What's the sharpest 50mm lens?

[Cmacuk]

Jupiter-8 50/2 is quite sharp, but in Zorky-4 I noticed some details: in f/2 -f2.8 focus goes front: (in distance 1.2 meters - sharpest position-1.22 meters, but viewfinder shows less sharpness). I noticed it when shot portrait and changed focus +/- 2 cm. In closed holes focus is right. If you like sharpness - scan your film or photos and add unsharp mask.

 

[Duncan Ross]

Hi everybody,

What's the sharpest 50mm lens you've ever used? I'm an owner of Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-3 and I find that both of them aren't that sharp.

What you guys think? Is there a sharp and fast Russian lens available?

Cheer,

Keykey

Although not a rangefinder lens the Helios 58mm f2 that comes as standard on old Zenits is very sharp, especially in the centre. Best value for money lens going. Worst value is probably the Carl Zeiss Tessar f2.8 50mm, worst lens I've ever used in my life.

 

[varjag]

Although not a rangefinder lens the Helios 58mm f2 that comes as standard on old Zenits is very sharp, especially in the centre.

Old Heios-44 samples are often good, but most of later H-44s (second half of 1970s and newer) are pure crap. Helios-44 2/58 has the reputation of the worst interchangeable lens ever among FSU photographers, and not without a reason. The problem is not design, but very sloppy QA (even by Soviet standards of the time) and poor blackening of internal surfaces.

 

[Cmacuk]

Old Zenit`s Helios 58/2? I have this lens and Zenit-11. But jupiter-8 - sharper. Helios has russian optical scheme, and jupiter - sonnar scheme. SLR camera has heavy mirror - it means blur. Helios has more contrast, but not sharpness.

 

[Duncan Ross]

Old Heios-44 samples are often good, but most of later H-44s (second half of 1970s and newer) are pure crap. Helios-44 2/58 has the reputation of the worst interchangeable lens ever among FSU photographers, and not without a reason. The problem is not design, but very sloppy QA (even by Soviet standards of the time) and poor blackening of internal surfaces.

Is the problem with the later examples to do with wildly variable build quality or different optics?

 

[varjag]

Duncan, I believe the optical design remained the same, a Biotar design (which is itself is a type of Planar IIRC). I'm not competent in the issue enough to pin down a major problem with it, but KMZ was recieving complaints about H-44 poor performance for decades. There is a well-known account when even "Soviet Photo" magazine wrote a critical article about it; KMZ then provided a "test sample" to the mag, which by all accounts was *excellent*. So the problem was not the design I guess.

Cmacuk (Stasik?), change your signature fer heavens sake 🙂

 

[Cmacuk]

to Varjag: Подпись как подпись! Русские поймут, а слово переебошат иностранцы не переведут 🙂

 

[Roman]

Daniel,
wow, lots of great pics on your site!

Roman

 

[Bertram2]

Hi everybody,

What's the sharpest 50mm lens you've ever used? I'm an owner of Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-3 and I find that both of them aren't that sharp.

What you guys think?y

This is a J8 at f2
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=247&cat=3234&page=3
Thats a 2X crop/enlargement !
Maybe my CV Nokton would have been a bit sharper at f2, not sure.
If you ask for the sharpest lens you must always ask also at which fstop it shall be the sharpest one., wide open or at f8 ?
In general from what I've seen at friend's photos the 50 Industar
is a real sharp beast but I have no direct compariso on the same fstop level.

Regards, Bertram

 

[Oldprof]

Lens sharpness is a popular topic for discussion, but not very important in determining what makes a great photograph. Subject matter, composition, and historical significance are far more important factors. Robert Capa's photographs of the D-Day landing are blurry as hell, but are judged to be great. And many 19th century portraits are stunning in their quality, even though they were made with uncoated lenses that were primitive by today's standards.

 

[JasonC]

tenebrae,

Which camera did you try to mount the Helios? Contax or Kiev? Thanks.

Jason.

Just to prove that Russian lenses differ quite a lot, between them:

I received the Helios-103 I ordered, in Kiev/Contax mount, today. This one apparently dodged the Quality Control Department (if any). I tried to fit it on the camera - it would go in (scarcely) but would not turn at all. The locking tabs had not been machined...

So, I just spent the last hour sanding and grinding the tabs, using the tabs on the original Jupiter-8 for reference.

 

[darkkavenger]

My Industar-61 (black and chrome version) is probably my favourite Russian lens. It's very sharp and renders lovely images. Here's a sample:

You mean, the I-61 2.8/52mm right ? If so, I totally agree with you. It is a stunning lens! I tried my Fed-3b with the I-61 L/D and I had mixed results. maybe the film I used wasn't really appropriate to the climatic conditions, too.

Here's sample too : http://www.deviantart.com/view/20708081/

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm with Oldprof. The highest claimed figures I've seen are for the new Zeiss 50/2 but in the circumstances in which I tested it -- hand held on HP5 with 2 examples of the prototype lens at photokina 2004 -- there's not that much to distinguish it from any other sharp 50; and besides, I've not used Leica's current 50s.

I'd be surprised if it weren't current Leica or Zeiss but beyond 100 lp/mm so much depends on film flatness and film location that it's really meaningless to ask: the only lens I have ever used that consistently delivered over 100 lp/mm on more than one camera body (MP and R3A) is the 75/2 Summicron. Quite a lot of lenses can deliver 100 lp/mm on fine-grain sharp film (try 100 Delta) at optimum aperture when carefully focused, so I really woulldn't worry too much if I were you.

But having owned many of the lenses touted above in this thread, I'd say in several cases that if that's the sharpest lens they've used, they either had a uniquely good one or they've never used a really sharp lens.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[tedwhite]

Tenebrae: Was your Helios 103 new, or "like new"? I'm wondering if the quality control has taken a dip. Check out ebay 7537762172. Looks brand new at BIN $10USD plus $5USD shipping, and he says he has them in lots of ten and twenty.

Which seller sold you yours?

PS: The reason I'm asking is that last winter Rick Beckrich loaned me a Kiev 4A with the Helios 103 for a couple of weeks. Never had one to play with before, and I found that lens - certainly not new - quite sharp, and at f:1.8 quite fast. I actually sold some prints taken with it. One that I sold, "scarves in the wind" is in My Gallery.

Ted

 

[Ivan.fotografia]

Friends:
Kiev IV with Jupiter-8. I think it is sharp...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=14541&cat=500&page=1
other
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=14540&cat=500&page=1

 

[jdos2]

Como um faca!

It is sharp as a knife, indeed. I've somewhere around a dozen of the things in Kiev mount (a hazard of the addiction) and I really like the look of the J-8. I'm thinking of getting one in screw-mount so I have something smaller than the Noctilux to carry around (HERESY!!!!)

Oh! So- what's the sharpest 50mm at f/1 or so? 🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

I'm thinking of getting one in screw-mount so I have something smaller than the Noctilux to carry around (HERESY!!!!)

If I ever do get myself a Canon 7, the first lens I get for it is a screwmount J8. I love it on my Kievs, excellent balance of all the features of a lens to my eyes.

William

 

[tedwhite]

Might I pose a question that has occurred to me? I have the Kiev 4AM with J8. I also have the J8 in screwmount (3) for Zorki 4K and FED 2. I am no techie; however, it seems to me that the J8 in Contax/Kiev mount is the better lens. Am I just bonkers or is there any evidence out there to support my very tenuous and totally unsupportable hypothesis? Or could it be that the Kiev is the better camera?

Ted

 

[jdos2]

I'd have to say- the Kiev lens is easier to make, sans (<- international content) a focusing helical. It's "unmodified" from the tooling taken at the end of WWII, and with fewer parts, easier to make (and perhaps harder to screw up!)

I've heard that carefully re-assembled J-8's in LTM are just fine, equal to their superior-mount ( 🙂 ) Kiev cousins.

 

[tedwhite]

Thanks. Makes sense.