A 50mm Surprise

[Roberto V.]

My favorite normal lenses are my 50 Summicron ver.3, extremely sharp, even wide open. Small compared to SLR primes. And the 45mm Tessar on my Contaflex I, classic look and very smooth out of focus areas.
The Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II is also a nice lens. Sharp, cheap, light.

 

[Tom Rymour]

I seem to have a lot of Canon 1.2 50mm lenses: two FL and one Leica screw. My favourite is the big LTM 50mm, which I call my "Thambar" when it's at its most 'impressionistic' aperture. Even the bokeh has bokeh. Oh, that coma, oh that flare, oh that lady of a certain age who looks 30 again! It cost me the equivalent of $50. If I need sharpness, I put on the Summicron (ver 3) or the FD 1.8 or 1.4.

 

[nikon_sam]

I have a couple of favorite 50's or fiftyish lenses...
My most recent love is the Takumar 50mm 1.4...Why you ask ?? I love super sharp negs and this lens will give you that all day long...so far I've only used B&W film with it and the prints are sharp and full of rich tones...it's a well made all metal buttery smooth lens that you just can't find "New" these days and it looks good mounted on my Spotmatic SP...
Next would be a Zuiko G. 4.2cm 1.8 fixed lens on an Olympus 35-S rangefinder (circa 1957)
Although not a super sharp in your face lens, it gives you plenty of detail but the tones blend together smoother, like warm butter on toast...
Another would be the 80mm 3.5 Yashinon on the YashicaMat 124...I don't think I need to explain that one...can you say Tessar design???

 

[Harry Lime]

I tend to run around with three 50's in my bag.

An old silver and metal scalloped Nikkor-H.C 2/50 and the Zeiss ZF Planar 1.4/50 for my Nikon F bodies. I mostly shoot with the old Nikkor and the Zeiss comes out at night. I prefer the low con and flare of the Nikkor-H.C during the day hours.

I also carry a pre-ASPH Summilux-M 1.4/50 for the M-bodies.

My bag usually holds a Nikon F-series body with those two 50's and one or two M-bodies with the 35 Lux Asph and pre-asph 50 Lux. Sometimes I'll sneak in the VC Ultron 2/28...


Before I got the Nikons (when I was all Leica M) I used to shoot with a Summicron-DR and the Summilux-M 1.4/50 (pre-asph).


But I have a shelf full of 50's. Among them are the Elmar 3.5/50, Summar, Summitar, Summicron Collapsible, Summicron-DR, current Summicron-M, Jupiter-3, Summicron-R type 1 and 2, Summilux-R 1.4/50, Nikkor-S.C 1.4/50, Nikkor 1.4/50 AIS, Micro Nikkor Nikkor 3.5/50 etc.

I love the 50.

It's mostly about looks. I choose which one to use based on the subject matter. Some are clinically sharp, while others glow and have a more romantic signature.

I don't have a single 50 that is my absolute favorite, but I would put the Summicron-DR 2/50, Nikkor-H.C 2/50 and Summilux-M 1.4/50 (pre-asph) in the top 3 with the Summilux-R and Zeiss ZF Planar 1.4/50 in the top 5. I recently started to play around again with the Elmar 3.5/50 and remembered just how much I liked it. The fingerprint is quite unique and draws a little like a graphite pencil in b/w.

 

[agiyo]

My early Summilux, which I've had since the early '70s and truthfully haven't used all that much, has given me a higher percentage of amazing images than any other lens I've used. Most of those have been shot wide open, in available darkness. I think that handheld camera steadiness is enhanced below about 1/30 sec, when the image remains visible instead of blacking out as with an SLR; most of the Summilux's best shots have been wide open, all handheld, at 1/15 or below.

I used a Canon f/0.95 for several years in SE Asian photojournalism. There were times when a flash could NOT be used---I always hated to use one anyhow---such a photographing Western pedophiles with children in Manila's red light district, when the Canon's low light (low life) ability might have been a literal life saver, as they apparently did not believe I could get pictures of them in the dark. I did (thank you, Diafine!).

The little plastic Nikon 50D f/1.8 currently gets consistent use as a fast, cheap, light, and high-performing short telephoto on my DSLRs. For some reason, it seems to focus better automatically than I can do with the old, beautiful manual focus 50mm f/1.4s. I need to figure out why manual focus lenses back focus on my D300, because they certainly do.

 

[maggieo]

My 1974 Jupiter-8 50/2 is more or less welded to my M4-P and goes from 1935 to 2011 as you stop it down. It's a great lens and it cost me all of $30.00.

My 1959 Summilux hops back and forth between my M2 and my M8 and I've yet to see a lens that renders as nicely as this one. It's got just the right amount of sharpness and character- not too much of either; it's a real Goldilocks lens for me.

 

[paulfish4570]

nikkor 50/1.8 AiS for my FE2.
50/2.5 color skopar for my R2m.

 

[filmtwit]

Leicaesuqe 50's: I've owned three total. Started with a Canon 50mm f1.8, which I wasn't that fond of so I moved onto a Canon 50 f1.4 ltm. I liked this lens quite a bit, but found the lack close focus (IE- 1m minimum) to be a hindrance. Moved onto a Nikkor-SC 50mm f1.4 ltm. This fits the bill for me.

Canon EOS: I started off with the 50mm f1.8 Mk I, great lens till I dropped it and canon wouldn't fix it. Moved onto to the 50mm f1.8 Mk II, found it to complete POS (cheap). Finally moved onto a 50mm f1.4 which I've loved. I added the 58mm Rokkor f1.2 about 3 years ago in EOS mount. great Bokkah making machine.

 

[haempe]

After 15 years or so I have reactivate my old Praktica BC1 and was pleasantly surprised by the drawing of the Prakticar 50/1.8.
I think the lens is a successor of the famous CZJ Pancolar.

Pleasant OOF rendering:

 

[rbiemer]

50mm(ish) is my most used lens and I have had a few but right now I am really liking the rigid Industar-50. It is slow with its f3.5 max aperture and filters for it are a pain--I use the SOOGZ adapter on it--but I like the photos I get from it, it is small and light. And mine came with a dedicated hood and I think it looks pretty cool on my R2A. 😀

Rob

 

[gavinlg]

Nonetheless, I was still surprised when DxOMark rated it slightly higher than my far more expensive f/1.2 in their broad usage tests.

Good value the canon 50mm f1.8 sure is - considering they're about $100 brand new, but I can assure you (despite what dxo say) that the f1.2L is on a different planet to the f1.8 in IQ.

So my favorite 50mm's... The 50mm f1.2L is the best 50 I've ever used bar none. It's ultra dependable, has really special characteristics and a very particular 'look'.
As a value for money 50 the Sigma 50mm f1.4 is 98% the lens that the canon 1.2L is, but with a more neutral characteristic that almost reminds me of the look of a fast 85mm. The best thing about the sigma is that, whilst labeled as a 50mm, the true focal length is closer to around 43mm - which happens to be around my favorite focal length. It does this whilst having maintaining super low distortion.

If I was shooting M mount I'd be all over the Zeiss sonnar 50mm - that looks like a serious little gem.

 

[aoresteen]

I keep a 1960 Zeiss Ikon Contaflex Super around for one reason: the 50mm f/2.8 Tessar lens. It my favorite 50mm lens. I have hundreds of Kodachromes my Dad took with it and a lot of B&W negatives that I took with it. I just love the look I get with it.

 

[Timestep]

currently, nikkor 50mm f/2 for rangefinder
micro-nikkor 55mm. f/2.8; nikkor 50mm. f/1.2, for slr's
ancient nikkor 50mm f/2, non-ais--very good, but expendible

the 55mm micro is as expected; the surprise was the f/1.2, as a general, if heavy lens

 

[ctham]

I was just telling my friend how easy it was for me to appear to collect 50mm lenses when I stumbled upon this thread. I currently have a Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar, SMC Takumar 50/1.4 and a Helios 58/2 for my SLRs, and a collapsible Summicron 50, Nokton 50/1.1 and a Jupiter 50/2 for my rangefinder.

None of them are ridiculously expensive, and I could not part with any of them.

 

[BobYIL]

The 50mm has been and always be the most prominent lens for me..

As for Leicas I have both versions of the DR, also v.3 and v.4 Summicrons.. The DRs have a little less contrast but longer gradation with B&W film, whereas v.3 and v.4 have better sharpness toward corners and a tad more contrast. The latter ones are excellent for color and digital. On screw mounts I have six-blade and 10-blade Summitars, remarkable lenses for their age, the six-blade one appears to be less soft than the other at full aperture, perhaps for being of later production (coating maybe). If you can not afford a collapsible Summicron then this lens is a less expensive alternative if you can do with its weird bokeh.

Nokton 50/1.5 Asp. is great only for f1.5 to 2.0 IMO, in this range sharper than any Summilux (pre) I have used so far; however only this much as it is difficult to think about its signature; not a distinct one. The C-Sonnar is my favorite, if I would be using one lens only then it is this one. The Elmar 2.8 (older M-mount) is the most compact, simply collapse it down and put the camera in your coat pocket.

For the SLRs: Nikon 50/2 (first Nikkor) with rendition is the closest one to the Summicrons, 55/3.5 Auto in the mid-range too is sharpest of all standard Nikkors if you keep aperture below f5.6. FD SSC Canon 50/1.4 is a fine & cheap SLR 50, better than the Nikkor 50/1.4.. FDn 50/1.4 Canon is better than even the 50/1.4 Summilux-R, my favorite short tele on the Nex5, use it f1.4, the bokeh is the best I have seen from a 50mm lens. As for the f1.2 lenses the Fujinon 50/1.2 is as sharp as the FDn at 1.4 however not a smooth bokeh.

Regards,

Bob

 

[rogerzilla]

I'm a Summar fan. Nothing else looks like it (and I have a Summicron DR and Elmar red scale too, so it's not a question of cost).