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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Benjamin Marks said:
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.

That's a good idea.
 
For pity's sake, Mr. Photo Art, the "he/she" clearly referred to me, that is, to payasam. But then richard_l and I never even got to first grade, did we? We were busy hunting for THE BEST 50 mm lens for a 10" by 8" plate camera.
 
My partial apologies. I mixed up the "his/her" with the "he/she". Partial because Julian is, or at any rate once was, a name given to females too. Look in the history of mediaeval England.

Jan, did Mister Julian really ask for *advice*? In his original post he said that he wanted to buy the best damn lens, set out a list of criteria, and ended by announcing that all *opinions*, objective or subjective, would be welcome. Then, so far as I can make out, he ignored advice aimed at his stated requirements and said he had decided on the most expensive Leitz product to be had.
 
Now then, I think that everyone has asked the "which lens is best" question in one form or another at some time. It is an obsession that can easily go with this hobby. I always like to think that many of my favorite photos by HCB and others were taken with lenses that today would be considered technically obsolete (pace the stouthearted RFF enthusiasts who love this older glass). This is a super time for M-mount photographers as there are many, many choices of good-to-great glass out there. The best of the lenses probably would challenge even the best of us to wring all that was possible from the glass. And even then, a reportedly great lens like the 50/1.4 Asph can produce mediocre results, if not used carefully (this is me speaking from >ahem< painful, personal experience). At the risk of sounding maudlin, all of us are somewhere on a learning curve with this stuff; Julian will take what he will from this conversation and will make the best pictures that he can.
 
payasam said:
My partial apologies. I mixed up the "his/her" with the "he/she". Partial because Julian is, or at any rate once was, a name given to females too. Look in the history of mediaeval England.

Jan, did Mister Julian really ask for *advice*? In his original post he said that he wanted to buy the best damn lens, set out a list of criteria, and ended by announcing that all *opinions*, objective or subjective, would be welcome. Then, so far as I can make out, he ignored advice aimed at his stated requirements and said he had decided on the most expensive Leitz product to be had.

Are you finished???? (yawn) First, you happen to be substantively incorrect. Second, I'm sorry that it bothers you so much, but I AM honestly interested in what other people think is the "best" 50mm lens, based not only on my definition of "best", but others' as well. This is obviously subjective no matter how it's approached. If you find my inquiry irksome, stay away.

Query, in general, why it seems so hard lately for people to NOT get involved in threads where they have nothing useful to add but instead are just blowing off steam of some kind?
 
julianphotoart said:
Query, in general, why it seems so hard lately for people to NOT get involved in threads where they have nothing useful to add but instead are just blowing off steam of some kind?
Possibly prompted by the questions that "have nothing useful to add" or contribute. These are usually avoided by a good Google search...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom