slr for 50mm lenses

[kubilai]

Very fast standard lenses such as those 50/1.2 are special planar types, all affected with focus shift : I am afraid that full aperture is not the way to more precise focusing, because of the risk to add error when shooting at another f-stop.

 

[redisburning]

contrast is way more important than brightness anyway.

best slr 50s at f2... in order:

1. Zeiss 55/1.4 distagon
2. Zeiss 50/2.0 Makro-Planar
3. Olympus 50/2.0 Auto-Macro
4. Nikon 50/1.2 (center, close range) / Pentax 50/1.2 (center, infinity) / Olympus 50/1.2 (total frame)
5. Leica 50/1.4 Summilux E60

most of these will work on an F3, either natively or with a Leitax adapter. Each one is worth the money, IMO. But being worth the money doesn't mean they're worth the money TO YOU or even that it's within your budget. The Otus is 4k USD but it's the best lens in the world; to me that's a fair, but very steep, price.

 

[newspaperguy]

When I read 'Leicaflex', I groaned thinking of the weight.
Consider what size body you want to be carrying all day.
Also consider the viewfinder coverage as well as the brightness.
Many do not show 100% of the actual capture.
I have both Nikons and Canons (and assorted others),
but choose to mostly use OMs for those reasons.

 

[jett]

thanks for the advice so far.

My "requirements" are just preferences. I would prefer to not use a split-prism focusing aid. Just an all matte screen would be awesome.

I guess what is more important than the aperture is the body, or more precisely the body/lens combination.

I will have to look into the bodies and screens some more but I have a starting point. At the present, I am thinking of an Olympus OM1 or Pentax MX if I want something small. Or Nikon or Leicaflex if size isn't the priority. I don't feel that the Leicaflex is "necessary" because it cost a lot more money compared to the Japanese contemporaries, but something about it is alluring...

I'm not going for the absolute best image quality.

 

[mdarnton]

For myself, I've discovered something about focus that was very counter intuitive. On Leicas I have always liked a very wide turn on the focus ring because it allowed me to be very precise in aligning the images in the rangefinder.

On SLRs I found that for me it doesn't work that way: I focus an SLR differently, by bobbing back and forth over the focus spot and eventually centering the focus between the locations where I see equal difference in misfocus. Finding the exact spot of focus is much more difficult if you try to hit it by eye rather than extrapolating from extremes.

So on an SLR lens with a wide throw, I find it harder to focus, not easier. For instance, my Nikon 24/2.8 is much easier to focus than the 28/2, which has twice the focus throw. I have to move the 28 too much back and forth to see a big enough difference in focus to relate to, where the 24 snaps right in place.

So if I were in your spot, I'd be looking for a lens with a short throw, above all else.

 

[mfogiel]

if you want a compromise solution, find a Leica R4s and the macro Elmarit 60. This combo also works well, although there is a slight shutter lag. Alternative would be Nikon F3 with the ME60 adapted to Nikon mount. I find the Japanese lenses ok for portraiture, but not so good for anything where micro contrast and fine textures are required. They are sort of bland.

 

[Oren Grad]

There's another problem: many fast and ultrafast lenses have some focus shift as you stop down. Even if you have a focusing screen that's optimized for wide-aperture lenses, a nice diopter-corrected view of the screen and good visual acuity to judge what the screen is showing you, there's no benefit to focusing at f/1.2 if the point of sharpest focus moves by more than your effective DOF expands as you stop down to f/2.

 

[jamais]

The Contax S2 has interchangeable screens, a big and bright viewfinder and is quite small. It is chrome, all mechanical, has spot metering only and has a fast shutter (1/4000s). The mirror flips up at the beginning of the self timer run. Downside: No motor drive available. Some users find the shutter noisy. I can not hear a considerable differerence to most other mechanical SLRs (including the OM-1 which sounds a bit softer but not really quieter). The Contax takes the very good Yashica and Carl Zeiss lenses. M42 lenses can be used with stopped down metering via an adapter. I own and use the tiny and light Yashica ML 2/50 (focuses down to 0.5m) as well as the Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 (min. focusing distance 0.6m) on my S2. I sold the Planar 1.4/50 because of the softness at f1.4 (and 2.0). For creamy portraits the latter might be your first choice though.

 

[Godfrey]

I want a 35mm slr but I'm not sure which.

I only plan on using a 50mm lenses. I like to use 50mm at f2-f2.8 i will probably get a faster just to help me focus. And so my question is,

Is there a discernible difference between f1.2, f1.4, and f1.8/f2.0 in terms of focusing? Like is f1.2 THAT much easier to focus? Is that extra stop or stop and some worth paying for?

What makes an SLR lens easier to focus is whether it has good image contrast when wide open. Most ultra-fast lenses are a little short on contrast when wide open, so the viewfinder is brighter but not necessarily easier to focus.

