50 mm f1.4 Battle Royale

[PCC]

Pre-AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 S:

AI 50mm f/1.4:

 

[Mackinaw]

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...

Regarding the 50/1.4 lenses I tested, here are the details:

Canon FD 50/1.4 chrome-nose, SC coating (not SSC), serial number 12257, K12 date code

Nikkor-S, 50/1.4, non-AI with “rabbit ears,” serial number 1020212

Super Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4, serial number 5414246

Jim B.

 

[parkpy]

Favorite I have used is the Summilux-R 50mm f1.4.

But too expensive to justify my very basic needs.

 

[darinwc]

Who cares? I have yet to see a lens that is pixel-sharp at f1.4. And stopped down, they all look the same.

 

[flavio81]

Who cares? I have yet to see a lens that is pixel-sharp at f1.4.

All my lenses are pixel sharp ar 1.4.
It's just a matter of using bigger pixels.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

Well, if we're getting into non- f1.4 lenses, then hands-down the winner has to be the 45 f/2 for the Contax G series. Widely regarded as one of the best lenses ever made, not only in terms of resolution and contrast but also for smoothness of out-of-focus areas.

 

[Jim Jones]

In the early 1970s I did a quick, but critical, comparison of the sharpness of about 35 lenses for 35mm cameras and enlargers. Of course the sharpest were slower than f/1.4. They were: EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8, Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, Leitz Elmar 50mm f/2.8, and 45mm f/2.8 GN-Nikkor. My old Nikkor 20mm f/4 that required the mirror to be locked up before mounting the lens was very sharp in the center of the field, but very unsharp on the corners. Next in performance were the f/2 50mm Summicron and several f/2 lenses for SLR cameras. Trailing far behind was the f/1.4 50mm Canon lens from my Canon 7S rangefinder. As I recall, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 SLR lenses were somewhat better. I later used that Canon lens wide open at 1/125 second to get good shadow detail in indoor sports, but never liked its lack of sharpness. Finally Kodak produced T-Max 3200 film, and I could use the Summicron wide open at 1/250 second with much better results.

 

[narsuitus]

50mm Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

I own and use these 50mm lenses:

Asahi 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar (8-element) (49mm filter)

Asahi 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar (7-element) (49mm filter)

Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 EBC (49mm filter)

Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 (49mm filter)

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D (52mm filter)

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Series E (52mm filter)


All produce high quality images. However, the the 8-element 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar is my personal favorite.

https://flic.kr/p/rKRzWk

 

[warden]

I like threads like this; it's fun to see how different lenses look, even at these low resolutions. I've been quite happy with the ZM 50mm Sonnar f/1.5. Before that it was the 45mm Planar f/2.0 on a Contax G2, which was also better than I needed it to be.

I'm pretty sure this was Neopan 1600, probably wide open, with a Zeiss Ikon, which sadly died last month from an electromechanical failure. It's been replaced with an old Leica so I can keep using my ZM lenses.

 

[darinwc]

Anyone have am example with a yashica lynx?

 

[cuthbert]

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.

Like what? This one?

Or this one?

Or these two?

50mm Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

I own and use these 50mm lenses:

Asahi 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar (8-element) (49mm filter)

Asahi 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar (7-element) (49mm filter)

Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 EBC (49mm filter)

Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 (49mm filter)

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D (52mm filter)

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Series E (52mm filter)


All produce high quality images. However, the the 8-element 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar is my personal favorite.

https://flic.kr/p/rKRzWk

That's interesting, I've a 8 elements Super Tak, a standard 7 elements and a late one with rubber grip that looks like a small K mount, I never noticed any difference between the 8 elements and the other two.

Do you like the Fujinons? It was hard for me to procure one, they are pretty expensive, so far I shot one test roll and I still have to understand if I consider equal or better to the Pentax glass or it's just internet hype, and do you see any difference between the EBD and non EBD one?

 

[dynachrome]

Do you mean EBC?

 

[cuthbert]

Do you mean EBC?

Yes, sorry...I also have some "DM" lenses for the AX5.

 

[flavio81]

Do you like the Fujinons? It was hard for me to procure one, they are pretty expensive, so far I shot one test roll and I still have to understand if I consider equal or better to the Pentax glass or it's just internet hype, and do you see any difference between the EBD and non EBD one?

It might be hype, but on the other hand the first optical company to use computers to optimize lenses in Japan was Fuji. Not only that, in fact it was Fuji who built the first Japanese electronic computer, the "FUJIC". And they did it for this purpose. So their R&D department had an early lead over the all the other manufacturers.

http://museum.ipsj.or.jp/en/computer/dawn/0010.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUJIC
http://museum.ipsj.or.jp/en/pioneer/okazaki.html

Excerpts from many links:

"It was finished in March 1956, the project having been effectively started in 1949, and was essentially built almost entirely by one person – Dr. Okazaki Bunji. Originally designed to perform calculations for lens design by Fuji... "

"Immediately after the graduation, he joined Fuji Photographic Film Co., where he engaged in designing optical lens, which required a vast amount of numerical calculations. When Okazaki was thinking over his vague idea of electronic means to do such calculations, he encountered a tutorial article on IBM-SSEC (Selective Sequence Electronic Calculator) by Ando Kaoru that appeared in August 1948 issue of 'Asahi Science', and learned of the possibility of electronic calculation. He wrote a company internal report entitled, " About an Automatic Means for Designing Lens." For this report, Okazaki was awarded a research fund of ¥ 200,000 in March 1949. This was the very first step toward the FUJIC (Fuji Computer): the first electronic digital automatic computer built in Japan."

