best 50 for the buck....?

[bellyface]

So, I'd like to get some folks input on a 50, obviously there are a few choices, each one has some characteristics, some tradmarks in terms of image, some are just straight up "right match" some are collapsible, some are big and bright.

I'd like to pair it, whichever I decide to get on my R-D1 as well, so I'd like to hear some insight.

So which one really?

 

[0bli0]

i tried the nokton 50 f/1.5, which i didnt like at all. i love the nokton 40mm f/1.4 on my r-d1! i used the collapsable from the 250 anniversary - it's a nice lens (other than lack of knobs or wings).


i guess i just found 50 just wasn't a great length on the 1.53 crop (to me). the 40 works out really well. i have a j-8 50 f/2 fsu poc that i use and it suits me fine.

now if i were to see another fine used noctilux f/1 i'd pick it up 🙂

 

[ferider]

If 40 is OK for you, any of the 40 lenses out there, in particular the Nokton and the CLE M-Rokkor are killer lenses and not expensive. They are all clean, sharp and general purpose. Much less of a specific signature (making them
special-purpose) compared to most cheaper 50s out there.

The Nokton 50/1.5 is an exception, but it's big.

Roland.

 

[Justin Low]

Best value for money 50? Jupiter-8!

I don't think you could beat it's price to performance ratio, particularly if you are fond of the Sonnar look.

 

[trittium]

summar, the least expersive leitz lens. If you can find one without a lot of cleaning marks, it will have quite a bang for the money

+ it's collapsible

 

[edodo]

I have a jupiter 8 and wide open it is really poor, my now gone summicron wide open from 1952 had more resolution than the jupiter at f4 no kidding. Maybe my sample was bad, it is a 1991 lens from russia, not one bought used in the western.

 

[edodo]

I bought a mint jupiter 3 50mm f1.5 from 1953, I will report asap when the lens is tested. I think its the bang you asked for, but I am not sure it will focus good on the RD1. Anyway I heard many times that the chrome Jupiters 3 from the early 1950's were matched to the leica lens flange, I will try it when received on my M4.

 

[mike_j]

Has to be the J8, it's so cheap, not the best but a very fair performer. You may be interested in the comparison with a summicron here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39802

 

[mwooten]

I have a couple of the soviet lenses for my RD1s along with a CV Nokton. The soviets are an older "chrome" J8 and an I-61LD. I use the Nokton when I really need to make sure I get the shot. It works great and the extra speed is often useful. Yet it costs a whole lot more than the soviets, and is a great deal larger. Both the J8 and the I61 do a good job on my RD1, but I did need to send the J8 to Fedka to have it adjusted. The I-61LD worked great right out of the box. My choice for the best 50 for the buck would be the I-61LD. I think I spent about $20 US (including shipping) for the lens.

Michael

 

[edodo]

Very nice thread you mentioned Mike! His J8 seems good, but would have like to see the wide open shots!

 

[oscroft]

I agree that a J-8 is the best value-for-money 50 to fit CV cameras. There is a risk involved, because quality control was pretty much non-existent in the Soviet Union back then, but a good one is really very good indeed (I was very lucky to get a good one on eBay very cheaply, but there are trusted suppliers who can probably sell a pretty much guaranteed good one, albeit at a higher price).

I've also got a CV 50/2.5, which I think is good value, and complements the J-8 quite nicely.

 

[bellyface]

I have an industar 61 LD my way to me, bought from fedka. Pretty interested in seeing what I get out of it. Hopefully the focus isn't off, but it sounds like they are pretty well corrected according to michael.

 

[steve garza]

where the heck do you buy this Russian gear anyway? is it available new?

 

[peterm1]

Assuming we are talking about Leica and its equivalents. I own or have owned lots of 50s over the years and there are lots of candidates. Lets see, Elmar 3.5, Summitar 2.0, Summarit 1.5, Summicron DR, Summicron (black - 1970s) Canon f1.5, Canon f1.4, Canon f 1.8 and late Russian 50 in LTM (forget the designation) Plus lenses for Contax, Voightlander Prominent etc when I have owned them. God now I can see why my wife complains.

In some ways it depends on your perspective, how picky you are and what sort of photos you shoot. But to my way of thinking without much doubt of the above lot, if price and qulaity are the characteristics sought, the Canon LTM 50mm f1.8 would fill the bill. Cheap, well built and top performer. Add in a bayonet adapter if you need one and you still have a cheap top quality lens.

 

[mike_j]

summicron and J8 ar f2

summicron and J8 ar f2

Very nice thread you mentioned Mike! His J8 seems good, but would have like to see the wide open shots!

No problem.

http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/f2/L1_f2.jpg
http://www.stamcomms.eclipse.co.uk/50mm_tests/f2/L2a_f2.jpg

I didn't include them in the original thread because a) the sigma could only manage f2.8 and b) the yashica with its max 1/500 sec was too overexposed. Even these shots are one or two stops overexposed.

 

[bellyface]

where the heck do you buy this Russian gear anyway? is it available new?

fedka.com is great, here on the forum as well..

 

[Bertram2]

It is the Sonnar Type J8, as long as you do not use it for architecture. Because it has a considerable pincushion distortion, which can get obtrousive for lines parallel and close to the edges of the frame.

Bertram

 

[photophorous]

I have the C/V Heliar Classic 50/2, but I haven't had it long and it's the only 50 I've owned besides my Nikon AF 50/1.8. All I can say is that it's sharper than the Nikon, has better bokeh, and seems to be well built...it's about twice as heavy as my C/V 35 PII. I got it because it's compact, yet reasonably fast.

Paul

 

[brachal]

If you can live with the limitations of the I61 - f/16 to f/2.8 - it can't be beat for the price, which often includes a Fed5. The Jupiter8 offers more stops, but is a little pricier. Good examples of both are extremely capable lenses.

 

[lawrence]

I agree with Peterm1. I have recently tested early Summicron ('50s rigid), Jupiter 3, Heliar Classic and Canon f1.8. The Canon is outstanding value for money and it's really difficult to see any difference between it and the Summicron except that the Canon has a slightly wider field of view. I like the Summicron's focussing better as the Canon's is somewhat stiff by comparison, however the Canon is considerably lighter and cheaper. You need to get a 40mm -> 40.5mm step-up ring for it if you want to use a modern lens hood or filter. Both the Summicron and Canon have infinity locks but personally I don't mind them.