50mm lenses

[pen s]

Folks, for a bit of fun google "the 50mm lens and metaphysical doubt" and select the first entry on the search.

It is an piece written by Mike Johnston in 2002 for Luminous Landscape and still available to read.

I haven't had the oppertunity to shoot with many different 50mm lenses. I have a old 50mm f1.8 Zuiko, 50mm f1.8 Super Takumar, and a Sears 50mm f2 that came with a Sears KS500 (rebadged Ricoh KR5).

Thay are all OK, better lenses than I am a photographer.

 

[TheToadMen]

I almost forgot, but I have also an old Leica-R 50 mm f/2 (Summicron) lens on my old Leica SL and it gives me beautiful pictures, with very nice contrast in B&W.

These lenses and cameras aren't expensive as the M-system but very good!

 

[blockend]

still looking for a 43mmf/?.

Closest would be a 28mm lens used on a Canon d*****l SLR, or some old compact rangefinders. I think it's the closest thing to a natural viewpoint.

 

[blockend]

It is a piece written by Mike Johnston in 2002 for Luminous Landscape and still available to read.

Konica's problem was they never made a professional body to match their excellent lenses.

 

[darkosaric]

I think what is important is than many 50 mm lenses have different character - one must see what is best for him. For example old 50mm summar gives such unusual character that I like - but I would not recommend this lens as general everyday lens.
So, it is more about different characters of lenses, it is not about which one is more sharp - they are all sharp enough

 

[clayne]

Konica's problem was they never made a professional body to match their excellent lenses.

I don't think Konica actually made their own lenses. I vote Minolta was behind it.

 

[miha]

Rokuosha developed the first domestically produced photographic lens for the navy's gun cameras that year.

and

In 1947 Konishiroku was listed as one of Japan's five leading photographic-lens makers and one of three camera-shutter producers.

from: http://www.mflenses.com/konica-konishiroku-history.html

My understanding is that the later Hexanons were also made in-house.

 

[pen s]

I just remembered I have a Konica 50mm f1.4 lens also. Laying in a box in the closet. Last winter an aquantince gave me an inoperative Konica FS with three Hexanon lenses. The problem turned out to be a broken battery contact that was a stupid simple fix with a bit of brass sheet stock. Thing is I've got too many irons in the fire monkeying around with 4X5 and other photo related projects that I just never tried out the FS. Guess I'll have to load it up with more than the dummy roll I used to check the transport.

 

[TheToadMen]

I think what is important is than many 50 mm lenses have different character - one must see what is best for him. For example old 50mm summar gives such unusual character that I like - but I would not recommend this lens as general everyday lens.
So, it is more about different characters of lenses, it is not about which one is more sharp - they are all sharp enough

+1
Combine this with your favorite film & developer combination and you'll have a personal winner

(BTW: a camera (body) in the end is just an other black box, so that won't score much points in this equation - to me at least)

 

[jjphoto]

If you want to try a cheap 50, $10-20, that does have a little character you could try the Industar 50-2 (50mm F3.5) in M42. Being M42 you can probably use it on a camera that you already have with a suitable adapter. It's a tiny lens.

It's a pain to use as the aperture is on the front of the lens and it's almost impossible to change aperture without accidentally changing focus at the same time. That's assuming you would ever stop down of course being plenty sharp wide open.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

If you want to try a cheap 50, $10-20, that does have a little character you could try the Industar 50-2 (50mm F3.5) in M42. Being M42 you can probably use it on a camera that you already have with a suitable adapter. It's a tiny lens.

It's a pain to use as the aperture is on the front of the lens and it's almost impossible to change aperture without accidentally changing focus at the same time. That's assuming you would ever stop down of course being plenty sharp wide open.

I've been curious about this lens for a while, having acquired some screwmount bodies.

 

[jjphoto]

There's no reason to be curious, being so cheap and abundant, just get one and throw it away if you don't like it. Here in Australia a packet of cigarettes costs more!

My M42 adapter cost more than the lens.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

There's no reason to be curious, being so cheap and abundant, just get one and throw it away if you don't like it. Here in Australia a packet of cigarettes costs more!

My M42 adapter cost more than the lens.

Jj, I don't even buy garbage bags to throw away. I hardly even have garbage!
Plus I don't smoke.
It sound like you think highly of it. Can you show some examples?

 

[jjphoto]

Jj, I don't even buy garbage bags to throw away. I hardly even have garbage!
Plus I don't smoke.
It sound like you think highly of it. Can you show some examples?

No, it's not a 'great' lens, but it's not completely sterile and character less like some more 'perfect' lenses. So I think it's interesting. I haven't used it for a while now but there are a few examples in the link below (which was also in the post above):

http://photocornucopia.com/1041.html

 

[dynachrome]

All of the 50/1.7 Minolta lenses are very good. My favorite is the MC Rokkor-X. It isn't any sharper than the later MD models but is more solidly made. Did Konica make its own 35mm SLR lenses? Yes it did. In the early 1980s Tokina started to make lenses for the Konica cameras. Some, like the 28-135, 80-200/4 (one touch) and 80-200/4.5 were made under both names. Some of the Tokina made lenses are quite good. My favorites are the 21/2.8, 24/2.8 and 40/1.8. The second version of the 50/1.4 has lens elements made by Konica but a barrel made by Tokina. It also has a different aperture mechanism and stops down to f/22. Whether the f/22 feature is worthwhile depends on how much diffraction you can live with. There are many good standard lenses floating around and at this point condition is more important than brand. With the exception of macro lenses, the standard lenses were typically a manufacturer's best models. Earlier this year I got a 50/1.4 Canon New FD for $20 in very nice condition. If I had paid $100 for it the performance would have been the same. I just wouldn't have been a bargain. I already had two others like it as well as four earlier breech lock models. The second version of the 50/1.4 Canon FL is also excellent. Later FD models have better coating but are not otherwise sharper.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I love the 50 and 55mm lenses I have for my Pentax SLRs. The 50mm 1.4 and 55mm f/2 both render beautifully, and I prefer them equally to my Leica Summitar and better than the Voigtlander Nokton.

All are stellar performers, however, and any shortcomings in my pictures should be attributed to me and not the lenses.

I go in spurts where I sometimes prefer 50mm, and other times I'm using 35mm lenses almost exclusively. The 35mm f/2 Pentax is heavenly, and while the 35mm f1.4 Voigtlander Nokton is great, I wish I had a better 35 for the Leica. It has really soft corners even at f5.6 or f8, but for close-up portraits it's amazing.
The Pentax 28mm f3.5 is also killer, and gets a fair amount of use.

Then sometimes I use longer lenses too, but quickly stop.

The 50mm lenses get about 70% of the use, and I almost always take just one lens when I travel or head out to photograph.

I've had experience with Canon lenses too, but not enough to make a statement. I do know this, though, that most Leica lenses are hugely overrated picture quality wise. Using Leica enlargers and Leica enlarging lens, I see nothing from Summicron, Summitar, or Summarit lenses that improve quality over Pentax. Both are much better than Voigtlander, however. By no small margin either.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

nikkor50mmf/1.8

 

[miha]

My experience with Leica lenses tells me that I can use them wide open with confidence. Even the pedestrian ones. Their lates ASPH and APO variants are in another league (out of mine for sure) and therefore out of my reach.

 

[Copyhat]

I don't think Konica actually made their own lenses. I vote Minolta was behind it.

Konica made their own lenses - except for the Hexar line where Tamron made a large part. Konica and Minolta never had anything to do with each other until they were reformed in the 1990's.

The 50mm f/1.7 Hexanon is just as sharp as my 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor AI and the 40mm f/1.8 Hexanon pancake is also pretty capable.

 

[AstroZon]

I too like both 50 and 55mm lenses. My all time favorite is my SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1.4 - sharp and nice color balance. I also like the 55mm 1.7 Rokkor - another sharp and well balanced lens.

 

[gone]

I'm a big fan of the Nikkor H 50 2.0 lenses myself. Superb lens, and truthfully, the only 50mm lens I've used that's as good is a Leica R 50 2.0

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm a big fan of the Nikkor H 50 2.0 lenses myself. Superb lens, and truthfully, the only 50mm lens I've used that's as good is a Leica R 50 2.0

That has been my experience as well, based on comparisons with slides taken in the early 80s with an R3/Summicron and those taken with my two Nikkors.

 

[photopriscilla]

Thanks! Chan! I am going to try the Pentax 50mm! I want to expand beyond Nikkor.

 

[photopriscilla]

I would love to hear your opinion on the differences between Nikon 50mm F2 and Canon FD F1.4 specifically if you are willing to share!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I would love to hear your opinion on the differences between Nikon 50mm F2 and Canon FD F1.4 specifically if you are willing to share!

Which Nikon 50/2? The lenses I have date from the 1960s, there are quite a few different Nikon 50s.
The ones I have, marked "Nikkor H" are about as good as it gets - as I mentioned above, they stand comparison with Summicron R very well. At about 1/10th the cost...