50 mm f1.4 Battle Royale

[flavio81]

Agree with you all... All major manufacturers released pretty good 50/1.4 lenses - leitz, zeiss, canon, nikon, pentax, minolta; also tomioka (yashica), mamiya-sekor and fuji.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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....

resolution is only one measure oflens quality

 

[benjiboy]

resolution is only one measure oflens quality

Very true Ralph a lens can have high resolving power but if it has low contrast it isn' t as apparently Sharp to the human eye.

 

[cuthbert]

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

Better their holiday pics than sterile bla bla from people who gets offended if you says their favourite lens is not the best of the world.

Pictures of kids, wives, families at Disneyland etc.. are all welcome, don't get bullied by the "I'm a pro shooter" big mouths!!!

He uses the Canon F-1 New.

Which happens to be one of my favourite bodies too along with the LX, but this doesn't mean I tried other makers and I won't bash people who consider their best 50/1.4s a Chinon or a Rikenon or any other small name in the game.

Still one shoot for the Canon FDn (my FDn performs better than the old FD, am I authorised to say that?)

And one for the Pentax M50 mm f1.4:

I know the pics on this board are small, but appreciate the blue steel finish of the Uberti 1860 Army and the nickel of the Schofield against the mahogany box.

 

[Mackinaw]

I did a 50mm lens test a few years back. Three 50/1.4 lenses: a Takumar 50/1.4, a Nikkor 50/1.4 and a Canon FD 50/1.4. All three lenses were mounted on a Canon F-1 (original) with the appropriate adaptors. The camera was tripod-mounted. I used a viewfinder magnifier to aid with my focusing. All of these shots were taken wide-open at F1.4. I used Efke 25 film developed in Xtol. Scanned using a Nikon Coolscan V. The same settings were used on the scanner with all three lenses. No Photoshop modifications. Make no assumptions as to what order I tested these lenses, everything has been thoroughly mixed up. The biggest surprise, to me, was the added depth of field with lens A. I was think that all three would have identical depth of field, but I guess not.

 

[cliveh]

I use a 1.4 Sumilux for virtually all my images.

 

[cuthbert]

I did a 50mm lens test a few years back. Three 50/1.4 lenses: a Takumar 50/1.4, a Nikkor 50/1.4 and a Canon FD 50/1.4. All three lenses were mounted on a Canon F-1 (original) with the appropriate adaptors. The camera was tripod-mounted. I used a viewfinder magnifier to aid with my focusing. All of these shots were taken wide-open at F1.4. I used Efke 25 film developed in Xtol. Scanned using a Nikon Coolscan V. The same settings were used on the scanner with all three lenses. No Photoshop modifications. Make no assumptions as to what order I tested these lenses, everything has been thoroughly mixed up. The biggest surprise, to me, was the added depth of field with lens A. I was think that all three would have identical depth of field, but I guess not.

That's an interesting comparison, thanks for sharing, is the Nikkor the one in the middle? It appears it's the one with more barrel distortion (see position of the tree)...for the DOF, a lot of people on the net are convinced that they are just dependent from the length of the lens, but in reality the formula also plays a role, this is especially true for short lenses.

I use a 1.4 Sumilux for virtually all my images.

Which version? Two or three cams? Which cameras? R6? What are waiting to share some of your images? The Leitz Summilux R along with the Contax 1.4 and the CZJ Prakticar is one of the few German lenses of the category.

 

[dynachrome]

You really need straight lines in your subject to test for or estimate certain types of distortion.

 

[cuthbert]

So you don't think the change in position of the trees in the background is not to barrel distortion? And if not to what?

 

[Hatchetman]

of those I prefer the third, but none are great.

 

[flavio81]

My guess:
A : Canon
B : Nikon
C : Takumar

C's bokeh is very harsh. Also, higher contrast. Perhaps was a Takumar with yellowed lens elements?
B has more distortion; f1.4 nikons are usually a bit high on distortions.
A has smooth bokeh and good contrast, like the Canon nFD 50/1.4 traits. Added DOF would be explained by field curvature. The FD 50/1.8 and 1.4 do have some field curvature. I think they wanted to reduce astigmatism to a minimum and this was at the cost of field curvature. Or perhaps I'm talking bullshit.

 

[Mackinaw]

My guess:
A : Canon
B : Nikon
C : Takumar

Flavio, your guess is right on. Lens A is the Canon, Lens B is the Nikkor, and Lens C is the Takumar. And yes, the Takumar has yellowed glass.

Jim B.

 

[Hatchetman]

LOL, no wonder I am a Pentax guy.

 

[cuthbert]

Flavio, your guess is right on. Lens A is the Canon, Lens B is the Nikkor, and Lens C is the Takumar. And yes, the Takumar has yellowed glass.

Jim B.

It's interesting because it appears the Tak has a narrower DOF but the part in focus looks sharper and more contrasty than the FD.

Where all the lenses focused at the same point?

 

[flavio81]

Flavio, your guess is right on. Lens A is the Canon, Lens B is the Nikkor, and Lens C is the Takumar. And yes, the Takumar has yellowed glass.

Jim B.

Yay!!

I'll have to bookmark this post, for next time my opinions on optics are under scrutiny!!

 

[benjiboy]

Yay!!

I'll have to bookmark this post, for next time my opinions on optics are under scrutiny!!

Or how good a guesser you are Flavio

 

[flavio81]

So for low distortion, nice bokeh and extra DOF free of charge, accept no substitutes: Canon!!

It seems Nikon never had low distortion as a priority on its lenses, at least up to the early 80s. I even have some pc-nikkor (shift) wideangles that exhibit a little of distortion. I never understood why. While even the first canon ultra wideangle, the 19/3.5R of 1964, shows no distortion.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Contax 50mm f1.4:

 

[MattKing]

On the depth of field issue, it may be that there is some difference between the actual maximum apertures and the nominal maximum apertures.

As an example, one might be f/1.35, while the next might be f/1.41

 

[flavio81]

On the depth of field issue, it may be that there is some difference between the actual maximum apertures and the nominal maximum apertures.

As an example, one might be f/1.35, while the next might be f/1.41

Yes, this is a posibility but I think the effect would be smaller than what is seen on the examples above, while field curvature will displace the focus point significantly (a lot) on the edges and corners.

 

[cuthbert]

Or how good a guesser you are Flavio

We should bookmark this thread also to remember who are those who don't show ANY picture and insult those who post saying they are bad photographers, then they boast to be great connoisseurs, besides the fact that I spotted the Nikkor first even if somebody told me I couldn't recognise the barrel distortion because there were not straight lines.

So for low distortion, nice bokeh and extra DOF free of charge, accept no substitutes: Canon!!

And here we go again with some ridicolous cheerleading, fortunately Canon didn't hire you for their promotional strategy.:munch:

On the depth of field issue, it may be that there is some difference between the actual maximum apertures and the nominal maximum apertures.

As an example, one might be f/1.35, while the next might be f/1.41

I think it's more likely that it depends by a different formula, both designs are traditional double gauss designs, but our friend didn't tell us if the Tak was a 7 elements or an early 8 elements, and if the FD was a S.S.C. or a FDn...we don't even know if the Nikkor was a pre AI, AI, AIs etc...

Contax 50mm f1.4:

The Planar has a stellar reputation, Zeiss is probably the company with more experience in this design on Earth, I just received the scans of the first test roll of its DDR cousin, the 50 mm f1.4 Pancolar (Planar Ost) and I remained astonished by the quality of these pics taken in a hurry and in far from ideal situations.

 

[flavio81]

And here we go again with some ridicolous cheerleading, fortunately Canon didn't hire you for their promotional strategy.:munch:

Hi Alex, are you having a bad day or something?
The doctor is IN

 

[cuthbert]

Are you having a bad day or something?
A sense of humor is always a nice accessory to have on the camera bag.

You're talking about sense of humour? When I was facetious you told me I was a troll, if I remember correctly...

Anyway you have to admit I was the one who spotted the Nikkor first, or do you also want to take credit of that?

However, this is the remarkable Prakticar 50 mm f1.4:

Talking about DOF this one at minimum distance is so shallow that it's also as hard to use as a f1.2 lens.

 

[flavio81]

Anyway you have to admit I was the one who spotted the Nikkor first, or do you also want to take credit of that?

Yes, you were. You have a quite fine eye at detecting distortion. Thus you would be more satisfied with the fine optical products of Canon Camera Co. Inc, Japan.

 

[flavio81]

Back to topic, the Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 50/2 on my Retina IIIc is always remarkably sharp. However it seems to have not so good bokeh. I'll try to locate some examples and upload them here. Of course it's not a f1.4 lens.