"After its completion the FUJIC was used not only for lens design calculations for the company, but also for various calculations requested by other organizations. The results of such calculations were published in many academic journal papers."

To have computer assistance for lens design in 1956 is really a major achievement. At the mid 1950s in germany only Voigtlander had a computer for lens design, which they leased to other lens manufacturers sometimes. You could see Voigtlander's lens designs being more complex than the competitors in that era (example: Ultron versus a doble gauss design.)
Source of this:
http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Bessa_RF_histo_dt.html#Ultron

So this put Fuji in the same capacity as the best-equipped R&D research department in Germany!!

For comparison, it was only later in the early 60s that Canon (in case you didn't know, the best lens manufacturer ever, the holy saint of photo lenses; the glowing beacon of truth in lens design) wrote they own software for lens design, no doubt as part of their early 60s plan to manufacture calculators.

I don't know how much of the Fuji EBC is hype but I do know that when I buy myself my first M42 camera, i want to have Fuji lenses for it.

 

[cuthbert]

Fuji lenses are good, cameras too, I've both M42s (St705, great camera, 901, not so great) and X bayonet (a badly battered Ax5 that anyway performs greatly), they are the cameras I'm mostly using these days, the M42 55 mm f1.8 are great, so the zoom 70-150 mm, the 28 mm so so, for the X system I just tested the 50 mm f1.2 (astonishing, probably the best 1.2 I have), the 28 mm (different from the M42, better) and I've a Fujinar zoom full of fungus that takes pics like this one:

Anyway as we are in the f1.4 thread these are two shots of the Fujinon, at 1.4 and 2.0:

IMO the performance at f1.4 is to be desired, but at f2.0 is sharp and contrasty. What I like more is that it has a hint of swirly bokeh like the Helios lenses, unfortunately while the Helios f1.4 exists it's pretty rare, almost like a unicorn.

 

[narsuitus]

That's interesting, I've a 8 elements Super Tak, a standard 7 elements and a late one with rubber grip that looks like a small K mount, I never noticed any difference between the 8 elements and the other two.

Do you like the Fujinons? It was hard for me to procure one, they are pretty expensive, so far I shot one test roll and I still have to understand if I consider equal or better to the Pentax glass or it's just internet hype, and do you see any difference between the EBD and non EBD one?

I selected a Miranda Sensorex as my first SLR because it had two features I liked: it had an interchangeable view finder and it was able to use screw-mount and bayonet mount lenses.


When I had to dump the Sensorex because it was unreliable, I was loaned a Spotmatic with a 50mm f/1.4 screw-mount lens. I used the Spotmatic until I was able to purchase a Nikon F. I selected the Nikon F so I could borrow and use the Nikon lenses used by the other photographer at the newspaper were I worked.

When I purchased my first lenses for the Nikon F, I avoided the 50mm because I was very satisfied with the 50mm Takumar I was using on the Spotmatic.

Years later, when I finally purchased a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor lens, I was surprised that I could not duplicate the image quality of the Takumar.

Over the years, I have owned and used a variety of 50mm lenses for my 35mm film cameras. One day when I had a lot of free time, I decided to test them to see how they compared. Based on my test, I could recommend all because all produced high quality images. The difference in image quality was very subtle. The image quality of the two Fuji lenses was so similar that I asked a Fuji lens expert about the lack of difference and he said that it is very possible that even though the lens that was not labeled EBC, it may have actually received the same electron beam coating that the labeled EBC lens received.

The image quality of the 7-element Takumar probably suffered a little due to the yellowing of one of its radioactive lens elements.

Here are addresses for the test images that have a higher resolution than the thumbnails I posted earlier:


https://flic.kr/p/93kvne
https://flic.kr/p/93ktTM
https://flic.kr/p/93ks5X
https://flic.kr/p/93oyjU
https://flic.kr/p/93krkL
https://flic.kr/p/93kqkh

 

[cuthbert]

Your test is interestine because the Tak 7 elements looks like junk, the Fujinon non EBD looks better than the EBD one and the Nikkor 1.4 better than the 1.8.

 

[cuthbert]

More pics of the Fujinon f1.4, this time in B&W:

 

[cooltouch]

I don't have many 50/1.4 images on film to offer at this time. But here are the few that I do have:

Canon F-1, Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC, probably @ f/8, Fuji Velvia 50:

Nikon F with early non-TTL Photomic finder, Nikkor AI 50mm f/1.4, Kodak Plus-X Pan: