BEST 50 Lens????--no worry about cost

[ray_g]

I propose that we all thank Julianphotoart, champion of free speech, for giving us this wonderful opportunity to amuse him.

Sure thing. Around here, we're always happy to amuse a friend.

 

[peter_n]

The new Summilux ASPH does not soften up significantly at full bore, which is, after all, why this lens costs a king's ransom. All moles and warts show up in vivid detail, even at f/1.4.

Indeed. As one person recently observed about the Summicron "I don't need a dermatology lesson every time I look at a picture". Probably even more true of the Summilux ASPH.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Do Summiluxes soften up a bit wide open?

Yes and no. It feels like it softens up because of the shallow DOF, specially at close range, and supposedly at closer distances it is not "as sharp". It is reasonably sharp though, but pleasantly so. I am, of course, talking about the pre-Asph Summilux.

the Summitar that soften opened up. You get a lens with 2 looks.

Actually, the Summitar is reasonably sharp wide open, the "problem" is that it's soft at the corners, but it is surprisingly "sharp" in the center. The performance of this lens varies a lot depending on the focusing distance, not just depending on what aperture it's shot at. For that reason, it's "best" for those who like pleasant surprises.

 

[Harry Lime]

If you are simply going by technical performance, this would be my list, based on personal experience and various tests I have read. I am limiting myself to lenses that you can actually currently purchase in a store.

#1)
1.4/50 Summilux-M ASPH

#2)
2/50 Summicron-M and R (current)
1.4/50 Summilux-R (current)
2/50 Zeiss Planar (M-mount)

#3)
1.4/50 Canon
1.4/50 Summilux-M / R (pre-ASPH)
1.0/50 Noctilux-M
1.5/50 Nokton (VC)
1.4/50 Zeiss for Contax SLR

#4) Nikon 1.4/50 and 1.8/50

==============================

Cost no object:
1.4/50 Summilux ASPH
1.4/50 Summilux-R (current)

Biggest bang for your buck:
2/50 Summicron-M and R (current)
2/50 Zeiss Planar
1.5/50 Nocton (VC)

Personal favorite:
2/50 Summicron-DR


Harry Lime

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

1.4/50 Canon

You mean LTM, right? the FL and FD are ok, but not "great". The EF is very very good, it all depends on the luck of the draw (some copies are so-so, some are excellent).

The Canon EF 50 f/1.4 would actually please most wish list items: "soft" wide open, sharp stopped down (mine is by f/2.8!), great bokeh, great flare resistance, nice contrast stopped down, low contrast wide open.

With LTM, I think some would argue that the f/1.5 is "better" than the f/1.4 -- right Joe? 😉 I would agree.

 

[richard_l]

I propose that we all thank Julianphotoart, champion of free speech, for giving us this wonderful opportunity to amuse him.

Often people seem to have made up their minds already before asking for recommendations and are merely seeking reinforcement. Whatever the motivation in this case, the "no worry about cost" qualification made the Summilux ASPH the most obvious candidate (the Noctilux being too specialized) regardless of the other conditions.

 

[Bertram2]

bertram, you're so practical.

😉joe

Joe,

I take this word as beeing meant positvely in principle tho I hear slight undertones like "unromantic" if not to say "unemotional", maybe "pedantic" or even "smart a... spoils every party" ? 😀 😀

If so I would not really mind, my emotions simply have another kind of focus and I try to keep it. For example 25 years ago I found the best girl ever, to which I am still married, THAT's the kinda best-ever stuff which makes my life exciting!! 😉

Best as always,
bertram

 

[back alley]

Joe,

I take this word as beeing meant positvely in principle tho I hear slight undertones like "unromantic" if not to say "unemotional", maybe "pedantic" or even "smart a... spoils every party" ? 😀 😀

If so I would not really mind, my emotions simply have another kind of focus and I try to keep it. For example 25 years ago I found the best girl ever, to which I am still married, THAT's the kinda best-ever stuff which makes my life exciting!! 😉

Best as always,
bertram

no harm/negative meant.
it was more to mean maybe, logical, something i am not.

joe

 

[FrankS]

101 more psots to go Joe, before the counter resets. I'm betting you'll get there late tonight.

