I’ve got for street shooting. Nonetheless, I was still surprised when DxOMark rated it slightly higher than my far more expensive f/1.2 in their broad usage tests. Fast, it isn’t. But central sharpness is good even at 2.8. So, when I’m shooting on the street, most of the time I have a $90 lens on camera that cost several thousand. Odd, two of my sharpest 50’s are the slow ones, this and the 50 position on the Leica Tri-Elmar.
I have a suspicion that many of you have more than one normal lens. What’s your favorite and why? Any surprises?
Graham Line
Well-known
Well, almost everything built since 1970 looks good stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8.
Nikon's 50/1.8 AF-D cost me something like $95 and I bought it mostly because it seemed like a 'must' lens -- it ended up being used far more often than expected because it is so darn good at all apertures, and because improving films in the 1990s reduced the need to have an f1.4 available.
The real find was the Voigtlander 50/2.5 in L39, which the web experts panned but is first-class at all apertures. At a modest speed penalty, it was a significant improvement over a worn-out collapsible Summicron. Paired with the right film (i.e., not Velvia, or high-contrast B&W developers), it's very usable and very well-made.
Nikon's 50/1.8 AF-D cost me something like $95 and I bought it mostly because it seemed like a 'must' lens -- it ended up being used far more often than expected because it is so darn good at all apertures, and because improving films in the 1990s reduced the need to have an f1.4 available.
The real find was the Voigtlander 50/2.5 in L39, which the web experts panned but is first-class at all apertures. At a modest speed penalty, it was a significant improvement over a worn-out collapsible Summicron. Paired with the right film (i.e., not Velvia, or high-contrast B&W developers), it's very usable and very well-made.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
I got some absolutely beautiful results from my Jupiter 8 on my new-to-me Kiev. So, I'm going to go with that as my favorite for now. I bought a new Summitar that I am having CLA'ed by Sherry and I'm hoping that becomes my new favorite when I get it back. Also, I have an Takumar M42 f1.8 that delivers stunning results. Still like the Jupiter 8 the best for now...
SteveM_NJ
Well-known
I, too, have the Canon 50 f/1.8 II (polycarbonate) - extra light, and very usable. It brings the weight of a big rig, way down.
(True, It makes me smile, expensive body, inexpensive littel 50, but I like it and use it often.)
(I'm a hobbyist, and don't care much what others think, if all my gear isnt "PRO", L lens, hours of wrestling with the big white lens, and my arms need a rest)
(True, It makes me smile, expensive body, inexpensive littel 50, but I like it and use it often.)
(I'm a hobbyist, and don't care much what others think, if all my gear isnt "PRO", L lens, hours of wrestling with the big white lens, and my arms need a rest)
raid
Dad Photographer
The 50mm lens has always been my favorite lens for photography. You really don't need more than such a lens for maybe 90% of all situations encountered.
I have the Summicron 50/2 as my first classical 50mm RF lens, and I added over the years twenty or more 50mm RF lenses. They range from Canon and Leica RF lenses to FSU lenses to CZJ lenses, and more recently, I added Heliar 50mm lenses. What is there not to like about such lenses.
I have the Summicron 50/2 as my first classical 50mm RF lens, and I added over the years twenty or more 50mm RF lenses. They range from Canon and Leica RF lenses to FSU lenses to CZJ lenses, and more recently, I added Heliar 50mm lenses. What is there not to like about such lenses.
mfogiel
Veteran
I have several 50 mm lnses as well. Three of them really stand out: the Zeiss Makro Planar 50/2.0, Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5 and Leica DR Summicron 50/2. The Makro Planar is like an equalizer: good at any aperture and any distance - a lens without an optical flaw. The C Sonnar is the best lens I know, for rendering a half body portrait with great charm and great sense of space, plus with a great OOF, providing you shoot at f 4.0 or wider. The DR Summicron, is a lens that gives an incredibly balanced image with exdended grayscale in B&W, and its bokeh can be compared to impressionistic paintings.
furcafe
Veteran
I would amend this to say that almost every lens from a top-notch manufacturer (Leitz, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Schneider, classic Kodak, etc.) since the late 1930s looks good stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. I would agree w/Bill that f/1.8 or f/2 lenses seem to be the sweet spot for modern 50s as far as getting great performance @ a low price.
I don't have a favorite individual normal lens, but my favorite type would be a f/1.5 Sonnar. Perfectly usable @ f/1.5 (or f/1.4 for the Nikkor version) & optimal for my style of shooting by f/4. There are many threads extolling the signature Sonnar "look" (though some say it doesn't exist), so I won't rehash them here.
The biggest surprise for me has been the Rodenstock 5cm/2 Heligon (c. 1947) on my Kodak Retina II/011, which is quite good (to my eyes, anyway) wide-open, even in challenging stage lighting.
I don't have a favorite individual normal lens, but my favorite type would be a f/1.5 Sonnar. Perfectly usable @ f/1.5 (or f/1.4 for the Nikkor version) & optimal for my style of shooting by f/4. There are many threads extolling the signature Sonnar "look" (though some say it doesn't exist), so I won't rehash them here.
The biggest surprise for me has been the Rodenstock 5cm/2 Heligon (c. 1947) on my Kodak Retina II/011, which is quite good (to my eyes, anyway) wide-open, even in challenging stage lighting.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
My favorite is probably my Summitar as it straddles the eras of lenses - wide open it can almost be as soft and crazy as a Summar yet stop it down and you won't know it's not a Summicron. This allows for some creative flexability when the time is right.
Gaining quickly, though, is my new to me 1975~76 50/1.4 Nikkor. It's non-ai, multi-coated & has the rubber focus grip and is an interesting lens to play with wide open. I need to do much more with it & learn it's character.
Of course if I want the glass out of the way, my Canon FD 50/1.8 is a delightful little lens that always excels.
William
Gaining quickly, though, is my new to me 1975~76 50/1.4 Nikkor. It's non-ai, multi-coated & has the rubber focus grip and is an interesting lens to play with wide open. I need to do much more with it & learn it's character.
Of course if I want the glass out of the way, my Canon FD 50/1.8 is a delightful little lens that always excels.
William
jja
Well-known
I haven't been through as many 50mm lenses as some of you, and I'm not sure I have any real "surprise" lenses, but the two RF lenses I've kept are first-class: Elmar-M 50/2.8 and Summilux Asph. 50/1.4. I recently brought the Summilux on a trip to Spain, and taking pictures inside the Sagrada Familia, I was stunned with its ability to capture detail and subtle changes in light.
damien.murphy
Damien
I seem to have ended up with three 50mm lenses, four if you count the Nikon 35mm f2 AF-D which makes a nice 50mm equivalent on my Nikon APS dslr. The first three are all for my Leica M's, and comprise the 1st version f2.8 Elmar, the Zeiss Sonnar-C, and the Nokton f1.1
At least one needs to go, but its a nightmare deciding which, as similar to many, each serves a purpose. The Elmar is perfect for a light rig when paired with my M3 for daylight shooting, with the Nokton coming out at night to serve my penchant for handheld night shooting, and the Sonnar-C falling somewhere inbetween as a general purpose, classic rendering lens that's fit for most light.
It's the same in medium format, where the two Rolleicords I shoot both have different 75mm lenses - one with a relatively modern Xenar, and the other with a more classic softer Triotar.
I don't feel so bad having so many 50mm/ 50mm-equivalent lenses, but it is irksome when there are too many relatively expensive lenses unused, as there are always bits and pieces of kit I would like to try that the funds from unused lenses could finance.
At least one needs to go, but its a nightmare deciding which, as similar to many, each serves a purpose. The Elmar is perfect for a light rig when paired with my M3 for daylight shooting, with the Nokton coming out at night to serve my penchant for handheld night shooting, and the Sonnar-C falling somewhere inbetween as a general purpose, classic rendering lens that's fit for most light.
It's the same in medium format, where the two Rolleicords I shoot both have different 75mm lenses - one with a relatively modern Xenar, and the other with a more classic softer Triotar.
