The highest quality for cost 50mm's

kzphoto said:
Most people judge the ZM 50/2 Planar to be the most bang for your buck these days. It rivals the current 50/2 Summicron and costs about 1/2 the price (used.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, a truly great lens for sure.

I'd also include the CV Heliar, Nokton 1.5, and Color-Skopar 2.5 in the mix.

For Leica (and at Leica bargain prices), the Summarit 2.5 is underappreciated.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, first of all, there's the question of what you're using it for; second, there's the question of what you consider 'good'; and third, because the first two vary so much, the 'bang for the buck' is all but imposssible to assign. For me, the C-Sonnar is the easy winner, because it's the only 50 I like using. Others hate 'em. And personal stories of price are of limited value: I've been given a 50/1.4 Super-Takumar on a Pentax SV (a better lens than the 50/1.8, in my experience) and a 50/2.8 Tessar on a Contaflex BC Super.

As for Breathstealer's challenge, 2,9/50 Meritar and 1,9/58 Meyer Primoplan, unless you like 50-58mm portrait lenses.

Finally, there's sample variation, which is unlikely to have decreased in however many decades an old lens has been available.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yes sir, you hit the nail on the head, three times, well actually four. I had thought of the middle two, especially the third, but had missed the first, and forth, but see they are important too. I guess it just comes down to what each individual has/had and likes/liked.

In my case, the Fujinon 50mm f/1.4, and the Contax T* 50mm f/1.4 are lenses I have that I really like. I find both excellent, but the Fujinon is better in flare prone shots in my experience.

I kind of agree with the question above, what lens isn't good? Somebody is going to like just about any lens out there.
 
Sigma 50mm f1.4

6331583826_20901e186f_b.jpg


Got to be the best value 50mm lens available today bar none! As someone said, it's the smoothest 50mm I've ever used.
 
breathstealer said:
Here's a real challenge: name a bad 50mm lens. I can't.
Click to expand...

The copy of the canon 50mm f1.4 for EOS that I had was a piece of junk. Useless at 1.4. It may have just been my copy, because others like them.
I've also used one of the konica SLR 50mm lenses and didn't like it - extremely harsh with out of focus bits.
 
I've got a bunch of 50s, and I even don't particularly like that focal length. But all the ones I have are stunning performers: DR Summicron, LTM Nikkor 50/1.4 & 2, Summilux v2, L-Hex 50/2.4, Summitar, late OM Zuikos 50/1.4 & 50/1.8. Recently started playing with the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 on my Leicas (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113676) and first tests are phenomenal, both in the resolution and bokeh departments.

The DR and Nikkor 1.4 were bought a couple of years ago, for US 300 each. At that price, killer price/performance ratio. Nowadays they cost much more.

Best price / performance ? I've had 3 OM Zuikos 50/1.8, but that last one I got for US 50 is sharper than any other 50 I have ....

Quality is so hard to describe, they all have "personalities" .... My favorite ? Probably the DR - always amazed at its signature. When I think about it, this picture comes to mind; our Dane Thor who passed away in September :(

939228758_dU3d5-O.jpg


Roland.
 
I never even heard of a "bad" 50 made by anyone. Maybe the off sample here or there but 50/1.8 was the "kit" lens back in the day... get any one of them IMO, including 3rd party off brands - and often the Tomioka optical factory made the glass anyway on the Japanese lenses. There was also so much rebadging and rebranding it's almost impossible to keep track... 50 - favorite focal length...

My all time favorite "50" is the Nikon 35/1.8 AF-S... Does that count? It's 50mm with the APS-C crop factor. Better than old glass wide open (at least the ones I've owned) and way better control of flare than older coated or non-coated lenses. However, "bokeh" can be a bit nervous sometimes. Classic glass has the edge there.
 
What about the CV offerings? At they're original retail prices of a couple of years ago, the Nokton 50/1.5 and Skopar 50/2.5 are wonderful price performers.
 
