Marijn
Newbie
My take
My take
Since this post made me realize that I own, depending on how I count, 8 to 10 of the lenses listed, as well as couple that are not listed, maybe it is time to stop lurking and chip in.
When it comes to sharpness, the rigid Summicron truly is in a league of its own. This is one of the lenses that made Leica's reputation for optical excellence, and for good reasons.
If one stop faster is required, I would be torn between the f/1.4 Nikkor and the Oberkochen f/1.5 Sonnar. Both are a step up optically from the pre-war Sonnars, while maintaining their character. The coating quality on the Zeiss Oberkochen optics was (and, impressively, often still is) excellent.
Do not ask me to pick one on the basis of subjective qualities such as character or handling, since I would be taking away the only excuse I have for owning this many (and having one more in the post, on its way to me)!
My take
Since this post made me realize that I own, depending on how I count, 8 to 10 of the lenses listed, as well as couple that are not listed, maybe it is time to stop lurking and chip in.
When it comes to sharpness, the rigid Summicron truly is in a league of its own. This is one of the lenses that made Leica's reputation for optical excellence, and for good reasons.
If one stop faster is required, I would be torn between the f/1.4 Nikkor and the Oberkochen f/1.5 Sonnar. Both are a step up optically from the pre-war Sonnars, while maintaining their character. The coating quality on the Zeiss Oberkochen optics was (and, impressively, often still is) excellent.
Do not ask me to pick one on the basis of subjective qualities such as character or handling, since I would be taking away the only excuse I have for owning this many (and having one more in the post, on its way to me)!
thompsonks
Well-known
On the Fast 50 list I'm unfamiliar with the Canon Sonnars, but the only lens on the list I wouldn't want is the Summarit. IMO the smoothness of Sonnar bokeh is captivating, and the sharpness is impressive. I recently acquired a 1938 uncoated 1.5 Sonnar, and its resolution, at least at the center, seems 'just right.'
My two Sonnars are optimized for f1.5 at close distances. I read that the Nikkor version of Sonnar was originally calibrated that way, but mine seems to have been adjusted to the contemporary standard of optimal resolution at f2.8.
I like the older lenses for their bokeh and their 'eye-like' representation of sharpness. I have newer lenses like the 35 Lux FLE, but find their resolution almost annoying: when pores and beard stubble and the like are so prominent, the image asks the viewer to concentrate too much on minor surface details. To my eyes the older lenses give more impression of contour/depth.
My two Sonnars are optimized for f1.5 at close distances. I read that the Nikkor version of Sonnar was originally calibrated that way, but mine seems to have been adjusted to the contemporary standard of optimal resolution at f2.8.
I like the older lenses for their bokeh and their 'eye-like' representation of sharpness. I have newer lenses like the 35 Lux FLE, but find their resolution almost annoying: when pores and beard stubble and the like are so prominent, the image asks the viewer to concentrate too much on minor surface details. To my eyes the older lenses give more impression of contour/depth.
Crazy Fedya
Well-known
Post war Sonnars f/2 and f/1.5 without a question. Own 'em and love 'em.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Oddly enough I'm fairly happy with the 50mm f2 Super Rokkor in ltm, though I think it's from later in the 50's. But the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor-sc in ltm is still my overall favorite
bean_counter
Well-known
We're spoiled today; as mentioned above, back then you were often limitted by local availability. My father was drafted into the army for '53/54, stationed in the middle of nowhere. He knew of the Nikon and Canon RF's, but had never seen one nor did he know anyone with one (and Japanese goods were generally derided at that point in history). Same with Sears offerings, unknown. Too much risk on a corporal's budget to take a leap.
He ended up trading for a 2nd hand ('51 PX Germany purchased) IIIf and Summitar from another soldier. Price was right, he liked the speed and rendering, but most importantly it was a known commodity.
He ended up trading for a 2nd hand ('51 PX Germany purchased) IIIf and Summitar from another soldier. Price was right, he liked the speed and rendering, but most importantly it was a known commodity.
rodt16s
Well-known
I have the 2" f/2 Taylor - Hobson Anastigmat, which came with the Reid... an unsung classic from the early 50's.
S.H.
Picture taker
I'm still shooting with my Opton 50 1.5. Quite nice. I think they can compare with a 1st version Summilux even if they are 10 years younger, but ymmv. I also use from time to time prewar jena sonnars. All these if they are clean are good performers, if you do not need maximum modern "performance" (sharpness is sometime overrated as a pictural quality, and if I want some a have a '53 Rolleiflex 
).
By the way, there are also the Schneider Xenon f1.5 and f2, and the Rodenstock Heligon f2 in this time frame. I have one Heligon on a cheap retina, I have yet to try it.
).By the way, there are also the Schneider Xenon f1.5 and f2, and the Rodenstock Heligon f2 in this time frame. I have one Heligon on a cheap retina, I have yet to try it.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
seakayaker1
Well-known
I have a 1951 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar 5 cm f/2 which I enjoy. A compact lens that has great optical quality and works to today on the M with an LTM adaptor.
peterm1
Veteran
For my money I would be happy to be shooting any of the following
- The LTM Summitar and Summarit (although the latter is better perhaps as a special use lens) The Sumitar is a lens that I think of as being half way between the Summar and the Summicron, so for this reason would leave the Summar off the list.
- The Summicron (of course)
- The Canon f1.8 (It has to be about on par with the Summicron but to my eyes has a more "modern" look to its images.)
- The prewar Zeiss f1.5 (I cant speak for the others as I haev not used them)
And yes if the Canon f1.4 were available in 1954 I would be happy to use it - but I think it came later as I do not recall seeing it in a chrome mount. I owned a black and chrome one which again like the f1.8 was very sharp - and like the 1.8 rendered in a quite modern way.
On the other hand the 50mm f1.5 definitely was available in chrome (and hence was available earlier - although I cant recall without accessing my reference books if it was in 1954). I had one of these that was a bit knocked about although optically perfect. If I only had one lens I think this would be the one. This lens is a killer (as its price on eBay now attests.)
All of these lenses have excellent capabilities
- The LTM Summitar and Summarit (although the latter is better perhaps as a special use lens) The Sumitar is a lens that I think of as being half way between the Summar and the Summicron, so for this reason would leave the Summar off the list.
- The Summicron (of course)
- The Canon f1.8 (It has to be about on par with the Summicron but to my eyes has a more "modern" look to its images.)
- The prewar Zeiss f1.5 (I cant speak for the others as I haev not used them)
And yes if the Canon f1.4 were available in 1954 I would be happy to use it - but I think it came later as I do not recall seeing it in a chrome mount. I owned a black and chrome one which again like the f1.8 was very sharp - and like the 1.8 rendered in a quite modern way.
On the other hand the 50mm f1.5 definitely was available in chrome (and hence was available earlier - although I cant recall without accessing my reference books if it was in 1954). I had one of these that was a bit knocked about although optically perfect. If I only had one lens I think this would be the one. This lens is a killer (as its price on eBay now attests.)
All of these lenses have excellent capabilities