Lens with 50/1.8 design, just "so so" or do you like it?

[kl122002]

Almost each camera makers will make a standard lens for their products, from f/2 moved to slightly larger f/1.8. I have a Fujinon 50/1.8 and the only thing I could say is it did its job to call a day, like Tessar 50/2.8.

Do you like this design and the performance actually? I know there are some brilliant examples like CZJ Pancolor 50/1.8, but in contrast like Canon FL/FD 50/1.8, Takumar 55/1.8 are mostly ignored?

 

[GregY]

Almost each camera makers will make a standard lens for their products, from f/2 moved to slightly larger f/1.8. I have a Fujinon 50/1.8 and the only thing I could say is it did its job to call a day, like Tessar 50/2.8.

Do you like this design and the performance actually? I know there are some brilliant examples like CZJ Pancolor 50/1.8, but in contrast like Canon FL/FD 50/1.8, Takumar 50/1.8 are mostly ignored?

The Takumar is actually a 55mm 1.8 & it's a very good lens. Like the 35mm 3.5 it punches way above its class. There are/were always compromises made in producing fast lenses. Check the Takumar review. My enlargements were always sharp with good tonality.

SMC/S-M-C/Super-/Auto-/Takumar 55mm F1.8 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Normal Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

SMC/S-M-C/Super-/Auto-/Takumar 55mm F1.8 lens reviews and detailed specifications. This fast 55mm screwmount lens existed in several versions all with the same optical diagram. From t

www.pentaxforums.com

 

[ic-racer]

I had a Fujinon 50/1.8 EBC lens in the 1970s and it was a fantastic lens. All these years later I can't really say I have anything much better.

 

[Steven Lee]

I always go for the f/1.8 or even f/2 version. That extra stop often adds 30% of the weight and almost never used. My Summarit absolutely crushes the Summilux in terms of usage at 7:1 ratio. And the 90% of the 'Lux images weren't shot at f/1.4 either. The ROI on that "investment" is pretty awful.

On the F-mount I have the same thing happening: the Zeiss Milvus f/1.4 gathers dust while the tiny pancake Nikkor f/1.8 keeps going to Chicago, Dallas, Hawaii, etc.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Almost each camera makers will make a standard lens for their products, from f/2 moved to slightly larger f/1.8. I have a Fujinon 50/1.8 and the only thing I could say is it did its job to call a day, like Tessar 50/2.8.

Do you like this design and the performance actually? I know there are some brilliant examples like CZJ Pancolor 50/1.8, but in contrast like Canon FL/FD 50/1.8, Takumar 55/1.8 are mostly ignored?

I'm a big fan of the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. It offers exceptional image quality.

 

[reddesert]

In the 70s or first few years of the 80s, if you got a film SLR as a beginner or serious amateur, you usually got a fast, not ultra-fast, aperture 50mm lens with it, like 50/1.7, 50/1.8, 50/2. If you got a fixed lens rangefinder (Canonet, Yashica Electro 35, etc), which was the entry level below-SLR option, you got a lens like a 45/1.8 which is basically the same thing. These lenses were used by many thousands or even millions of people to make great photos, ordinary snapshots, Kodak memories, you name it.

IMO, when zooms and P&Ses became more affordable and the kit lens became a slow zoom (at best 28-80 or 35-80 with f/5.6 at the tele end), it was a step backward for beginners, as you could zoom but the lens was too slow to work in low available light or use limited DOF to isolate subject from background.

If there is a reason these lenses are "ignored," it's because they're so common everyone can have one. Photo bloggers/writers/youtubers like to talk about things that seem special or exclusive to generate interest. If each of them had to use just a normal lens for a month rather than pontificate about the rare Super Pantonon, it would probably improve both the authors' and readers' image making.

 

[supertester]

I link the 50mm focal length in general. Using the Pentax 50/1.2 lens is a lot of fun. Hit and miss since it is manual focus and tough to use at 1.2. Of course 50/1.8 is a bit better to focus at 1.8. I also like the 50/2.8 AR lenses stopped down a few stops.

 

[eli griggs]

The Canon kit 50mm 1.8 is very well liked by a.fair number of owners, including me.

Though I have other 50's that get more use, I only shot the 1.8 lenses for many years and it's a sharp, quality resolution tool, suitable with Canon extension tubes, the Canon doubler (2x), magnification filters, and other filters, including star field glass.

If you've got a Canon FD camera and this lens, by all means, load up a roll of medium B&W and spend a day shooting whatever catches your eye.

I doubt you'll be disappointed as long as you remember it's what it is and not some overpriced piece of kit.

Stay warm and Godspeed to all,
Eli

 

[kl122002]

The Canon kit 50mm 1.8 is very well liked by a.fair number of owners, including me.

Though I have other 50's that get more use, I only shot the 1.8 lenses for many years and it's a sharp, quality resolution tool, suitable with Canon extension tubes, the Canon doubler (2x), magnification filters, and other filters, including star field glass.

If you've got a Canon FD camera and this lens, by all means, load up a roll of medium B&W and spend a day shooting whatever catches your eye.

I doubt you'll be disappointed as long as you remember it's what it is and not some overpriced piece of kit.

Stay warm and Godspeed to all,
Eli

Speaking of Canon FD, so far, I see the 50/1.8 is always under the shadows of 50/1.4, particularly the one with breech lock ssc version.

Many of these f/1.8 lenses are under the shadows of their f/1.4 brothers. That's why it comes up my question here.

 

[koraks]

The Canon kit 50mm 1.8 is very well liked by a.fair number of owners, including me.

Same here. I like it especially in its MkII EF mount version. It's in a plastic barrel that's incredibly light-weight as a result. Brilliant little lens. I have an EF 1.4 as well and there's no advantage to it over the 1.8 apart from the rounded aperture blades.
For FD I only have an 1.8 and I don't feel any need to get a 1.4 given my experience with the EOS/EF versions, which I assume are optically pretty similar, if not identical.

But I have to admit I don't use my 50 mm's much anymore. My preferred combination at this moment is 35/2 + 100/2.

 

[brbo]

I chose Nikkor 50/1.8D. If there was a better (size, weight, distortion, sharpness (in that order)) autofocus lens, I'd probably consider it over the 50/1.8D even if it was two or three times more expensive. As it turns out, 50/1.8D was the best and also the cheapest. No complaints.

 

[tokam]

I have the FD 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 in the earlier breech lock mount. In day to day use the performance of both lenses is excellent and can't really see any difference in sharpness. The f1.8 is a bit lighter and in theory the f1.4 version should give a slightly brighter image in the viewfinder in low light conditions.

I also have a couple of Pentax M42 standard lenses, the Super Takumar 55mm f1.8 and an SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 which also perform almost identically to each other. I guess the SMC lens may have advantages in a flair inducing situation but they are both excellent performers.

I think that the sharpest standard lens I have used was a Nikkor 50mm f2 from the mid 1970's, (on a borrowed camera). That lens was a beauty. The scanned neg from that lens were amazing. Of course film choice and processing would also have played a large part in the end result.

In all fairness, none of the top Japanese manufacturers produced a dud 50mm lens and if the sample you have is in good condition you can use it with confidence that the weakest link in the photo taking chain is probably you and not the equipment.

 

[grain elevator]

AFAIK, very often the slightly slower 50s have less distortion than their f/1.4 brethren, which usually barrel-distort a bit.

 

[lxdude]

I had a Fujinon 50/1.8 EBC lens in the 1970s and it was a fantastic lens. All these years later I can't really say I have anything much better.

That would be the 55mm/1.8 EBC Fujinon, and I concur on its performance.

 

[Prest_400]

My gear has always followed a high bang for the buck, and end up using the "prosumer" tier of products. For a few years and by shooting slow film such as Kodachrome, I very eagerly wanted an f1.4 or even faster lens but the budget was better justified to be spent on more film and processing.

I began my journey with an OM-1 that came with a Zuiko 50mm 1,8 MiJ, the highest regarded iteration of that 50mm. Actually a fantastic lens and when I adapted it to my m43, it was very sharp on the 12-16MP sensors. I haven't done a direct comparison but it very well still be sharper than the Lumix 25mm 1.7 which is analogous to what we discuss in the topic.

Nikon's 50mm 1,8D, their Nifty Fifty, has done nice service on my AF bodies and is my other mostly used camera.

Allegedly, I haven't tried that many 50mm lenses and also I have moved on from 35mm as my main film format. Nowadays I am taking a medium format approach. Somehow I got used to the 35-40mm (and equivalent) range instead and find the 50mm a bit tight nowadays. I agree with Tokam:

In all fairness, none of the top Japanese manufacturers produced a dud 50mm lens and if the sample you have is in good condition you can use it with confidence that the weakest link in the photo taking chain is probably you and not the equipment.

If there is a reason these lenses are "ignored," it's because they're so common everyone can have one. Photo bloggers/writers/youtubers like to talk about things that seem special or exclusive to generate interest. If each of them had to use just a normal lens for a month rather than pontificate about the rare Super Pantonon, it would probably improve both the authors' and readers' image making.

Very nicely said, and reflects on my opening line that I would be a glad GI (General Issue) user Lately I have been watching Youtube on photo topics quite a bit, which I never did before, and that "hype agenda" does bother me at times.


Slightly off topic, the 135 format 50mm standard double gauss lenses resolve very well and I struggle sometimes with the "ultimate" sharpness on medium format. The 90mm Fujinon in my Fuji 6x9 is good but looking close it's not as resolving as the smaller formats... Of to the Tessar designs in 6x6, I have tried a couple but not modern sharp and for me quite a step down from the Fujinon. 135 with T-grain film can well overcome that gap.
It does however look good in moderate size prints, but the grain peeping part of me would love maximizing that real estate.

This thread has made me think of a nice overview of 50mm lens designs, which after some Googling I found and link:

https://rangefinderforum.com/threads/a-short-history-of-fast-normal-lenses.159507/

 

[Dali]

Almost each camera makers will make a standard lens for their products, from f/2 moved to slightly larger f/1.8. I have a Fujinon 50/1.8 and the only thing I could say is it did its job to call a day, like Tessar 50/2.8.

Do you like this design and the performance actually? I know there are some brilliant examples like CZJ Pancolor 50/1.8, but in contrast like Canon FL/FD 50/1.8, Takumar 55/1.8 are mostly ignored?

The Pancolar, a brilliant example of what? I am sure that most who talk about it never put their hands on it. This is the beauty of the internet: Things are repeated again and again and gains the truth status without any objective evidence.

I never got a bad 50mm lens, being f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.0, f/2.8 or f/3.5. Each time I use one of them, I get an image. Unbelievable, no?

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have used Pentax SLR cameras for decades, and my SMCP 50mm f1.7 M-series gets used more than my other lenses, by far. I also have a 50mm SMCP f1.4 M-series, which I rarely carry. More recently, I aquired a Konica Autoreflex T4 and a Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f1.7. I think I may like the Konica lens a little better for color, and it may be a tiny bit sharper than the Pentax, but I have never done any side-by-side comparisons. (Life is too short for lens testing.)

Honestly, I expect I would be satisfied with any 50mm f1.7-2.0 lens which was made by a reputable Japanese manufacturer in the late 1970s-1980s.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

When I got my little Canon mirrorless, I got an EF 50/1.8 STM because why wouldn't you - I bet it's the cheapest lens Canon sells. But my camera's APS-C, so this is my medium tele lens. I love it.

 

[Rayt]

The typically 50/1.8 kit lens from that era where made to a price point as a consumer grade product so while construction might be compromised their performance certainly were not. The Zeiss 50mm f/1.7 for the Contax/Yashica mount was overall a better lens than the 50mm F/1.4.

 

[ant!]

Yep, I guess all has been said, but I still add my 2 cents:

For Minolta MD, I have the 50/2 (light and good), the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.2 (found it without looking, for a very good deal). Long ago I sold the 1.7 since I had the 1.4. Lately, I reach for the 50/2 if I want light, and if it's low-light for the 1.2 (not really to use it open, but to focus easier in low-light). Sometimes the filter diameter plays a roll as well, if I want to use filters, the 2.0 is 49mm and the others 55mm... But all are great, the 50/2 and 1.7 super cheap.

For the Praktina, I have (all CZJ) the Tessar 50/2.8, the Biotar 58/2 and the Pancolar 50/2. Still have to figure out which one I like more in which situations. Also usability plays a roll, the Tessar I have is manual aperture only, the Biotar semi-auto aperture and the Pancolar auto-aperture (my Praktina IIa is the version which handles both semi-auto and auto, some other Praktinas are limited to either/or, and some Praktina FX only for the manual aperture).

 

[MattKing]

The 50mm f/1.8 or similar lenses were made and sold in relatively huge numbers. Designers and manufacturers benefitted from more economies of scale with those than just about any other lens.
They were also relatively easy to design, in that the focal length and maximum aperture led to a convenient and easy to manufacture size for the mount and barrel and lens objectives needed, without the need (usually) to employ complexities like retro-focus design.
One of the reasons that they attract less attention is that their field of view is relatively close to normal human perception - when you lift the camera to your eye, the view is such that you hardly notice the lens employed. They tend to render an image quite naturally.
Finally, they provide similar results as the lenses on the fixed lens cameras that many people used before moving to an SLR.

 

[xkaes]

How come no one is talking about all the ubiquitous f1.7 and f1.9 50mm lenses out there -- or the f2.2.

 

[MarkS]

These lenses had to be good, as they were the most common representation of the brand. A point of pride for the makers!
A 'bad' 50mm might make buyers change camera systems. Plus the basic design of this type of lens is well understood, and a top-quality one not difficult or expensive to make.
And speaking of the 50/2 Zeiss Pancolar... 50+ years ago in high school, my best friend's camera was an Exa with that lens. In those days we had no notion of testing a lens for quality; we were lucky just to get a proper exposure, and in focus. So that lens might have been optically superior to a Leica 50/2 Summicron, but we'll never know. Oh well!

 

[Paul Howell]

The Konica 50mm 1.7 first version in AR mount was used by the Japanese agency that tested all camera lens as the standard to which the others 50mm were compared to. Another great performer is the Miranda 50mm 1.7, also the 1.9 version for the EE. The only lens that really stands out for the crowd that I have used if only for a week is the Kern Swiss 1.7 macro for Alpa. I didn't have a chance to test it with a test chart and microfiche film to how well it resolved, but it was sharp. I did test all of the 50mm I had at one time, Yashica M42, Mamiya M42, Pentax, M42 and K, 1.4 and 2.0, Konica, Miranda EE, Petir, Minolta MD, all could resolve Tmax 100 with room to spare.

 

[4season]

Adapted to FF digital camera, I felt 50/2 SMC Pentax-A was “meh” until stopped down to f/11, and to date, the 40/2.8 SMC Pentax pancake has been disappointing enough to make me wonder if I’ve installed a lens element backwards.

I have fond memories of 55/1.8 Super Takumar, 50/1.8 Canon FD, and 50/1.8 AI-S Nikkor, though. I recall thinking that the Canon delivered results which were about the same as what I was getting with my 1970s Leitz Summicron-M, but this is based on casual user impressions, not more rigorous bench tests.