slr for 50mm lenses

[jett]

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?

 

[peterm1]

The f1.2 is mainly bought because of its shallow depth of field and good bokeh more so than other factors. It gives a marginally brighter image which might assist focus but to be honest it's actually a little more difficult to focus when shot wide open given that a lens set to f1.2 has a narrower depth of field than one at f1.4. This makes correct and sharp focus that much more difficult to achieve. If you shoot at f2 - f2.8 all I can say is that I don't think I would see much different between the lenses in terms of focusing.

 

[dubya]

I suppose it would depend on which aspects of these different lenses it is that makes it easier for you to focus. An f1.2 lens will provide a much brighter screen for focusing but the shallower depth of field will come in to play, especially at closer distances. An f2 lens has sufficiently more depth of field at any given focus distance and might be considered easier to focus by some, but the screen won't be as bright. If screen brightness is the issue, you might look for an SLR with interchangeable screens that would accept something like a Beattie Intenscreen and save money over buying a fast lens. I'd love to shoot with a Noct Nikkor as my standard but $😱$

 

[Phil_F_NM]

F/1.2 is HARDER to focus, not easier. The narrower depth of field is what makes it more difficult. As for the brightness of the viewfinder, anything brighter than f/2.8 will focus fine and you won't notice much difference between the lenses in your range.

If you're planning on shooting only 50mm lenses, get a camera with a viewfinder that shows more of the final picture area and good eye relief. If you wear glasses, you'll want to take into account the eye relief more than if you don't wear them. This allows you to see the entire viewfinder from farther away from the eyepiece.

Any of the Nikon F series cameras would do you well: F, F2, F3, F4, F5.
The Pentax LX or MX are great.
Canon F1 and F1n are amazing tanks.
Olympus OM-1/2 are great.

Decide on what optics you want to shoot with since there are more varieties of 50mm lens than you can shake a stick at and many of them offer subtly different looks to the way they draw. I can certainly tell the difference between my Nikon 50mm f/1.2 and my f/2.0 lenses at f/2 and f/2.8. Smaller apertures equalize the lenses more.

The Pentax K mount cameras give you a flexibility to use both K and M42 mount with a little screw on adapter. This opens up a world of lens possibilities that are usually pretty inexpensive if not free, in the 50mm range. The Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm f/1.4 is one of the greatest lenses ever, made by any manufacturer and comparing one of those to a 50mm Leica Summilux, the Takumar is almost free for a lens that has very similar specs on paper. Each lens line will have its adherents though. 50mm lenses are cheap when compared to telephotos and fast wide angles, so trying out new optics isn't nearly as pricey with a 50mm as it is with a 20/21mm.
Have fun.

Phil Forrest

 

[ferider]

What do you want to shoot ? Landscapes, portraits, Macros, Interiors, ... Negative or slide film ? Will you print or scan ?

For landscapes and macros you'll get the best quality for the price typically with an f1.8 or slower lens. Most Macro lenses are really good for landscapes, too.

For portraits and interiors f1.4 can be useful, just for speed or background blur. Most 50/1.4 lenses have some distortion which will be more of a problem if you wet print or use slides.

Last, even though many say the camera is just a light tight box, I don't think so: different cameras handle very differently, go to a used store if you can and try some. It's important that you like and have fun with your camera. Phil gave done good recommendations which cameras to look at.

Roland.

 

[jett]

thanks for the advice so far.

I understand that shooting at f1.2 is difficult but by a 50mm f1.2 lens being easier to focus,

I meant that if you are shooting at an f2.0 aperture and focusing at an f1.2 aperture, then you have more room for error. But if you are shooting at an f2.0 aperture and focusing at an f2.0 aperture, then you have no room for error.

Getting an f1.2 lens JUST to shoot at f2.0-f2.8 might be excessive...but I'm just wondering.

 

[ferider]

I have a couple of 1.2 lenses, but mostly find it excessive (compared to f1.4). Remember also that looking though an f1.2 lens will show you something different than the actual photo you will be taking at f2.

 

[jett]

For subject matter,

I am thinking stills. Nothing serious. Just with available lighting on 100 ISO slide film (or negative), and scanned. Maybe people, but not landscape. I want to take pictures of objects at closer than 1m (my rangefinder limitation) distances.

For cameras,

I am thinking mostly of the Olympus OM-1 because they are small and quiet. I am also considering a Leicaflex for the solidarity and craftsmanship. I don't like Nikon's for unexplainble reasons. I would consider a Canon, but they don't have chrome bodies on the pro-models. I must have an all-mechanical battery-less chrome body.

I think that a chrome OM-1 and a 50mm f1.4 shouldn't cost too much money. An f1.2 lens is available if I feel the need to have a larger aperture/less DOF and f2.0 and f3.5 Macro lenses are available too if I want to get closer.

 

[btgc]

Rikenon P (program) 50/1.4 (with purple coating) is a great lens. Get a program body, say, XR-20sp XR-P manual wind or XR-X motorwind (but slightly dimmer screen).

 

[santino]

50mm 1.4 ML Yashinon and a Yashica Fr1 or Contax RTS. Great combo IMO.