 

[Harry Lime]

>

You mean LTM, right? the FL and FD are ok, but not "great". The >EF is very very good, it all depends on the luck of the draw (some copies are so-so, >some are excellent).

The EOS version. I have one and it's pretty good, certainly better than the Nikon I shot.
But you are right, that you have to get a 'good' one. The first one I purchased was a little soft at all stops. I then cherry picked a second one and am satisfied. My only complaint is that sometimes the bokeh can be down right ugly (lightsources). For some odd reason it reminds me a little of how my Noctilux used to behave.

Harry Lime

 

[jan normandale]

Sure thing. Around here, we're always happy to amuse a friend.

Often many RFF'ers ask for advice. The question was straightforward. Aren't the comments regarding 'champion' or 'amuse' out of context?

 

[ray_g]

I agree, Jan. Hence my post.

 

[julianphotoart]

My simple question seems to "hit" people in all manner of ways.

Now I'm off thinking about finding a well-preserved LTM Nikkor f1.5. Is there such a thing handy?

I get what various people are saying about a Summilux showing every pimple; maybe not such a good thing. But at least for photos of my daughter, her skin is flawless. Everyone else will run for the hills.

Juilan

 

[Poptart]

Nikon presented Duncan with his 1.5 when they updated to the 1.4. It was mounted on a board with an inscription: "Used by David Douglas Duncan in Korea . . ." He said it look like his obit.

 

[richard_l]

I think payasam put more thought into his/her recommendation than the others and that the Elmar may indeed be the best fit for Julianphotoart's expressed preferences. Understandably it can be a little irksome to carefully draft a post intended to be helpful and have it apparently ignored. However, there is no rule of etiquette which requires that a good post be acknowledged. It is, after all, Julianphotoart's money, and if he/she is determined to have a Summilux ASPH and is uninterested in the humble Elmar, then so be it.

 

[julianphotoart]

I think payasam put more thought into his/her recommendation than the others and that the Elmar may indeed be the best fit for Julianphotoart's expressed preferences. Understandably it can be a little irksome to carefully draft a post intended to be helpful and have it apparently ignored. However, there is no rule of etiquette which requires that a good post be acknowledged. It is, after all, Julianphotoart's money, and if he/she is determined to have a Summilux ASPH and is uninterested in the humble Elmar, then so be it.

I hear what you say, but happen to disagree. If it stopped there, I would respect it nevertheless. I do not appreciate the "he/she" however. That is a gratuitous insult given that anyone beyond 2nd grade knows Julian is a male name.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> I have no set single definition of best.

Neither do I. That is why I have so many.

Summarit: Best 50 for portraits.

 

[richard_l]

I hear what you say, but happen to disagree. If it stopped there, I would respect it nevertheless. I do not appreciate the "he/she" however. That is a gratuitous insult given that anyone beyond 2nd grade knows Julian is a male name.

Mea Culpa. I didn't notice your real name. I assure you no insult was intended.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Sigh. There is not a bad lens on the list. Most of them, if bought used can be sold for what you paid for them. I suggest you buy the 50/2 Zeiss Planar and see whether you like the images it produces. I bought mine hoping that it would equal the 45/2 for the G's, but be usable on my Ms. The lens has a lot of pop. On an RD-1, you might want a lower-contrast lens for outdoor work . . . But really, the answer is that none of them will disappoint and (you'll just have to believe me on this one) each design has a unique signature. I'd echo what payasam said about a hood.

 

[Bertram2]

no harm/negative meant.
it was more to mean maybe, logical, something i am not.

joe

Did not assume any harm. I am a bit spoiled by the IT consulting job, which has much to do with a precise analysis as a basic condition for an optimized concept or complete solution.

Maybe this has made me smell like a nitpicker, as a fish dealer smells like a fish ?
A professional reflex, can't help it. 😉
Best,
bertram