One of those "Which lens" posts

[photorat]

I'm looking for a 'fastish' 50 for my M2 and R-D1. I have about $300-400 to spend, am looking for a lens with character (with a certain 'dreamy' quality about it) but still acceptably sharp, around f/1.5 or faster.

I've narrowed the list down to the list in the poll. But perhaps I'm overlooking something?

On the basis of other threads here, I like the Canon 1.2 (might has well go super fast, eh?) but have also heard interesting things about the Sonnar 1.5 (in thread mount). As I currently have only Leica, CV and Nikon lenses, either of these two would diversify the gene pool, which is nice, but obviously I'd like to remain objective.

Thanks for any and all advice.

EDIT: First option should of course read Summarit 1.5 not Summitar

 

[nzeeman]

if you need dreamy -nikkor is sonnar design - and also better corrected as i heard. maybe that will be right lens for you. one was offered here on rff few days ago. other is canon 1.4 people say only good things about it.

 

[ferider]

The Summitar is f2. Maybe you meant the Summarit ?

Also, you should consider the Canon 50/1.5.

Anyways, from your list I prefer the Nikkor.

Roland.

 

[v3cron]

I recently got the Summarit, and think it has a wonderful look. Under $200, too.

 

[Tim Gray]

The Nikkor is a nice lens. It is very sharp stopped down some, and wide open, dreamy is the right word. I've been told, but not experimented with this yet, that if you stop down to like f/1.6ish, the lens sharpens up quite nicely, getting rid of the dreamy effect. So you don't have to go to f/8 for it to sharpen.

It's really small too. The only issues I have with it are the strange handling compared to modern Leica and Zeiss lenses. It has full aperture stops, an infinity lock, and the aperture ring goes in the wrong direction. But all these older lenses probably handle different from the more modern ones.

I have about 60 photos taken with this lens on my flickr account.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

The nice thing about the Canon, and the thing that makes it unique (at least in my experience) is that it's totally weird looking at 1.2, but super sharp stopped down even as little as to f/2. It's like a superb conventional 50 with this crazy extra feature.

 

[rover]

I think you will find the Summilux is outside of your budget. I think the Canon 1.4 is the best of the rest, with some real good second best in that group.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

the old summarits are amazing if you want an old school look. If you can find a clean example of this lens it should really knock your socks off. very under rated.

 

[35mmdelux]

try EKTAR 100 for micro-fine grain with your fastish 50. smooth tonality. sweet.

 

[gb hill]

You may say i'm crazy but in Raids lens test the J-3 is tops and right up there with many of the canon's & close to Leica glass. If you can get your hands on a J-3 that has been Sweenified or colluminated by kim Coxon, Grab it and save your dough.
The bokeh is beautiful on these lenses.

 

[Melvin]

Looking at the poll results so far, I'd say it's the Nikkor 1.4. It's the front runner in the price range the OP mentioned. It's safe to say that all of these are excellent lenses.
Come to think of it I have seen very few Nikkor 1.4 or Canon 1.5 lenses for sale in the past year, and they go for more than $300 easily. The Canon 50/1.4 is still a good deal at around $2-300 and there's usually one for sale.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

The maximum value for your dollar would be a Jupiter-3 that has been calibrated... especially an early one, say a 1950's vintage. This lens is a Zeiss copy and apparently early J-3's even had Zeiss glass in them.

 

[jmkelly]

I voted for the Nikkor. You might be able to find a good example in your price range. For me the Summarit would be second choice - dreamy for sure but I prefer the look from the Nikkor, and it's a lot bigger. Note the Xenon is the same lens more or less, without coating unless it was added after manufacture. You might have trouble finding a real Zeiss Sonnar in LTM - I agree 100% with GBH and PLM above that the J-3 might be the best bet - it is not as well built as the Nikkor but properly shimmed examples can make remarkable images - at about 1/3rd of your budget.

 

[dedmonds]

Canon 50/1.5 LTM

 

[thomasw_]

There is only one question for me regarding this list: which summilux 50f1,4? The v2/3 is a spectacular lens with some of the most appealing bokeh on this side of the 75/1.4. But the summilux asph is a perfect all-round 50mm lens for me; its behaviour is very consistent.

 

[Melvin]

There is only one question for me regarding this list: which summilux 50f1,4? The v2/3 is a spectacular lens with some of the most appealing bokeh on this side of the 75/1.4. But the summilux asph is a perfect all-round 50mm lens for me; its behaviour is very consistent.

I have to respectfully disagree. I find the bokeh from my Summilux v2 to be inconsistant. Harsh at times, showing nasty nisen bokeh, particularly close up outdoors in bright light , and other times smooth, such as wide open indoors. Basically I find it produces harsh bokeh in bright light.

 

[thomasw_]

I have to respectfully disagree. I find the bokeh from my Summilux v2 to be inconsistant. Harsh at times, showing nasty nisen bokeh, particularly close up outdoors in bright light , and other times smooth, such as wide open indoors. Basically I find it produces harsh bokeh in bright light.

No you don't disagree with me as regards the v2/3; for you can get the inconsistency you describe. If you give my post a slightly closer reading, you will note I was referring to the asph version as having consistent behaviour 😉 That is why it is my 'go-to' lens. Good cheer, Thomas

 

[Hacker]

Any Sonnar for sure. Look at the coating, more interesting than the Amber color of the Canon 50mm f1.2.

 

[gohaj]

just get the sonnar 1.5!

 

[dof]

I can't comment on the others on the list, but the pre-aspheric Summilux is my favorite 50mm lens for just the reasons that the op mentions.

I foolishly sold mine after getting the latest aspheric lens, thinking that the new one would be just as much to my liking with the added bonus of having better contrast at full aperture and at close focusing distances. After a few months I really missed the crazy out of focus rendering of the pre-aspheric lens and its overall look, so I wound up buying another copy. Lesson learned - keep the tools you like using no matter what else becomes available.


-J.