First Results: Test of Fifteen 50mm Lenses

Here are photos taken with the Nikkor 50mm/1.1 which Kiu kindly supllied. Initially, I used Kiu's Nikon S camera with this lens,and the results were horrible. We thought the lens needed some shimming or something else was wrong with the lens. Then I used the Bessa R2C which Markly kindly provided me with. The whole Nikkor lens issue was a puzzle since another Nikkor lens worked well with Kiu's Nikon S.

I have not edited any image;all images are shown. We (Brian Sweeney and I) first thought that the Nikkor was focusing behind the focus points chosen, so I focused slightly OOF, but then I just used what the Bessa R2C showed me to be in focus.

Kiu, I think that your Nikkor is fine. There is no way in the world that the lens is in need of repair and then I get many photos at 1.1 rather sharp. The Nikon S does not work well with this lens. Maybe the camera's rangefinder system needs an inspection.

Dana moved around [as usual] and the images with her are less sharp than those with my wife. Also, Dana was not looking at me but at the light source, and this made focusing very difficult. I saw only hair and a piece of the nose.
I avoided using lit candles with the child, and I improvised and used [from last hurricane] a neon light. With my wife, I used the lit candles, and this time I tried to get the candles also in focus as someone [was it Nico?] in the critique forum suggested to me when I posted an image there recently.


I got the Ilford XP2 film scanned,and I used only AUTO ADJUST in PS for all images. I used a tripod Gitzo in all shots and I did not use any lens hood.

Most images were taken at 1.1, but I also had three replicates taken at 1.4/2.0/4.0.


How do you view images taken with a 50mm lens at 1.1?
Are these images you like or do you prefer smaller apertures?
I have only the Canon 50/1.2, and I rarely use it wide open.
After using the other fast lenses in the lens comparisons, I am starting to like the large aperture setting.


Your comments are welcome.


http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=679532


Raid
 
Last edited:
bunkawen14 said:
I realize this comes a bit late in this thread, but I find it curious there is no M-Hexanon 50 included in the roundup.

Why bother? Because it is a fabulous lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/
Click to expand...

Howard: Yes, this is rather late in the thread; I asked repeatedly for loaner lenses, and nobody volunteered the M-Hexanon. If you had sent me the lens, I would have added it in the lens comparisons. The lenses featured in this thread simply are the 50mm lenses that are available to me. There is no claim that these are the "best lenses" somehow.
I hope that you like the lens comparisons.


Greetings,

Raid
 
I will next try to find the time to upload results of lenses taken with the Leica mount. They include another Nokton for the Prominent 50/1.5, a Noctilux 50/1.0, a Zeiss Sonnar C 50/1.5, a Zeiss Jena 50/1.5. I also have another half-roll taken with the Noctilux hand-held at 1.0.


Raid
 
raid said:
I will next try to find the time to upload results of lenses taken with the Leica mount. They include another Nokton for the Prominent 50/1.5, a Noctilux 50/1.0, a Zeiss Sonnar C 50/1.5, a Zeiss Jena 50/1.5. I also have another half-roll taken with the Noctilux hand-held at 1.0.


Raid
Click to expand...

Wow, Raid, you are THE MAN when it comes to testing a whole host of lenses. Thanks again for all your diligent efforts!

-Randy
 
Raid,

this:

5403348-md.jpg


is an outstanding photo. Thanks for posting.

Roland.
 
Here are the results of shooting the last part of a roll of Reala that was in my Leica M3 camera this morning. Dana and Lina were watching some cartoons on TV,and they are so used to my photography that it did not even draw their attention. I used the Noctilux 50mm/1.0 wide open in all shots. This lens is what I need; it feels just right in my hands. Then again, I better stick with my Canon 50/1.2.


http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=679571

I have another roll (in true B&W) with this lens, but I will have to wait until the film gets developed and then scanned one day.


Raid
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Raid,

this:

[image removed]

is an outstanding photo. Thanks for posting.

Roland.
Click to expand...


Thanks Roland. I try to squeeze out a few nice family photos in all this lens testing. Else, it would be too time consuming for a family man like myself. Note how this light source causes more flare than the candles. I had a hard time finding something to focus on clearly.

Raid
 
Last edited:
Kiu, I think that your Nikkor is fine. There is no way in the world that the lens is in need of repair and then I get many photos at 1.1 rather sharp. The Nikon S does not work well with this lens. Maybe the camera's rangefinder system needs an inspection.
Click to expand...
Hi Raid,
Don't forget that the Contax mount is a little bit different than the Nikon mount

I will get to the bottom of this!!

