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

[grain elevator]

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.

I agree with the other parts, but the "close to human vision" thing is a myth. It may have approximately normal magnification with a typical SLR finder, but the same is true for consumer DSLRs with a lens with narrover aov, because their vf magnification is much lower. Yes, the effect may make their use pleasant. But that they render an image more naturally than a wide angle or longer lens...
I object to that. Human vision doesn't have a fixed angle of view other than the maximum peripheral vision which is close to 180° horizontally. But we can also close in on something small and not notice what's around it.

 

[moggi1964]

I've a MOG Orestor 50mm F/1.8 (Exacta mount) I have just popped on my Olympus digital camera today.

My Exacta camera currently has a Tessar 50mm on it. I'll let you know what I think of it as an adapted lens before it makes it onto the Exacta.

 

[MattKing]

I agree with the other parts, but the "close to human vision" thing is a myth. It may have approximately normal magnification with a typical SLR finder, but the same is true for consumer DSLRs with a lens with narrover aov, because their vf magnification is much lower. Yes, the effect may make their use pleasant. But that they render an image more naturally than a wide angle or longer lens...
I object to that. Human vision doesn't have a fixed angle of view other than the maximum peripheral vision which is close to 180° horizontally. But we can also close in on something small and not notice what's around it.

We do have what amounts as a "scanning" visual system, so I agree that our visual system has the ability to increase and decrease the field of view.
But the centre of that field of view is a really good choice for something that has a fixed field of view, which of course a camera with a fixed focus lens has. Try mounting a 50mm lens to your 35mm SLR, and then compare how things look both through the camera and then with the camera out of your visual path. Now compare how things appear to change with shorter focal length and longer focal length lenses.

 

[lxdude]

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.

This is a widely held view of both designs, and of the prior SMC-M 50/2.
I have both 50s and they are similar in resolution. Stopped down a ways, they do well. The thing is, they are in a category that has so many excellent lenses, so every lens is expected to be excellent.
I've wondered why Pentax used this design, knowing it didn't measure up to so many other manufacturers' normal lenses. Maybe they regarded them as kit lenses and left it at that.

 

[kl122002]

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?

There are plenty Pancolar versions , from 50/2 to 1.8, and in 1.8 they have design changes. The one I am still having is the early Zebra version with 8 aperture blades. I won't say it's the best if all but it has its own character.

My very personal favorite? The Takumar 58mm f2.4. I found it from a a pile of junk in scrap yard in 1970s. It does well but I known nothing about this lens, until today internet told me how special it is .

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Big fan of Zuiko 50 f1.8. I like it better than my 1.4 version.

Also, Rollei 50 f1.8 on QBM renders quite nice.

So yeah love the design.

 

[kl122002]

Big fan of Zuiko 50 f1.8. I like it better than my 1.4 version.

Also, Rollei 50 f1.8 on QBM renders quite nice.

So yeah love the design.

Really like Rollei HFT Planar 50/1.8 . Just repaired one from my nephew's .

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

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

Agreed! I have the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF (not AF-D), and am very happy with it. I use it when I want to "travel light."

 

[markjwyatt]

The Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron is really good. I wish it had more aperture blades (has 5), but I see that in a lot of lenses. I have some great f2 "normal" lenses also (Zeiss Opton 50mm f2, CZJ 58mm f2 Biotar, Rodenstock 50mm f2 Heligon).

 

[mshchem]

It's not about performance It's about how you Look! Sure you can get away with a Summicron 50 f2 on your vintage Leica M2, but if you are carrying a Leica M11P, it's best to go with a Noctilux 50 f 0.95!

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Nikon 50/1.8 Ais semi-pancake is very sharp except wide open, and very affordable too. Being so compact, it's a nice travel lens. But it's actually easier to focus my 55/2.8 micro in dim light because it's way better corrected even fully wide open. Neither has pleasant "bokeh", but an annoying double-lined effect in certain out of focus circumstances.

 

[GregY]

It's not about performance It's about how you Look! Sure you can get away with a Summicron 50 f2 on your vintage Leica M2, but if you are carrying a Leica M11P, it's best to go with a Noctilux 50 f 0.95!

 

[xkaes]

 

[xkaes]

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I have 50mm lenses for my SLRs, but I never use them. I'm just not a fan of the "normal" angle of view.

My Zuiko 50/1.8 hasn't been mounted in decades. I shot one of my parents' old Nikkor 50/1.4s a couple of years ago just to see if it still worked... and didn't care for the resulting images. I typically use the 35/2 as my "normal" OM lens, and either the 35/2 or 45/2.8 GN on my Nikon bodies.

The one 50mm lens I've used in recent years that impressed me enough to try again sometime is the fixed f/2.8 Tessar on a Contaflex S I picked up for $10. Really nice imaging... well, it's a Zeiss Tessar:

 

[halfaman]

I find my Nikkor AI-S 50 mm f/1.8 to be a fantastic lens. I asked to some Nikon nerd I know if I were missing anything not having the f/1.4 version besides the aperture. His answer was short and clear: "NO".

 

[Chan Tran]

I don't like it but most of them are very good. I don't like it just because of the number 1.8. I rather have 1.4 or 2.0. I don't like 1.2 either.

 

[supertester]

I read on some other forums that the Zeiss 55/1.8 is indeed an awesome lens. I need to read more reviews before pulling the trigger.

 

[CMoore]

Did.....
Canon
Minolta
Pentax
Nikon
..... make a bad 50/1.8ish lens.?

 

[BorHa]

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 nifty 50’s are the best and cheapest. Canon and Nikons are super sharp and the pancake e mount is tiny. You can’t go wrong on the image quality and price

 

[kl122002]

Did.....
Canon
Minolta
Pentax
Nikon
..... make a bad 50/1.8ish lens.?

Can't tell.

Only that gives me a feeling that they are also not very interestes into that area. They just make it and " so there is a complete camera ready for the user".

 

[eli griggs]

Can't tell.

Only that gives me a feeling that they are also not very interestes into that area. They just make it and " so there is a complete camera ready for the user".

All these top rank SLR, 135 film camera makers put a good deal of their prestige and reputation on the line, out to the public, professional and Amateur shooters, and against other top brands, as the 1.8 50mm or near basic lens apature were the measure by which their customers judged their lenses quality and desirability, as well as the Industrial photographic community of magazine and other print reviewers and reporters.

No one is going to sink another dime into a camera system that is represented by trashy design, performance, durability, materials, and limitations or absence of common features required in a quality product.

IMO, the need and actually production of top quality "nifty 50s" means good camera and lens makers pay every bit of the attention to these kit lenses as they do their premium 50s, their 'best' offerings.

It's a no brainer, to be sure.

 

[MattKing]

The 50mm lenses were what sold the system. The other lenses were more profitable - but people didn't buy them if they didn't buy the camera and 50mm first.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Did.....
Canon
Minolta
Pentax
Nikon
..... make a bad 50/1.8ish lens.?

No.

--
The Man of Few Words department.

 

[MattKing]

Did.....
Canon
Minolta
Pentax
Nikon
..... make a bad 50/1.8ish lens.?

You forgot Olympus, Konica, and a few others.
And the answer is "no"