As far as rangefinder lenses go I have only used one 50 and that is the Planar 50/2. While I can't personally compare it with any other 50, I can't imagine any other lens being significantly better technically. I am not so sure that its price/performance is better than the CV 50/2.5 (at the recent $289 B&H price) Relative to Leica, the Planar is a great value as Leica lenses are grossly overpriced IMHO.

On the SLR side I have always liked the Canon FD 50/1.4 SSC.
 
Well we went to buy food and I popped in to a new charity shop and found a nice OM50mm f1.4 on an OM1 for £15. All seems to work so I guess I got a fair deal :) :). Camera feels nice too.
 
nikon 50mm 1.8 ai, came for free with a very well used fm2, always been great. And small and nice to use. not the best scans here probably.

4579024386_95cd4c1bf7_b.jpg
4998844624_7e03a43e83_b.jpg
 
I also love 50's!!!! But pure value its hard to beat FSU's and the I-61 is just a beast of a lens and god are they cheap.
 
Currently, my sharpest slr 50 is the Pentax-M 1.7,

but the one that I find has the most character is my Minolta PF 58/1.4, which is less clinical and sharp than a Rokkor MD 50/1.4, but more beautiful.
 
My favorite 50 was a collapsible Summicron. I think some of that came from it being sharp, but maybe not completely clean inside, so it had a nice diffuse quality around the sharpness. I had one Summitar that was close to it in sharpness, but harsher, and an uncoated one that was a dog. The closest I have to the Summicron now is the 50/2 on my Kiev 4, with very similar quality. I don't much like the camera, but I do like that lens.

the Kiev: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/2298780411/
 
ssmc said:
If you're talking old SLR lenses, then I agree the MD 50/1.4 is a real champ. I think I paid $100 for mine but it was absolutely mint.

However... the often overlooked 45/2 MD Rokkor can be bought in excellent condition for under forty bucks. This lens does not test well on flat charts (I suspect field curvature) but in actual use it can produce gorgeous results - it's also compact, light and for the money, it's hard to beat (I know, it's not a "fitty" but it's pretty close)

Some examples from the 45/2: the links go to larger versions than I can post here


Happy shooting!
Scott :)
Click to expand...


I agree 100%
 
I have used many 50mm lenses, and I found them all to be excellent lenses. What is not to like about a sharp 50mm lens.

A Nikkor 50mm/2.0 for a Nikon SLR is cheap and very sharp. So is a Pentax SMC 50mm/1.4, and so is a Canon 50mm/1.4 FD ... and the list is nearly endless for SLR lenses. Great lenses for little money.

In RFF lenses, I find the J-3 and J-8 to be among the best buys if the budget is limited. The Canon 50/1.8 costs less than $150, and it is an excellent lens. More expensive would be a rigid Summicron, but its value has increased over the past years. A Nikon H-C 5cm/2.0 is an excellent lens overall with a low price. The old CZJ 5cm/1.5 Sonnar is an excellent 50mm lens at a low cost.

It is a matter of personal choice in the end. I love what I have.
 
I haven't had what I'd call "bad" 50s, that's too strong, but I've had ones I didn't like. I didn't like, for instance, the CV 50/1.5 -- it has something I didn't think I'd ever say, too much contrast: it lacks subtlety; and it's too big. It blocked a third of my viewfinder. I had three Zuiko's & wasn't fond of any of them, but the 35/2 Zuiko blew me away. Gorgeous lens. I have the Jupiter 3 and the half dozen rolls I've taken with it have looked soft to me but I really need to give it a better workout.

The Nikon F mount 50/2 is, as several stated, simply a GREAT lens. So is their 50/1.2. The former is cheap the latter is not. The former has the deepest richest color I've seen a lens offer.

And while I and several others praised the CZJ 50/1.5 Sonnar, I forgot to mention the CZJ 50/2, which, except for not having another stop, is in some ways (sharpness) "better"than the 50/1,5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom