Best 50mm for f8-f16

[paniolo]

Hi,
I am looking for the best 50mm lens in ltm/m-mount that still gives great performance at f8-f16.

Why?
I realy like the deep DOF of wide angle lenses, but dont like the angle of view of them.
50mm is perfect for me. I only have a Jupiter 3 that gives a nice soft character. Closed down to 11, it looses much perfomance.

What are your experiences with different 50mm's?
I would realy like to know how the Canon 50's are doing, at all the 1.8, the Voigtlaender 50's and a Leica.

Regards
Tobi

 

[enochRoot]

Honestly, and not to sound like a smart-ass, but almost any of them at those apertures. I don't think you could go wrong. Since probably the 40s/50s we've been able to design 50mm lenses that perform pretty much flawlessly at f8. Ergonomics, close focus, size, etc. should probably play more of a part in your decision.

 

[redisburning]

some lenses are markedly better than others, even at f8.

the best is no 50, it's the new Zeiss 55. After that is Leica's 50AA, then the 50 Makro-Planar, then the 50 Lux ASPH. These lenses all deviate from the double gauss design heavily, and are recent in their production. The Olympus 50/2 Macro is close, and then comes the better, slower double gauss like the ZM 50 Planar and 50mm summicron.

I like 50mms myself. My two current favorites are the 50 Makro-Planar and the 50/2 Olympus Macro. For rangefinders, my choice would be a version 4 summicron if I lacked the funds for a 50 Lux ASPH.

 

[kxl]

For the M mount, I have settled on the ZM Planar (old reliable) and the ZM Sonnar (for 'character'). Those two have pretty much proven to cover my RF needs for a 50.

For my DSLR (D700,D800), I currently have a 50/1.4 AFS, but really use my 24-70/2.8 more often (the convenience, plus it is an excellent lens). I would like to check out the Makro Planar and do wish I could afford the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4.

 

[Jan Pedersen]

All lenses stopped down several stops from their fastest aperture will start to loose performance, does not matter if it is a Zeiss or a Nikon.
It's called diffraction.

 

[redisburning]

that is an over simplification.

I can easily point you to a lens that loses contrast over 2/3rds of the phrame by going to f8 from 5.6 but has a higher area under it's contrast curves for relevant frequencies. Even a very, very good lens like the Coastal Optics 60 f4.

at f8 there can still a very significant difference between lenses. a good place to confirm this is Leica's own literature, compare for example the 50 R Summicron to the 60 Macro-Elmarit, there is quite a bit of difference there and the R Summicron is very close to the current M formulation; so close indeed it was .1 lower on photodo's scale.

double gauss designs at 50mm have rarely been able to achieve high levels of fine detail contrast. in fact, Puts remarked that the 50 ZM planar was found to have the lowest level of contrast at 40 lp/mm of all currently available M mount 50s when he did that comparison. the 50 Lux ASPH, a substantial departure from that formula, had the highest.

having had a lot of 50s including a 50 ZM Planar, and having traded it for a 50 Makro-Planar, there is a significant difference still to be seen at f8 and this is between 2 very good lenses. And I do not need confirmation bias; I sell lenses that don't live up to my expectations like they have insulted my mother.

M mount has many of the very best lenses money can buy. Unfortunately, the list of truly top tier 50s is small even when you include SLRs. you can buy the best, which are the newest ASPH Leica 50s, or I suggest you find the money to purchase a v4 or 5 summicron which can be sold down the line should you find yourself in need of a new lens or cash.

in SLRs, perhaps my favorite was the 58/1.2 rokkor. I wish I had never sold mine; I even offered to buy it back from it's new owner =/

 

[jordanatkins]

Except for lenses on Holgas and other toy cameras, I don't think I've ever found a lens that wasn't tack sharp at F8. That's usually the sweet spot for every lens.

Hence the classic phrase, "F8 and be there."

 

[sleepyhead]

A not-too-expensive M mount option is the modern 50mm Elmar-M.

I haven't tried it at f/16, but in the f/5.6 to f/11 range it is outstandingly sharp and yet lacks a clinical look.

Otherwise, a v4 summicron, as has been mentioned above.

 

[paniolo]

Jea and the elmar-m also poked into my eye.
Well, I dont get it right now, money wouldnt be the problem but I cant understand why I should pay lets say 1000$ for a lens when I can get a Jupiter 8 for far less.
I mean, is there such a giant difference?

Last Summer, I have compared the Zeiss Planar and Sonnar with my Jupiter and I saw absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

Maybe I am blind for such details.

 

[Doug]

Jea and the elmar-m also poked into my eye.
Well, I dont get it right now, money wouldnt be the problem but I cant understand why I should pay lets say 1000$ for a lens when I can get a Jupiter 8 for far less.
I mean, is there such a giant difference?

Last Summer, I have compared the Zeiss Planar and Sonnar with my Jupiter and I saw absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

Maybe I am blind for such details.

Well, it sounds you have your answer, then... Save your bucks, pick up a J-8 and make good photos. 🙂

 

[paniolo]

I made a friend a gift in form of that J8 with a Zorki 4k, so I dont own it anymore. I use the J3 (1955), bought it last summer in bad condition and have it been serviced.
It runs very smooth now with nice tight aperture and new screws, the old ones were broken.

I realy love it, but I still want a lens that can perform very sharp at apertures around f11-f22.
I know the thing about diffraction, thats why I ask if there is a special lens that is realy good at that aperture range.

Regards
Tobi

 

[sparrow6224]

that is an over simplification.....

at f8 there can still a very significant difference between lenses. a good place to confirm this is Leica's own literature, compare for example the 50 R Summicron to the 60 Macro-Elmarit, there is quite a bit of difference there =/

Hey Red I have been shooting the 60 Elmarit quite a bit lately and am about to develop the film. What are these differences of which you speak? Ie what should I be expecting?

 

[redisburning]

Vince,

sorry I did not see your post.

Anyway with 60ME you will see basically the same very high resolution over the entire field. for 50 Cron-R, you will see a "midzone dip" that rebounds at the corners; basically a donut of lower fine detail definition. it's clearly noticeable if you shoot a flat subject and examine at high magnification ala a loupe, a high res digital or a high resolution scanner at 100%.

you might struggle even at 11x14 if the subject isn't flat or all in the same plane of focus. 35mm t-grained b&w film can be taken BIG and while you take a hit on tonality the resolution is there to discriminate between lenses even at high frequencies.