BTW the Nikon is S2

Kiu
 
Happy New Year, Thanks for the comparison, Raid, and all people lend lenses, esp. the expensive ones... Rarely I have ever seen any pictures taken with the Nikkor-N 1.1/50 on the net. I'm impressed of its quality. At least it's not worse than the Canon 0.95 - so we can discuss that further in between - even a bit "more creamy/ less harsh" (Dana at the lamp), although sharp enough for a candlelight lens. That's from a (small pockets) Canon nut, Kiu...! :cool:
Anyway, You did it right, Raid, found a way to take good use of this kind of lenses.
What not surprises me is the quality of the Canon 1.5/50, although it is best corrected for middle distances, not close focus. But the Nikkor 1.4/50 again proved its excellent close focus performance, and the Summarit... hm!
And happy to see the great Nokton Prominent comparing good as well. You see old German perfectness here. Never they hadn't launched any lens with visible aberrations! Mistake, now gone. I wish I had that lens in LTM mount.

And PS, you have a sweet daughter... My is 10 months actually and already had to pose for lens tests as well... :eek: tongue in cheek, my actual close-focus favorite is a Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 on a 1975' Rolleiflex SL350..
 
Raid, thanks for the most recent post. I am really impressed by the 50/1.4 Millenium Nikkor, great resolution and very contrasty wide open. Not too surprising given that the original 50/1.4 is such a great lens. I expect to get my non-Millenium 50/1.4 back from being cleaned this week, and am looking forward to trying it out. ( An aside to Nikon Kiu - thanks for the recommendation on Peter Smith. He sent me an email estimate the day he received the lens, and had it ready to ship the next day.)

I also was impressed with the 50/1.1 Nikkor performance wide open, although I think that the images improve quite a bit stopped down a little - (just like the Canon 50/0.95). The images taken at 1.4 appear to offer much better resolution. Pleasing OOF areas too.

I continue to be a bit surprised at the outstanding performance of these old lenses as compared to modern lenses, given that the science behind lens coatings and glass recipes have advanced so much in the intervening period.

Are you sick of looking at cameras yet? I would be getting pretty weary by this point.
 
Mark: I am ready to stop any lens testing for quite some time. It is too overwhelming seeing 25 50mm lenses in front of me, out of which maybe 10 are outstanding. It takes away the "WOW factor" from using the lenses that I own. The other factor is the result that almost all 50mm lenses [once adjusted if very old] can give me excellent results in difficult light situations.

It takes some work now for everybody following this thread to arrive at some useful and meaningful conclusions. There are many images to look at and compare with each other. Without such input, this thread will be less useful to others and to ourselves. Maybe we could each choose 2-4 lenses to compare.
I still have to post results on the Zeiss C-Sonnar and the Zeiss Jena 50mm/1.5, plus the Prominent Nokton in Nikon mount,

I will send you a pm regarding your lenses and so on.

Greetings,

Raid
 
Last edited:
Sonnar2 said:
Happy New Year, Thanks for the comparison, Raid, and all people lend lenses, esp. the expensive ones... Rarely I have ever seen any pictures taken with the Nikkor-N 1.1/50 on the net. I'm impressed of its quality. At least it's not worse than the Canon 0.95 - so we can discuss that further in between - even a bit "more creamy/ less harsh" (Dana at the lamp), although sharp enough for a candlelight lens. That's from a (small pockets) Canon nut, Kiu...! :cool:
Anyway, You did it right, Raid, found a way to take good use of this kind of lenses.
What not surprises me is the quality of the Canon 1.5/50, although it is best corrected for middle distances, not close focus. But the Nikkor 1.4/50 again proved its excellent close focus performance, and the Summarit... hm!
And happy to see the great Nokton Prominent comparing good as well. You see old German perfectness here. Never they hadn't launched any lens with visible aberrations! Mistake, now gone. I wish I had that lens in LTM mount.

And PS, you have a sweet daughter... My is 10 months actually and already had to pose for lens tests as well... :eek: tongue in cheek, my actual close-focus favorite is a Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 on a 1975' Rolleiflex SL350..
Click to expand...

Happy New Year and Thanks.


The Nikkor 50mm/1.1 is different from the Canon 50mm/0.95 when used wide open. As you already have noted, the OOF rendition of the Nikkor is more creamy and less "harsh" or maybe "special". All of my own tested lenses do very well in images taken at the infinity setting, so the tests really focus on the close distance focusing and low light performance with respect to flare when there is an object shining at the lens.

What is your opinion on the Sumamrit? My sample of the Summarit may be not the best one around, even though I got is cleaned.

I have several Rolleiflex SL35 cameras, and I love their lenses, but the bodies are not dependable. The SL350 may have bene the best of the 35mm Rolleilfex cameras made.