Few SLRs have as good a viewfinder or as good a lens as a Leicaflex SL and Summicron-R 50mm f/2. They go for relatively low dollars these days.

G

 

[redisburning]

that's interesting. the Zeiss 50/1.4 should be noticeably sharper at f2.0-2.8 at distance than the 50/1.7.

the 50/1.4 planar is a good lens but requires the correct application to get traditionally good results out of. generally speaking, the closer to your subject, or the closer to wide open you are, the worse the lens performs. but it's REALLY noticeable with the planar and shooting within a few meters at f1.4 certainly doesn't yield the sort of results most people are after.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

If you want to use a camera with a full matte screen that can focus a lens faster than f/2, you're going to be limited to a Nikon F/F2/F3 or Canon F1. The Pentax MX doesn't have the interchangeable screens of the Nikons or Canons. The proper matte screens for fast lenses are the D and S respectively. The standard B screen that comes with the Nikons and the equivalent screen for Canons is too bright and you won't be able to fine focus very fast lenses as easily with a B as with one of the coarser D or S screens.

This seems counter intuitive but these are the proper screens for use with the superspeed lenses and they may be dimmer than a standard bright screen but the scattering angle of the coarse screen is what makes for a finer ability to focus.

I'm not sure about the OM series and their screens with regard to the selection, so I won't comment. They are fantastic cameras though and are quite small but the system isn't as vast as that for Nikon or Canon.

For subjects closer than a meter, you'd really be best served by a macro lens. The Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 is outstanding and one can make up for the slower aperture with the much closer ability to focus and so you can still get your shallow depth of field. The problem with the fast glass for up close work is focus shift, as has been previously mentioned as well as more obvious field curvature. Macro lenses eliminate this so you're focusing on a real flat plane, not a spherical zone.

Phil Forrest

 

[FrozenInTime]

The Pentax MX doesn't have the interchangeable screens of the Nikons or Canons.

I thought the MX took the same screens as the LX
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/screens/

 

[FrozenInTime]

What makes an SLR lens easier to focus is whether it has good image contrast when wide open. Most ultra-fast lenses are a little short on contrast when wide open, so the viewfinder is brighter but not necessarily easier to focus.

That's also what I found with my OM-1 and 50/1.2 vs 50/1.8.
The 50/1.2 is much lower contrast which makes it more difficult to see best focus.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I thought the MX took the same screens as the LX
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/screens/

I stand corrected!

Phil Forrest

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

FWIW, I'm sticking with my old, worthless Pentax ME Super because I find it easy to focus and fast to use and I've only (?) the 50mm f/2 lens in it. Plus a small investment in the 85mm f/2 lens.

And I've several much faster and much dearer lenses on other bodies (OM-1, OM-2n, XD-7 and so on) to use.

Regards, David

 

[grandallj]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...056/title/nikon-f26amp-3b-5-8cm-1-3a1-4/cat/3

No affiliation to seller, but I'm hoping someone will buy it and eliminate the temptation.

 

[mllanos1111]

I’m also a 50mm junkie and many of them have passed my way.
Recently my Zuiko 50/2 Macro was sold and it was a wonderful lens. In the short time I owned it I managed to capture some great shots and one of my favorites of my Mom in the snow.
The 50/1.4 Zeiss Planar was recently sold and out of all the 50’s this one stayed the longest because it really is a wonderful all around lens.
I’ve owned the Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar and it’s amazing but the focusing ring wasn’t to my liking.
Just as important to me is the feel of the lens in my hand and it doesn’t matter much to me how great the lens is if I don’t like using it.
I went on a Leicaflex buying binge recently and finally ended up with a beautiful new SL and an almost new 50 Summicron. Setting it down has been difficult since it feels wonderful and personally I love the weight.
The Viewfinder on the SL is my favorite on 35mm and I have owned a ton of cameras and to me much better than my F3 HP. Unfortunately I was not able to track down the illusive 2-13 screen for the Olympus so I sold that off the whole kit and I can’t compare it to that VF.
I bought an SL2 and I actually preferred the VF in SL over the SL2. I thought the split in the screen in the SL2 was more of a distraction and it’s so easy to focus on the SL, love the way it shimmers and the image just snaps into focus.
I’ll probably pick up the 60 Elmarit next from what I see it’s wonderful and I just saw one over the weekend at a camera show. This one was extremely clean and in the box as well for $400 so I know I can find another one around the same price.
Now I have to sell of the rest of my Leicaflex’s lol

 

[redisburning]

400 for a 60 elmarit R in box is a really good deal.

 

[mllanos1111]

I know but I couldn't take that much out of the ATM so I had to pass.
I figure I'll find another one, oh well

 

[Steve Bellayr]

f1.4 v. f2.0 From personal experience the f1.4 is easier to focus. If you are not going to use the f1.2 why spend the extra money?