I don't feel so bad having so many 50mm/ 50mm-equivalent lenses, but it is irksome when there are too many relatively expensive lenses unused, as there are always bits and pieces of kit I would like to try that the funds from unused lenses could finance.
jja
Well-known
A 50mm I miss sometimes: 50/1.4 Nikkor LTM, I forget which version. Such gentleness of contrast gradation, such soft out-of-focus backgrounds (though sometimes swirly). A great b&w lens, and very compact.
pachuco
El ****
Had the Canon 50mm 1.4 and should have never let it go. I now have but one 50mm and although the Jupiter-3 is super cool... Well, lets put it this way, I have my CV 35mm 2.5II in the "Want to Trade" section looking for a 50mm. I love 50mm...
raid
Dad Photographer
The rigid Summicron and the DR are virtually identical lenses except for the close-focus capability of the DR. The CZJ 5cm/1.5 Sonnar is an awesome lens for portraits. These two 50mm lenses have become my favorite 50mm lenses over the years. The Heliar 50mm/3.5 and 50mm/2.0 are also excellent for portraits. The Summicron-C while a 40mm lens and not a 50mm lens needs mentioning as a "normal lens". It may be one of the best deals available. It does as well as the Pentax 43mm/1.9 LE, which is a very special lens.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I've never been a fan of having more than one of any particular focal length. But for some reason, I don't feel that way about 50s. It could have something to do with the fact that the five I own cost less than $1,000 total. Certainly no single lens could match the versatility my small family of 50s provides.
I've been shooting a lot with a Zeiss 50 planar, Nikkor 50/2 ltm and 50/1.5 Jupiter 3.
But I just added (courtesy of Brian) a 50 rigid summicron and collapsible Industar-50.
I've been shooting a lot with a Zeiss 50 planar, Nikkor 50/2 ltm and 50/1.5 Jupiter 3.
But I just added (courtesy of Brian) a 50 rigid summicron and collapsible Industar-50.
I have some of those "50s". The Uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 Sonnar is my favorite. Maybe because it is a 75-year old lens and performs the way it does. Just amazing. I have a 50/1.1 Nokton coming in. Will be interesting to see how it compares with the other super-speeds. "F one-point-one". Leave it to Mr. K to make a max aperture lens that has not been seen since the 1950s. Like he did with the F1.5 Nokton.
75-year old lens on a 2010 camera, the EP2.
75-year old lens on a 2010 camera, the EP2.
Last edited:
newspaperguy
Well-known
MY current 'fave' is the 1.8/50 Canon.
Biggest surprises - the good kind - were the
the performances of the little
Panda 2.8/50 Canon that I got almost free,
and the FSU I-50 that actually was free!
Biggest surprises - the good kind - were the
the performances of the little
Panda 2.8/50 Canon that I got almost free,
and the FSU I-50 that actually was free!
T
tedwhite
Guest
I have a Canon 50/1.8 in LTM that I like - it's right there in my avatar - and a Super Takumar 50/1.4 in M42 that I like even better. But best of all was my old Summicron 50/2.0. Unfortunately it's long gone, but it did skin tones like no other lens I've ever owned.
Last edited by a moderator:
nightfly
Well-known
Still don't own a 50 for my Leica, haven't found the right one yet. Tried a Canon 1.8 and didn't care for the rendering at all, one of the collapsibles (Summar I think) and didn't like the fidilyness of the collapsible and one of the super old old ones that was both soft and fiddly. Just shot with a friends Industar 61, need to finish the roll and see how it looks. Generally like Tessars.
The two 50's I've enjoyed were both in Pentax K Mount, the cheap and low rated but great performing 50mm M 2.0 which was stolen along with my K1000, and the well regarded M 1.4 that someone gave me and still lives on my MX.
I suspect an old Summilux or Cron are in my future if budget allows.
The two 50's I've enjoyed were both in Pentax K Mount, the cheap and low rated but great performing 50mm M 2.0 which was stolen along with my K1000, and the well regarded M 1.4 that someone gave me and still lives on my MX.
I suspect an old Summilux or Cron are in my future if budget allows.
kevin m
Veteran
I had the 50/1.2, 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 all at the same time. (Don't know how that happened!) From my memory, I noticed that they all started looking the same somewhere between 2.0 and 2.8.. For my purposes, if I have to start looking REAL hard to see differences between a lens, then I don't really care about them.
I loved the 50/1.2 most of all and never minded the weight when I was working a wedding, but to carry it around for general snapping it got to be a drag.
lxmike
M2 fan.
Until recently 50mm was my favourite focal length, my fav lenses in the past Pentax SMC M 50mm 1.7, Zuiko 50mm 1.4 nad for rangefinders I like the 5cm Summitar. At present however, I love my CV 25/4, I'mm shooting a lot with it