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

[reddesert]

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".

Respectfully, I think you are not distinguishing between hype and effort. Mid-fast normal lenses like 50/1.8 are common and low-cost, and so they are not hyped. But it takes a significant amount of engineering to design and manufacture any lens, and especially to design and manufacture a lens that can be made in quantity at low cost and retain high performance.

I suggest reading the articles in "Nikkor - Thousand and One Nights" that have to do with normal lenses, for example this article on the 50/1.8 compact: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0060/
to get an idea of the thinking that goes into such a lens design. Of course, if you are interested in lenses, all the articles in the series (over 80 of them) are worth reading. They also cover the 50/2 and a couple of versions of the 50/1.4, and a number of "ordinary" lenses in addition to fast or exotic ones.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I bought a Konica 58 1.2 in 1970 as happenstance the Konica Rep was in the store. He told me that the 1.2 and 1.4 were optimized for low light, for sharpness the 50 1.7 was a better choice. I had the 1.7 had had been toying with the idea of selling or trading it in when I bought the 1.2, I kept it and used in good lighting. When I bought a Nikon F system a few years later I did not buy the 1.2, bought the 1.4 and 2.0. Even the Petir 50 1.8 was a 6 element design and good performer. By the 70s I think you had to have gone out of your way to find a bad 50 1.7 to 1.9 not to say that bad example of any lens could have slipped through QC.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

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.

Well, if you measure the light the lens transmits you will find an f1.8 lens is, in real life, an f2.0; and an f2.0 is probably f2.2. Just send the lens out for re-engraving and you will be happy.

It seems the maximum aperture of a lens is a calculated theoretical number, a bit like a car's horsepower rating. The remaining f-stops of a lens do seem to be accurate.

 

[Chan Tran]

Well, if you measure the light the lens transmits you will find an f1.8 lens is, in real life, an f2.0; and an f2.0 is probably f2.2. Just send the lens out for re-engraving and you will be happy.

It seems the maximum aperture of a lens is a calculated theoretical number, a bit like a car's horsepower rating. The remaining f-stops of a lens do seem to be accurate.

Some lenses are OK just re-engraving but some are not as they have a small click stop for the F2 right next to the f/1.8.

 

[grain elevator]

It seems the maximum aperture of a lens is a calculated theoretical number

Oh it absolutely is, read up on t-stops, that's what the cine people use and an actual transmission measure.

 

[CMoore]

No.

--
The Man of Few Words department.

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

What i really forgot was ...etc etc etc ... after Nikon

 

[DREW WILEY]

The article Reddesert linked is interesting. And the reason I sold off my 50/1.8 Ais is the double-lined out-of-focus blur which that article acknowledges. It's a really crisp lens except wide open, but I was interested in something rendering more vintage look, so switched to an older single-coated H 50/2 Ai'd instead. When I need a very highly corrected "normal" lens I simply use my 55/2.8 Ai Micro. I'd love to own a 58/1.4 Voightlander, but can't justify the expense.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

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.

I think you got it right. The 1.8 where made as a beginner lens and they needed to be good quality. There was a lot of work involved into designing/building them so they are the company's "business card" so to speak. They where good enough to entice you to get more lenses from them but not good enough so you won't need any other lens from them.

 

[Paul Howell]

It was not until the 80s when Nikon and Konica introduced their budget line of lens that was a difference between amature and proflessiona level lens. I bought the same Nikon F2 along with the 1.4 as the casual shooter. For bragin level lens folks turned to 3rd party lens. The 1.7 to 1.9 or 2 lens were as well built as the 1.4 and 1.2. Then there was Leica and Swiss Alpa. As Alpa did not make lens they picked lens from any number if makers, one of which along with Kern was the Pentax 50mm, same as the Super Taks in M42 in Alpa mount. What Alpa did was to test and adjust each lens to make sure it was at optimum sharpness. Other than the Alpa fine turning the same lens as anyone else bought.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

It was not until the 80s when Nikon and Konica introduced their budget line of lens

And as I recall the Nikon 'E' line of lenses was held to be equal to or slightly better than the older equivalent Nikkor lenses. The E lenses had a lot of plastic in them - but then so do all modern lenses. The Nikkors were all metal. OTOH, I have not heard of a worn out Nikon E lens, but they saw lighter duty than the old battle-scarred Nikkors you see popping up on ebay.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think the Nikon 50mm E has one less element (?), the zooms did not have the build quality of next level lens. Konica did not make a budget level 50mm. I have a Nikon 50mm E lens, came with a FG kit that I bought at a deep discount with the shop I had ordered a FA from sold the FA to another PJ. It is a fine lens, can resolve Tmax 100 and is sharp enough wide open. The E lens were branded Nikon rather than Nikkor. As I recall 3rd party makers other than macros did not make many 50mm lens as cameras usually came with a normal lens.

 

[oxcanary]

Used Pentax mount 50mm lenses and the 40mm for 40 years . Optically they were all good. Images were regularly blown up to 16 x 12. Never really saw any difference between 1.4, 1.7, 1.8 ( the 55mm) or 2.0 or 2.8 (the 40mm).I would also give credit to the Ricoh F2.0 and 1.7 as well as the Chinon 1.9 and 1.7 which both have a genuine personality for cheap if you want a characterful image.

Now the nasty ones! When new the Pentax A series fifties were fine. With considerable use the plastic apertures become ratchety and difficult to rotate. They have even jammed completely,, only to be freed when you get them home. Thus I have more or less retired the A series 50mm lenses and moved the M series veterans back into the front line!

 

[reddesert]

Many lens lines had a difference between the pricier 50/1.4 or 55/1.4 and the more amateur-friendly 50/2 (or 55/1.8 or whatever), but the mechanical construction was basically the same between the two. When Nikon introduced the Series E in 50/1.8 and other focal lengths, the construction of the Series E was somewhat cheaper.

But the Nikkor 1001 Nights article I linked above makes it clear that the optics of the compact 50/1.8 E were not cheaped out - optically, the later 50/1.8 compact (not labeled E), and the 50/1.8 AF, are the same design. It's a typical six element double Gauss design, but one aspect the article writer didn't mention is that an airspace was introduced between elements 2 and 3. This offers the designer an additional degree of freedom - at the price of another 2 reflecting surfaces, but with modern coatings that is not a big deal.

 

[lxdude]

Now the nasty ones! When new the Pentax A series fifties were fine. With considerable use the plastic apertures become ratchety and difficult to rotate. They have even jammed completely,, only to be freed when you get them home. Thus I have more or less retired the A series 50mm lenses and moved the M series veterans back into the front line!

I had that problem on my only A lens, the 50/2. I removed the ring, cleaned and re-greased it, and it's been fine for more than 10 years.

 

[Chan Tran]

I think you got it right. The 1.8 where made as a beginner lens and they needed to be good quality. There was a lot of work involved into designing/building them so they are the company's "business card" so to speak. They where good enough to entice you to get more lenses from them but not good enough so you won't need any other lens from them.

There is no need to make them not good enough so you won't need any other lens. Few would buy another 50mm lens but the reason to buy another lens isn't because the 50mm isn't good enough but because you need other focal length lenses.

 

[kl122002]

Respectfully, I think you are not distinguishing between hype and effort. Mid-fast normal lenses like 50/1.8 are common and low-cost, and so they are not hyped. But it takes a significant amount of engineering to design and manufacture any lens, and especially to design and manufacture a lens that can be made in quantity at low cost and retain high performance.

I suggest reading the articles in "Nikkor - Thousand and One Nights" that have to do with normal lenses, for example this article on the 50/1.8 compact: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0060/
to get an idea of the thinking that goes into such a lens design. Of course, if you are interested in lenses, all the articles in the series (over 80 of them) are worth reading. They also cover the 50/2 and a couple of versions of the 50/1.4, and a number of "ordinary" lenses in addition to fast or exotic ones.

I agree they have spend effort in making a better lens. The SLR standard lens development seems started from late 1950s , and the competition getting hot in 1970s since Japanese SLR companies were dominating the industry .

But what I could feel after that, around 1980s the f1.8 series is just stayed at f/1.8 (or within this range) among different companies. Like, the design formula hasn't changed much , no aspherical Lens tech applied on this "50/ f1.8" area, the coating remained the same (like Canon 's FD 50 f1.8 is a SC coating only). And even now, these 50mm f/1.8, have they ever changed after just adding the AF function ?

 

[koraks]

And even now, these 50mm f/1.8, have they ever changed after just adding the AF function ?

Probably not. And given the performance of these lenses, it's easy to see why. The additional effort and cost would likely not justify the marginal gains in image quality. It would furthermore bring the "cheap and cheerful" 1.8 lenses much closer or at the same price point as the more expensive 1.4 etc versions, which doesn't make much sense from a product portfolio/marketing perspective. It would be counterproductive.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I've used the following 50mm-ish lenses:

• 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI-S
• 50mm f/2.0 Nikkor K/AI'ed
• 50mm f/1.4 Olympus OM-mount (I forget what version; it was a while ago)
• 50mm f/1.4 Asahi Pentax Super Takumar
• 50mm f/1.4 Asahi Pentax S-M-C Takumar
• 55mm f/1.8 Asahi Pentax S-M-C Takumar
• 50mm f/2.0 SMC Pentax M

I think the performance of all of these lenses has been excellent, although I didn't really shoot with the Olympus and haven't shot enough with the 55mm Tak to have a really strong opinion. I almost always shoot at f/2.8 and smaller apertures and only open up past that when shooting in low light. Frankly with my eyesight and focusing skill getting perfect focus at apertures smaller than f/2.8 is mostly luck and I try not to waste film taking shots unless I am reasonably confident I can get good focus. So, wide open performance isn't a huge deal for me.

At the apertures I usually shoot, I think my f/2.0 Nikkor may be a bit sharper than my f/1.4 Nikkor. I definitely prefer the rendering of the f/2.0 lens, as it seems to both have more depth/"3D pop" than the f/1.4 and also better bokeh and smoother transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas.

I have not shot my 55mm f/1.8 Takumar anywhere near as much as my 50mm f/1.4 Takumars, but so far it seems fully the equal of the faster lenses (and the 50mm f/1.4 Takumars are probably my favorite lenses.)

I find the performance of the 50mm f/2.0 SMC Pentax M quite good. With this lens, I definitely notice a loss of sharpness wide open but it's fine at f/2.8 and smaller apertures. It's only a five element lens, which I think enhances the representation of depth/"3D pop."

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

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.

I feel the same way! Something about a lens that does not open up to a full stop aperture just bugs me.

(I thought it was only me.)

 

[Chan Tran]

I feel the same way! Something about a lens that does not open up to a full stop aperture just bugs me.

(I thought it was only me.)

That is why when Nikon introduced the 58mm f/0.95 lens I think it was silly. The number 0.95 makes it less desirable than the 1.0 although functionally they are the same.

 

[xkaes]

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

Ricoh, Yashica, Cosina, Miranda, Fuji, Topcon, Mamiya/Sekor, Petri, Seagull......I could be here all day!

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I feel the same way! Something about a lens that does not open up to a full stop aperture just bugs me.

(I thought it was only me.)

My Pen F 38mm/1.8 lens is like this, it goes 1.8-2-2.8. But 1.8 to 2 is only a third of a stop, it's just WRONG!

 

[xkaes]

Something about a lens that does not open up to a full stop aperture just bugs me.

Are you saying you don't have any lens that only opens to f2.8, for example -- like many 28mm & 135mm lenses -- or f3.5, f4.5.........???

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Some lenses are OK just re-engraving but some are not as they have a small click stop for the F2 right next to the f/1.8.

Oy vey. Just use the lens already, meshugana. Next, what, you object to the front ring engraving; not good enough for you, is it?

I was told everybody is a little bit Jewish; it was my high school girlfriend's favorite appellation for me.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Are you saying you don't have any lens that only opens to f2.8, for example -- like many 28mm & 135mm lenses -- or f3.5, f4.5.........???

No, I have both the 28mm f/3.5 and the 35mm f/3.5 Takumars, as well as the 55mm f/1.8. They're great lenses, but I just find something disconcerting about the fact that the maximum aperture is a fractional stop. Makes no sense, I know, just how I feel.