50 mm f1.4 Battle Royale

[cuthbert]

Spin off from another thread, dedicated to the hardcore Canonista Flavio81.

It just works like that: post your favourite shots of your favourite normal lenses 50/55/58 mm f 1.4 and tell us your impression of the lenses you used, don't forget to say which film, camera, filter you used and possibly no post processing to "improve" the sharpness of your fav and make the other lenses look worse.

I start:

FTb, FD 50 mm f1.4 S.S.C., BW400CN and YG filter...shot at f2 I think.

Pentax LX, M 50 mm f1.4 wide open, Portra 160, cloudy filter.

Same setup but at f5.6/8.

F2AS, Nikkor S-C AId, Portra 160, P-L filter at f8

Same as above, wide open.

f1.4

Pentax K2DMD, K50mm f1.4, warming filter, Portra 160 shot wide open.

Same as above, Neopan C41, no filter shot at f8.

 

[cuthbert]

The last two are peculiar shots because they have been taken in night time (about 2AM) with a Spotmatic F, a SMC Takumar f1.4 last generation wide open and hand held at 1/30 sec. The film js BW400CN.

fujica ST705, fujinon 50 mm f1.4, cloudy filter and Ektar 100, shot at f8

Same setup wide open

 

[Hatchetman]

the only 50mm 1.4 I own is the SMC Takumar you show above. unacceptable at 1.4 IMO. I just use the 55mm 1.8 which is sharper IMO.

 

[flavio81]

Ha ha ha...

The "hardcore Canonista flavio81"'s favorite normal lens is a Nikon lens, the "5.8cm" f1.4 Nikkor-S from about 1960.

The 2nd favorite is a lens I don't own anymore (i was dumb enough to sell it), the Canon FD 55/1.2 S.S.C.

Neither was really stellar wide open, but the images they create are smooth (great "bokeh"). And of course sharp when stopped down.

I have very few sample pics to show because they are residing on negatives and prints (this is APUG after all). I want to get me a proper film scanner but all that I can buy here are those EPSON flatbed things that at best put out a miserable 2000dpi of actual resolution.

My 3rd favorite is the Canon New FD 50/1.4 which is just great in all respects, tied with the Mamiya-sekor 90/3.8C for the RB67, and the Mamiya 105/3.5 for the TLR cameras. But it seems that the Pentax 6x7 90/2.8 lens will enter the list too.

Is Cartman happy now?

 

[cuthbert]

the only 50mm 1.4 I own is the SMC Takumar you show above. unacceptable at 1.4 IMO. I just use the 55mm 1.8 which is sharper IMO.

What is unacceptable in your Takumar? You are supposed to post a picture to prove your point...

Ha ha ha...

The "hardcore Canonista flavio81"'s favorite normal lens is a Nikon lens, the "5.8cm" f1.4 Nikkor-S from about 1960.

The 2nd favorite is a lens I don't own anymore (i was dumb enough to sell it), the Canon FD 55/1.2 S.S.C.

Neither was really stellar wide open, but the images they create are smooth (great "bokeh"). And of course sharp when stopped down.

I have very few sample pics to show because they are residing on negatives and prints (this is APUG after all). I want to get me a proper film scanner but all that I can buy here are those EPSON flatbed things that at best put out a miserable 2000dpi of actual resolution.

My 3rd favorite is the Canon New FD 50/1.4 which is just great in all respects.

Is Cartman happy now?

Still I see a lot of talking but no pics.

This thread is to show pics, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Can we see this stellar Nikkor 58 mm?

 

[nsurit]

Hmm, a great excuse for breaking out the Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.4, running a roll of HP 5 through the camera and then getting wet. Might be interesting to use the lens "naked" and then with an extension tube or two, a 2X teleconverter, reverse adapter, with a bellows, with close up lens . . . Guess it goes without saying the serial number would need to be 1,100,000 plus, unless one wanted to do the same with other versions. Bill "Got a Bunch of Zuikos" Barber

 

[Rick A]

Hmm, an apples to oranges comparison at best. To really compare all these lenses, you must set them all side by side shooting the same target in the same light using the same film. The OP's method is subjective at best, and pointless over all.

 

[cuthbert]

Hmm, a great excuse for breaking out the Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.4, running a roll of HP 5 through the camera and then getting wet. Might be interesting to use the lens "naked" and then with an extension tube or two, a 2X teleconverter, reverse adapter, with a bellows, with close up lens . . . Guess it goes without saying the serial number would need to be 1,100,000 plus, unless one wanted to do the same with other versions. Bill "Got a Bunch of Zuikos" Barber

I'm not familiar with Zuiko lenses, and I'd like to see your results with and without all the gadgets you have.

Hmm, an apples to oranges comparison at best. To really compare all these lenses, you must set them all side by side shooting the same target in the same light using the same film. The OP's method is subjective at best, and pointless over all.

This thread is supposed to be fun and to be an excuse to exchange info of what we use, why we use what, and how we use our 50mm/f1.4, it's not a boring comparison with a digital camera that takes dozens of pictures at any f stop, IMO the quality of a lens is seen in real life and real pictures.

 

[blockend]

This thread is supposed to be fun and to be an excuse to exchange info of what we use, why we use what, and how we use our 50mm/f1.4, it's not a boring comparison with a digital camera that takes dozens of pictures at any f stop, IMO the quality of a lens is seen in real life and real pictures.

One of the best uses of a digital camera is as a test bed for manual lenses. You can blow the image up to ridiculous sizes and see side by side comparisons on screen at various f-stops. The only variable is the lens adapter, whereas a silver print has more stages to do a like-for-like comparison. An even better test is to run a lens on video setting where noise doesn't show and the rendering of a lens is more apparent. That said, I wouldn't want such facts to get in the way of a good argument!

 

[cuthbert]

One of the best uses of a digital camera is as a test bed for manual lenses. You can blow the image up to ridiculous sizes and see side by side comparisons on screen at various f-stops. The only variable is the lens adapter, whereas a silver print has more stages to do a like-for-like comparison. An even better test is to run a lens on video setting where noise doesn't show and the rendering of a lens is more apparent. That said, I wouldn't want such facts to get in the way of a good argument!

I think on this board there are too many arguments and too few pics.

 

[wombat2go]

Ricoh.
Here is the XR Rikenon 1:1.4 50mm with the Ricoh KR_5 Super2 on Fuji Xtra 400
It is a photo of the Agakhan Palace in Pune India, taken in 2012, processed, printed and scanned in Pune.
https://app.box.com/s/uz7yddnjfmo4pjpwp41z

If I remember to be diligent, I take a photo of the camera gear for the trips as a record. Here is the kit I took on that trip:
https://app.box.com/s/d7q8zgqtuprkjuqmeicf


Another trip to Thailand, the record shows the same lens, but with different kit.
This is a sunrise photo of a shrine in BangSaen beach with the XR on Fuji Xtra 800, home processed in Digibase C41
https://app.box.com/s/tczudt7gtn1cuhk4rc0ubgg78i4za8kx
Here is the kit for that trip:
https://app.box.com/s/ee8un8f3f63qoealzkln

 

[flavio81]

Still I see a lot of talking but no pics.

This thread is to show pics, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Can we see this stellar Nikkor 58 mm?

I don't know if you are trolling or just saying this in good nature. Anyway, i'm not going to "do a Drew Wiley" over this. Quite the opposite, i will post some pictures. Sadly i don't have a good scanner nor good resolution pictures.

Nikkor 58/1.4 with HP5.


Canon FD 55/1.2 SSC


Canon EF 50/1.8 Mark I

 

[tom43]

Based on the sizes of all pics in this thread it´s not possible to say anything on the quality of the different lenses. In my experience 35mm negative and slide scans have not the resolution to evaluate lens resolutions. There are only slight differences between mediocre zoom lenses and new high-end lenses like the Sigma Art or Zeiss Otus / ApoSonnar series....

 

[Rick A]

No matter what, all results are conjecture and opinion.

 

[wombat2go]

Sadly i don't have a good scanner...

Here is one from 2013 developed and scanned in a small alley shop in Miraflores.
https://app.box.com/s/1ec6tukdv88e2tekqesm. As I recall, I did not have the 50mm 1:1.4 on this trip to Lima.
It is probably the XR Rikenon 1:3.5 28mm

 

[cuthbert]

No matter what, all results are conjecture and opinion.

This is true for all the tests and the reviews online.

Ricoh.
Here is the XR Rikenon 1:1.4 50mm with the Ricoh KR_5 Super2 on Fuji Xtra 400
It is a photo of the Agakhan Palace in Pune India, taken in 2012, processed, printed and scanned in Pune.
https://app.box.com/s/uz7yddnjfmo4pjpwp41z

If I remember to be diligent, I take a photo of the camera gear for the trips as a record. Here is the kit I took on that trip:
https://app.box.com/s/d7q8zgqtuprkjuqmeicf


Another trip to Thailand, the record shows the same lens, but with different kit.
This is a sunrise photo of a shrine in BangSaen beach with the XR on Fuji Xtra 800, home processed in Digibase C41
https://app.box.com/s/tczudt7gtn1cuhk4rc0ubgg78i4za8kx
Here is the kit for that trip:
https://app.box.com/s/ee8un8f3f63qoealzkln

Nice lens the Rikenon, I'm trying to procure one at decent price to be used on a camera like the XR-2S or the XR-7.