Greetings,

Raid
 
In case someone just visits this tread for the first time, I have tested/used the following lenses:

FSU:
1. J-3
2. J-8
3. Industrar 61L
4. Industrar 50mm/3.5 rigid

Japan:
5. Canon 50/1.2
6. Canon 50mm/1.4 ............... from Mark.
7. Canon 50mm/1.5 ............... from Mark.
8. Canon 50/1.8
9. Canon 50mm/0.95 .......... from Mark
10. Nikon 50/2
11. Nikkor S 50mm/1.4 (separate camera S2 and test) ............ from Kiu.
12. Nikkor Millenium 50mm/1.4 (for the S3) .............. from Kiu
13. Nikkor 50mm/1.1 ................. from Kiu


Germany:
14. Summicron rigid first version
15. Summicron Collapsible
16. Elmar 5cm/3.5
17. Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm/2 LTM
18. Summitar
19. Summarit
20. Zeiss Tessar 50mm/3.5 ........... Mark
21. Zeiss Sonnar C 50mm/1.5 ......... Fred
22. Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm/1.5 ...... Fred
23. Noctilux 50mm/1.0 .......... Fred
24. Prominent Nokton 50mm/1.5 .......... Fred
25. Prominent Nokton 50mm/1.5 ........ Mark

I may have gotten the names of the loaners mixed up, but they look right to me right now. There are ten separate image files out which nine already have bene loaded up. You can find all links in the first posting of this thread. Most images have bene taken with Ilford XP2 Super C-41 B&W film, but I have also included a couple of color rolls.

This is a good time to jump in here and to single out one or two 50mm lenses that interest you.


I have just found out a possible error that should have affected the images for two lenses. I used the Nikon mount lenses on a Contax mount Bessa R2C without the Nikon-Contax adapter, except for the Nokton Prominent. I was unaware that the focusing on the two mounts would be different. This means that for 2 lenses in the last batch of lenses (Nikon Millenium, Zeiss Tessar), the results may get even better if I had used the Contax adapter. I mistakenly thought that only the Nokton [that came supplied with the adapter) needed the adapter. On the other hand, it may have been a lucky event with the Nikkor 50mm/1.1. It is supposed to be in Nikon mount, and I got only OOF results with it on the Nikon S2, but when using this lens on the Besaa R2C without the appropriate Contax adapter, the images were sharp. Either this lens was made for the Contax mount, or it needs reshimming and the mount difference provided the needed shimming for this lens.

How much difference is there between the Nikon mount and the Contax mount?

This shows you another factor that made testing of 25 lenses in different mounts rather challenging.


Raid
 
Last edited:
raid said:
How much difference is there between the Nikon mount and the Contax mount?
Click to expand...

Take a look at this page http://www.cameraquest.com/NRF-Contax.htm

According to my Voigtländer Bessa R2S manual, the differences between Nikon and Contax mounts are these:
50mm
f/5.6: from 0.9 m to infinite -> within depth-of-field
f/4: from 1.5 m to infinite -> within depth-of-field
f/3.5: from 1.5 m to infinite -> within depth-of-field
f/2.5: from 2 m to infinite -> within depth-of-field
f/2: from 3 m to infinite -> within depth-of-field
f/1.5: from 5 m to infinite -> within depth-of-field

Other distances are out of depth-of-field. Hope this helps.
 
raid said:
I have just found out a possible error that should have affected the images for two lenses. I used the Nikon mount lenses on a Contax mount Bessa R2C without the Nikon-Contax adapter, except for the Nokton Prominent. I was unaware that the focusing on the two mounts would be different. This means that for 2 lenses in the last batch of lenses (Nikon Millenium, Zeiss Tessar), the results may get even better if I had used the Contax adapter.

Raid
Click to expand...

Raid, the Zeiss 50/3.5 Tessar that you have is in Contax RF mount, and works just fine on the Bessa R2C without the need for an adapter.

Also, your latest lens list does not include the Canon 50/0.95.

Based on the info provided in a recent post, it appears that the focusing differences between the Nikon and Contax mounts would have little affect on the images taken with the 50/1.1 Nikkor at the large apertures that you used in the test.
 
dexdog said:
Based on the info provided in a recent post, it appears that the focusing differences between the Nikon and Contax mounts would have little affect on the images taken with the 50/1.1 Nikkor at the large apertures that you used in the test.
Click to expand...

About the compatibility of S (Nikon) and C (Contax) mount and focusing errors with 50mm lens. If images shot with a 50mm at f/1.5 are out of depth-of-field, when shot closer than 5 meters, then at f/1.1 they are maybe out of depth-of-field even from 0.9 to 6 meters, because of wider aperture... Unfortunately my Bessa R2S instruction manual doesn't have a scale for faster 50mm lenses than f/1.5. :(
 
yes, I think that you are correct on this issue- I had it backwards. I should drink more coffee in the morning prior to posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom