Been considering this lens. How does it compare to the Zeiss in signature, more so the bokeh? Only focuses to 1m right?
I'm an early owner and have used these lenses a pretty long time, but unfortunately I do not scan nor post.
The 50/3.5 is amazingly sharp and detailed, but only has moderate contrast and is very flare resistent. A Zeiss lens IMHO has a lot more contast. BTW I only shoot B&W. The close focus is only one meter, but I love the half clicks for the F-stops. The narrow diameter of the barrel makes for a fast focus and makes this 50 good for shooting street. The aperture has 11-blades one more than my 50 Rigid cron.
The 50/2.0 has soft corners wide open like my 50 Rigid Cron V.1, but does not have the center punch effect of the Rigid Cron. The OOF is creamy like my 50 Rigid but more diffused in a painterly kind of way. This is a great-great lens for doing portraits. Mistakenly people say that this lens is not sharp, but what throws them is this diffused smoothness of the OOF that is the signature. Also has 11-blade aperture, 1 meter close focus, half stop detents and only moderate contrast with flare resistence. Very smooth bokeh. It would kill if I could focus to 0.7meter. Also love that there is no VF blockage even when using the hood. This is a tiny 50.
I agree with John about the flat focus edge-to-edge performance of the 50/3.5. Tom Abramson stated there are three lenses that represent the "apex" in 50mm: the 50 Lux ASPH; the 50/1.4 Millenium; and the 50/3.5 Nickel Heliar. It is an amazingly sharp lens that offers performance for basically no money.
The 50/2.0 Nickel Heliar is a totally different signature that kinda complements the 50/3.5. If you are lucky you own both. In a way the OOF is smoother than my 50 Rigid Cron because of its diffussion.
Also looks hot on my Wetzlar M6 that has an engraved Ti top plate.
Cal