 

[craygc]

Although it varies slightly across camera manufacturers and models, no 35mm SLR can accurately focus manually at apertures wider than about f/2 without the use of a split prism finder. Its just physics and no matter what anybody thinks they achieve, its impossible visually see the DoF boundaries at those wide apertures.

 

[mfogiel]

I would suggest the following:
Given that you are interested in close up rendering (say, closer than 2 meters) what you really want is a good macro lens and a body on which you can see well the subject and focus correctly (important).
If you also want a small body, then I would suggest OM with the 50/2 Macro, or pentax MX with the 50/2.8 A macro or for a medium size camera - Nikon F3( best body by far) with Makro Planar 50/2 or Micro Nikkor 55 ( the f 3.5 version is very well regarded, but somewhat dimmer), or if you don't mind a big body, a Leicaflex SL/SL2 with the Macro Elmarit 60/2.8, which would also be my favourite lens for portraiture out of all the above.
You don't really need very shallow dof when you shoot close up, and a good calibration of the lens to the body will be more important, along with the screen brightness, than a huge max aperture. Should you however insist on a 50/1.2 lens, I can easily recommend Pentax A 50/1.2.

Macro Elmarit 60


20135905 by mfogiel, on Flickr


20130833 by mfogiel, on Flickr


20132822 by mfogiel, on Flickr


20131805 by mfogiel, on Flickr


20131506 by mfogiel, on Flickr


20133323 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[PMCC]

...a Leicaflex SL/SL2 with the Macro Elmarit 60/2.8, which would also be my favourite lens for portraiture out of all the above.

Enthusiastic second for this combo. The bright screen of either of these bodies works a treat with this lens. Moreover, close ups are not a problem with the extended near focus ability of the Macro Elmarit, and although it may not be a priority for OP, Salgado used the lens extensively for landscapes as well. If build quality is a priority, the SL and SL2 are famously well built.

 

[Ezzie]

The Canon FD mount has surprising amount of fast 50s. F1.2, 1.4 and 1.8, and 55 f1.2. The first L lenses amongst them, and even aspherical versions.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

In my opinion, design of fully mechanical SLRs reached its peak in the early 'seventies and any camera from that period on will do a good job with any 50mm that has the correct mount for the camera.

Beyond that, it's personal taste.

I just picked up this Canon TLB with the 50/1.8 for £16 (around $25). Superb focussing screen, tough and well tried mechanicals, seriously sharp optics. What more could you ask?

 

[__jc]

Nice, Sejanus - that was my first ever SLR camera which I was given new. It followed a very nice Kowa rangefinder.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

A lot depends on the focussing screen, imo. A lot of them are middle of the road and one or two stand out for brightness (Minolta come to mind first). Also they have ground glass circles with so called RF wedges and not all of them work as easily as you'd wish. Hold it slightly off centre and they can be a pita and distract you.

One other point, the display in the VF can be a real nuisance, not all of them are easy to see and trying to see them can distract you at times; with a lot of them they can disappear into the background with only small bright meaningless LED's showing..

As for the aperture, I don't think the 1.2 or 1.4 justify the expense etc compared to the "kit" ones and I've even got f/2 ones that work well and that was what started me thinking and comparing screens and lenses.

Regards, David

 

[oftheherd]

50mm 1.4 ML Yashinon and a Yashica Fr1 or Contax RTS. Great combo IMO.

Yashinon lenses are generally very good.

Although it varies slightly across camera manufacturers and models, no 35mm SLR can accurately focus manually at apertures wider than about f/2 without the use of a split prism finder. Its just physics and no matter what anybody thinks they achieve, its impossible visually see the DoF boundaries at those wide apertures.

I never noted that I had more trouble focusing at f/1.4 than at smaller apertures. For me, the opposite as the more light I have on the focusing screen, the easier. I don't have an f/1.2, but I have the Contax 50mm f/1.4 and the Fujunon 50mm f/1.4.

The main problem I ever noted was lack of light. In low light situations it is harder. The difference between f/1.7 isn't great, 2/3 stop as I recall, but in low light it can be significant. In normal light, you can see the entire apparent depth of field better, in really dim light, maybe just the plane.

EDIT: I meant to add as was mentioned above, that in dim light, I find the screen better to use than micro-prism or RF circles. Also, the OP mentioned wanting manual. I would suggest looking for a camera that doesn't need batteries for its set shutter speeds. My Fuji ST901 comes to mind. Or an all manual camera that only uses batteries for a light meter.

 

[johannielscom]

Op,

a chrome, non-battery, small, silent, pro-level body camera? Non-Nikon?

Back in the time when pro-level cameras were non-battery dependent, they almost never were small or silent.

You might want to consider which of these requirements is available to scrap from the list...
My advice, scrap the battery requirement and choose an Olympus.


Shooting 100 ASA film in available light will leave you with preciously little light available to your shooting!

 

[nongfuspring]

I'd try out the OM series before buying. Some love them, others don't like them so much, depends on wether you like your shutter speed selector on the barrel or the top plate and what you want to see in the VF. Personally considering your criteria I'd be more into the Minoltas and Pentaxes, the Minoltas in particular are a really good deal, especially on the lenses since they're an "abandoned" mount and in my experience have been considerably cheaper than similar lenses from other manufacturers.