 

[benjiboy]

People showing their holiday snaps is of no technical consequence or scientific value as to how they perform as compared with other optics.

 

[wombat2go]

Nice lens the Rikenon, I'm trying to procure one at decent price to be used on a camera like the XR-2S or the XR-7.

I have an XR-2 and a KR_10 Super. But for travellinbg carry on, I always prefer the KR-5 Super2 which was an entry level camera, small and light.
Ricoh KR-5 might have been one of the latest basic K-mount cameras so less likely to have foam or dry lube problems.
Mine has been to many countries and taken lots and lots of rolls.

I think you will be able to find a good XR Rikenon 1:1.4 50mm sooner or later

For Tom43's comment.
I host my photos on box.com so I have partial control. The jpgs I am putting on this thread are at least 3000 pix wide and 3.5MB jpg.
I don't know about the performance of the box.com jpg online viewer, except that it compares well side by side with the original jpgs here.

If we put up say, links to high res tiff16 images on the host, they have to have download enabled to be useful, so soon they will be "stolen"
And anyway, most don't yet have Truecolor monitors, so 8 bit jpg are not a limitation.

I have a PacificImage PrimeFilmPro120 and Truecolor via Nvidia to an Eizo FlexScanSX2762W.
My experience is that I can get 6x7 scans of C41 at iso <=400 to tiff16, that sometimes can compare with my better aps-c digital camera images, but there are limitations with 35mm C41 scans.
The limitation is related ( In my humble opinion) to interaction between the dye clouds and the scanner Nyquist.
That artifact here generally is more noticable than lens spread.

I have found that 35mm C41 works better at low ISO (100~160) , and often Iso 800 film is unacceptable.

So, here are some home processed C41 35mm , scanned with the Pro120, from iso 800 film . Note that the iso 800 "night photo" has scanned sharply and relatively noise free, while the "day photo" shows the problem I refer to above.
The lens was the SMC Pentax -A 1:1.4 50mm on the Pentax MX
Night photo
https://app.box.com/s/oo6slnkpofcjoh4zsouf
Day Photo
https://app.box.com/s/omlyj78yl9m884dq7kdv

 

[wombat2go]

People showing their holiday snaps is of no technical consequence or scientific value as to how they perform as compared with other optics.

Show some of your 1:1.4 50mm.

 

[benjiboy]

Show some of your 1:1.4 50mm.

I don't have a scanner and don't put my work on the internet as a matter of policy, but if I did I would only be adding to what is a pointless exercise, all I can tell you is my Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens suits me and I don't hanker after any other.

 

[wombat2go]

I don't have a scanner and don't put my work on the internet as a matter of policy, but if I did I would only be adding to what is a pointless exercise, all I can tell you is my Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens suits me and I don't hanker after any other.

Are you still using that vintage lens in your day job? What body?

 

[flavio81]

Are you still using that vintage lens in your day job? What body?

He uses the Canon F-1 New.

 

[dynachrome]

The f/1.4 standard lenses from all of the major manufacturers were and are capable of good results. It is interesting to see how the out of focus rendition differs between lenses and how lenses handle various lighting conditions. Between sample variation and current condition there are too many variables. Most of these lenses sell for very reasonable prices today so if you find one which suits you, that's fine. Earlier this year I got a 5.8CM f/1.4 Re Topcor for my Topcon cameras. I haven't had time to shoot film with it yet but I'm sure I will learn something from the experience. Will the results be better that what I get from a 50/1.4 Minolta MC Rokkor-X or a 50/1.4 AIS Nikkor or a 50/1.4 Canon FD SSC? I don't know. Each lens is probably better at different f/stops and different subject distances. Most of us are way past the time of wanting to know which lens is "better." Try some and use the ones you like.

 

[benjiboy]

I sold the majority of these 50mm f1.4 lenses for about twenty years at a leading professional dealers and it's very difficult to find a bad one, there are generally speaking more lousey photographers than lousey f1.4 50 mm lenses

 

[rthollenbeck]

I sold the majority of these 50mm f1.4 lenses for about twenty years at a leading professional dealers and it's very difficult to find a bad one, there are generally speaking more lousey photographers than lousey f1.4 50 mm lenses

+1
Agreed, I did sales as well. I seem to remember it being said that all makers 50mm-s where their most refined and perfected prime lens designs. When you think about it that is really saying something. I guess that makes sense since the standard lens was the biggest seller and relatively speaking zoom lens popularity/availability/affordability is a newer thing. While not my area, I would assume the standard lens is probably simpler to design well.