Steve M.
Veteran
First, let me give a big Thank You for all of the great suggestions everyone gave me on my Best $100 SLR question. Nearly drove myself nuts (nutser?) trying to figure that one out.
After ALMOST getting a Nikon FE/FE2 w/ a 50 1.8 lens I hesitated. What if it's not sharp enough? You can never have a too-sharp lens in my opinion. Rangefinders have spoiled me because the lenses are pretty darned sharp. Or, barring sharpness, how about just different? Something w/ a tangible character? OK, I probably should concentrate on getting better shots, but good gear never hurt anyone. So I bought an odd duck, at least in my little photo world, which was also double my $100 figure. I got a Contax 139Q w/ a Zeiss Planar 50 1.7. The photos I looked at on the web looked very sharp from that lens, although the bokeh was not that great.
About 10 minutes after buying it I discovered all these internet postings swearing that the Hexanon/Rokkor/Minolta 50 1.7 lenses werejust as good as the Zeiss Planar! And for peanuts! Ain't this always how it goes. So before I go and buy a sample of every *!!:#^$ 50mm lens ever made, can someone tell me which BUDGET (maybe up to $80?) 40mm to 50mm lens really did it for you? Not necessarily the sharpest ones, although I like that, but something that had the best "oomph" to the photos. If I had any sense I'd just buy another R 50 Summicron, but I truly don't want a $500 SLR kit.
After ALMOST getting a Nikon FE/FE2 w/ a 50 1.8 lens I hesitated. What if it's not sharp enough? You can never have a too-sharp lens in my opinion. Rangefinders have spoiled me because the lenses are pretty darned sharp. Or, barring sharpness, how about just different? Something w/ a tangible character? OK, I probably should concentrate on getting better shots, but good gear never hurt anyone. So I bought an odd duck, at least in my little photo world, which was also double my $100 figure. I got a Contax 139Q w/ a Zeiss Planar 50 1.7. The photos I looked at on the web looked very sharp from that lens, although the bokeh was not that great.
About 10 minutes after buying it I discovered all these internet postings swearing that the Hexanon/Rokkor/Minolta 50 1.7 lenses werejust as good as the Zeiss Planar! And for peanuts! Ain't this always how it goes. So before I go and buy a sample of every *!!:#^$ 50mm lens ever made, can someone tell me which BUDGET (maybe up to $80?) 40mm to 50mm lens really did it for you? Not necessarily the sharpest ones, although I like that, but something that had the best "oomph" to the photos. If I had any sense I'd just buy another R 50 Summicron, but I truly don't want a $500 SLR kit.
bwidjaja
Warung Photo
For me, the OM1+50mm f1.8 was it. But selling it now (in RFF ad) as I am leaning towards medium format.
pesphoto
Veteran
hexanon ar 50mm 1.7...doesnt get any better or cheaper
paulfish4570
Veteran
Give the Planar a shot. Maybe Jan will weigh in with an opinion.
The guys at www.mflenses.com are head-over-heels for the Planar, and they know their tech stuff ...
The guys at www.mflenses.com are head-over-heels for the Planar, and they know their tech stuff ...
Robert Lai
Well-known
Any of the 50mm lenses will give you excellent results. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI/AIS have no distortion. Slightly lower in contrast wide open, but quickly get very contrasty by 2.8. Even wide open, the resolution is very high in the center.
dacookieman
Cookie Monster
Picked up a Om1+ 50mm f1.8 Zuiko MC the other day, I couldn't resist doing so as it was going for so cheap. After developing a roll, i was pleasantly surprised that the quality I was getting for some of my shots were that good
Maybe even better than some of my other cameras, which was at least 3x its price. I daresay the OM kit has a very good quality: price ratio.
This was a F8, sharp enough?
If you're looking for wide open sharpness. I think it fares pretty well too. Here's one at F1.8:
Maybe even better than some of my other cameras, which was at least 3x its price. I daresay the OM kit has a very good quality: price ratio.This was a F8, sharp enough?
If you're looking for wide open sharpness. I think it fares pretty well too. Here's one at F1.8:
Donovan
Member
Well, you got the right lens but the wrong body. Yashica's are much cheaper and are more reliable IMO. With that Planar 1.7 you don't need to look any further for sharpness.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
Other than getting the truly superb f1.4/50mm Planar (which doesn't match your budget definition), you got the best one already -- go with your P50 and take some pictures rather than "wasting" time pondering the "what ifs" ;-) ;-)
pixelatedscraps
Well-known
Well, that's what you get when you ask a question from everyone and then take no one's advice
I'm with Donovan: nice lens, overpriced / over-hyped body.
I still think you should have gone the OM-1n + 50/1.8 (MiJ version), the Nikon FE2/FM2 + 50/1.8 or with one of the Konica Autoreflex + 50/1.7 Hexanons
I'm with Donovan: nice lens, overpriced / over-hyped body.
I still think you should have gone the OM-1n + 50/1.8 (MiJ version), the Nikon FE2/FM2 + 50/1.8 or with one of the Konica Autoreflex + 50/1.7 Hexanons
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
Zeiss! With cheap 139Q works well.
Steve M.
Veteran
I know, the Contax 139Q body wasn't that great, but the whole kit w/ the Planar was nearly the same price as the lens alone from what I was seeing, so it will get me going initially. The only worry is the bokeh frpom that 50 1.7 Planar. I'm seeing some fantastic bokeh from the Rokkor and Hexanon 50 lenses, and the prices! $11 for a good 50 lens??? Wow. So it does make me think "what if" a $40 camera and lens wouldn't give 90% of the same quality as a $200 kit. The math is hard to ignore, and I feel good when I get nice shots from low priced lenses.
I have a J-8 that Brian Sweeney shimmed for a Leica camera and it is very nearly the equal of a Leica and has butter smooth bokeh. Not too bad for a $50 lens. Unfortunately I live in a smallish town w/ crappy thrift stores, so no bargain bin SLR's here. If I was in Tucson or another largish city I'd just take $100 and go buy a bunch of thrift store cameras and test them and resell the ones that aren't to my liking. A pain, but it works. I'm grateful for all the advice I got. Still curious about those Oly OM's, because the shots that dacookieman posted look wonderful, but a lot of people complain that their lenses aren't that sharp until stopped way down. Sample variations must be all over the place on those.
.
I have a J-8 that Brian Sweeney shimmed for a Leica camera and it is very nearly the equal of a Leica and has butter smooth bokeh. Not too bad for a $50 lens. Unfortunately I live in a smallish town w/ crappy thrift stores, so no bargain bin SLR's here. If I was in Tucson or another largish city I'd just take $100 and go buy a bunch of thrift store cameras and test them and resell the ones that aren't to my liking. A pain, but it works. I'm grateful for all the advice I got. Still curious about those Oly OM's, because the shots that dacookieman posted look wonderful, but a lot of people complain that their lenses aren't that sharp until stopped way down. Sample variations must be all over the place on those.
.
feenej
Well-known
I have the Minolta MD 50mm f1.7. It's an outstanding lens.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
IMHO, if you spend more than $20 on a 50mm *manual focus standard SLR lens*, you are paying too much.
The way I see it, there are two camps for 50mm:
1. The extremely sharp, free of aberrations, excellent contrast thanks to superior coating: Pentax Super Taks, Zeiss 50/1.7 (maybe the best), Konica Hexanon and old Nikkor lenses.
2. The smooth bokeh lenses: Minolta Rokkors, and Olympus Zuikos. And of course the king in this category: 50mm Summicron R.
The way I see it, there are two camps for 50mm:
1. The extremely sharp, free of aberrations, excellent contrast thanks to superior coating: Pentax Super Taks, Zeiss 50/1.7 (maybe the best), Konica Hexanon and old Nikkor lenses.
2. The smooth bokeh lenses: Minolta Rokkors, and Olympus Zuikos. And of course the king in this category: 50mm Summicron R.
dof
Fiat Lux
Hi Steve,
The tone of your posts sure sounds familiar - I've heard a similar one in my own head many times! If your experience is anything like my own, I think you'll just have to accept the fact that you really want to try all these lenses out for yourself.
The good news is that many great SLR lenses are really inexpensive now. All the best in your quest!
The tone of your posts sure sounds familiar - I've heard a similar one in my own head many times! If your experience is anything like my own, I think you'll just have to accept the fact that you really want to try all these lenses out for yourself.
The good news is that many great SLR lenses are really inexpensive now. All the best in your quest!
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You don't need another lens. You can do the best photographs with what you got... That oomph is precisely what the photographer is supposed to do, and doesn't come from gear nor sharpness... All lenses are more than sharp enough... You need to shoot until your photographs are great no matter the camera you use. Medium format won't do it for you either...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
ferider
Veteran
There is a lens that fits both camps, Will: the post 1.1 Mio Zuiko 50/1.4. My new to me lens produced some amazing results in first tests. Outperforms the OM MIJ 50/1.8 easily (and that one is pretty good). Even the M Summicrons I used. Usually a little more than US 100 though, these days.
A comment to the OP: when you look at SLR 50mm lens resolution, there is a certain threshold that you can only exceed if you shoot on tripod and with mirror lock-up. In hand-held practice, even with highest shutter speeds, the maximum performance is often very hard to reach (and this is different from RF use). So I would look for a decently sharp lens with nice bokeh and low distortion. SLR 50mm lens sharpness is way overrated, IMO.
Roland.
Last edited:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Canon FD 50/1.4 I prefer the earlier S.S.C. Breech Lock versions - most don't so they're cheaper yet. Excellent lens.
