Standard lens comparison

[flavio81]

I've been looking for an objective test on 50mm standard lenses in the f1.8 to f2 range, the kind that came with SLR bodies from the 1960s to 1980s. There is a great deal of anecdote out there, and Googling mostly takes me to subjective comparisons between lens a and lens b, which are neither scientific nor comprehensive. Given that these are the most common lenses around, I'd be interested in any serious optical tests between manufacturer's standard lenses.

There are lots of comparisons out there, but you need to be aware of some caveats:

1. You should test these lenses in full frame digital, or in film. No crop-sensor cameras or the performance test will not be relevant to our analog purposes.

2. Performance should be compared both at closeup (say, 2m) and at infinity, to make a fair assessment.

3. Focus point should be bracketed, if we want the test to be fair

Now, having said that, i will tell you that practically ALL normal lenses by the major manufacturers are good and pretty sharp. So what I'd advise is to look at more delicate factors such as bokeh, and color rendition.

For example my Nikon 50/1.8 is probably my sharpest 50mm lens, but it has harsh bokeh. My Nikkor-S 58/1.4 has some of the smoothest bokeh ever, despite not being sharp at all wide open. Both are just fine at f5.6, as any normal lens should.

At the end I prefer the 50mm lenses that have a "nicer" rendering rather than worrying about which is the sharpest one.

 

[flavio81]

IC-Racer: Glad to see that the Zuiko had a good showing. What do the dots on the bars mean?

The dots are the performance of the lens under test. The bars represent the minimum an maximum of other lenses of the same type. Thus you can see the Leitz lens' wide open performance represents the maximum ever tested, and the zuiko performance close to the LOWEST tested...

I'll try to find the scans i had, but basically by f2.8 the Nikon and Canon lenses were at the maximum of the bar.

 

[Alan Gales]

Do you mean there was not much difference between them in optical performance, or that the differences were irrelevant to practical photography? One of the reasons I wanted to pursue such an analysis is because there is a big difference in price between standard lenses, and once you take away mechanical quality, I wonder whether that cost difference is born out in optical performance. Is there, for example, a real and perceivable difference between a Leitz or a Contax standard lens, and a Chinon or Zenit lens at a fraction of the price?

I used to shoot a Contax with 5 Zeiss lenses. I've also shot Nikon, Canon and Minolta. I had two good friends who owned Pantax cameras. Yes, there are subtle differences between the lenses. Like others have said it's not a big deal.

I picked up a Minolta back in the day, real cheap, and ran a roll of color film through it to make sure it was working properly. When I showed the pictures to a friend of mine he would not believe me that they were not shot with my Zeiss glass. I told him I would buy back the camera if he did not like it. Well, he bought the Minolta and was very happy with it.

I belonged to St. Louis Camera club back in the 80's. Every week they would project everyone's slides for critique. Now, members owned Contax, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax and other cameras. For the life of me I could not tell what image came from what camera. The only time I could was when one fellow shot super slides with his Hasselblad. Of course his images were larger and he shot professionally for National Geographic so ......

There was a well known saying back in the day. If you are unhappy with your images from your 35mm camera and lenses then you need to step up a format.

 

[EdSawyer]

I have a large amount of scans of vintage lens tests from the heydays of Modern Photo (the best at the time), POp Photo, and others. They are posted here:

http://www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/

I have another couple dozen or more to post sometime soon, once I get the scans cleaned up.

-Ed

 

[albada]

I have a large amount of scans of vintage lens tests from the heydays of Modern Photo (the best at the time), POp Photo, and others. They are posted here:
http://www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/
I have another couple dozen or more to post sometime soon, once I get the scans cleaned up.
-Ed

Wow, these tests are a useful resource. Thanks for scanning them.

Mark Overton

 

[benjiboy]

I don't know about comparisons but I can tell you after more than forty years of use that if the Canon FD 50mm f 1.4 lens isn't good enough for you you must be a hell of a photographer.

 

[Xmas]

I don't know about comparisons but I can tell you after more than forty years of use that if the Canon FD 50mm f 1.4 lens isn't good enough for you you must be a hell of a photographer.

Well if you always shoot of a heavy tripod and always use PanF+, then maybe.

 

[benjiboy]

Well if you always shoot of a heavy tripod and always use PanF+, then maybe.

That applies to any lens and is stating the obvious.

 

[Xmas]

That applies to any lens and is stating the obvious.

Obvious for you but if you can't hold a camera as steady as the tripod and don't use PanF+ you can use the bottom of a Guinness bottle for a lens and not notice the difference - almost

 

[Paul Howell]

3 years ago I did test my brace of 50mm lens, I have the Air Force test chart and a few others including one that was sold by Modern Photography and a few newer charts I got off the internet. Once I can scan and post I will post a few. I tested my Konica 57 1.7, Pentax M42 1.8, Miranda 1.9 and 1.4, Yashica F2, Mamiya 1.8, Kowa 1.9, Petir 1.8., Chion F2,. I tested with Tmax 100, developed in D 76 stock, printed on Foma VC glossy #2 filter, Schneider 50mm 2.8 at F 8 on my D3. I used a heavy tripod, I don't have a test bench so I set up under my covered patio and metered with my Weston Ranger 9 and confirmed with my Sigma SD 14.

Not much difference, all performed very well, the Konica seemed to edge out the others wide open in the corners, the Miranda performed about as well, the surprise was the Kowa, great tones and color. I liked the Pentax for color. I did not test for boka.

As mentioned modern 50mm lens will perform within the limits of modern film. I had thought about using Microfilm, but I don't shot with Microfilm so for my proposes not useful test.

I no longer have Nikon, Leica, so I don't know how these lens will compare with the lens I tested.

 

[benjiboy]

Obvious for you but if you can't hold a camera as steady as the tripod and don't use PanF+ you can use the bottom of a Guinness bottle for a lens and not notice the difference - almost

Who the hell uses Pan F+ and a tripod with 35mm all the time in the real World ?.

 

[ciniframe]

A good read is "The 50mm lens and metaphysical doubt" by Mike Johnston. Posted about 15 years ago on Luminous Landscape. I think you can find it in a search by typing in the title.

 

[Aleksej6]

It seems to me an annoying question, simply you have a camera, so you take the 50mm that fits your camera, and go shooting. I printed 20x30 shoots taken with Pentax lenses, and others taken with Cosina lenses (all Planar schemes, I suppose), and I cant' say which ones lenses are better, all good pictures. Perhaps also my Domiplan 2.8 M42 takes good pictures (it's a triplet) and sometimes I use it because very light and have particular colour rendition.

 

[Xmas]

Who the hell uses Pan F+ and a tripod with 35mm all the time in the real World ?.

That is the point only the people who test lenses.

 

[ColColt]

I recently bought some Pan F in 120 and for sure I'll use a tripod with the rather large Pentax 6x7. With exposures being around 30 to 60 at f8 I can't hand hold it at that slow shutter speed and expect any sharp photos.

 

[EdSawyer]

Sure, glad to help. I have more, I will try to post soon. I didn't scan everything out there, mostly just stuff I could adapt to EOS, when I was in a bit of an alt-lens phase. ;-)

Wow, these tests are a useful resource. Thanks for scanning them.

Mark Overton

 

[Paul Howell]

Who the hell uses Pan F+ and a tripod with 35mm all the time in the real World ?.

Next question, who shoots with just a 50mm in the real World? I assume there are those who only shoot with a 50mm, but most of use shoot with a number of lens. I have a rather complete set of Pentax M42, 24mm to 600mm, all but one Miranda EE lens, a fair set of Sigma SA and with demise of my Sigma SA9 and 7 now Minolta AF, along with 5 or 6 Konica lens. Not to hijack the topic, but what lens line up is the most consistent in terms of quality, number of different focal lengths. As far as I know Konica never made a bad lens, even the bargain lens were great performers. My point is that having a really great 50mm does not mean much if the rest of the lens line up is not sharp, or so expensive you cant afford a second or third lens.

 

[Dali]

Did you notice that most of the tests state the serial number of the tested lenses...? It shows how little trust should be put on these tests: valid for the tested samples ONLY.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I only shoot 50

 

[Dali]

Next question, who shoots with just a 50mm in the real World?

I shoot with a 28mm or a 50mm 95% of the time... Is it severe, Doctor?

 

[ColColt]

35 and 50mm mostly for me with 35mm.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot with a 28mm or a 50mm 95% of the time... Is it severe, Doctor?

What about the other 5%? Sure there are the Henri Cartie Bensson's who only shoot with a 50mm, but even for those who shoot primarily with a 50, use others lens as well. Others use a 50mm very little, I shoot about 70% with a 105 or 100, the 30% ranges from a 24 to the occasional very long lens, 300 to 600. So for me, after spending a few days testing just 50mm lens, I realized that it is less about a single lens that the range of lens, Pentax's 42mm line up is one of the best in the day, strange but when I was shooting with Nikon I found the lens to more hit and miss, more hits than misses, but not all Nikon glass was great lens. Leica on the hand, lens to lens, screw mount to M were all above and beyond excellent glass, the sleeper line up was Konica, I really cant think of a bad lens, if only they made a pro level camera body. Miranda also made very good glass, limited range, not very fast, but all good performers.

 

[Dali]

Helios-44 (58mm) or Mir-1 (37mm) for the remaining 5% if you want to know.

 

[blockend]

I can't buy into a range of lenses as the defining factor in choosing a brand. From what one can tell Leica users, and certainly most Leica lens users, seem to manage with one or at most two lenses and many of them opt for a 50mm. Growing up I managed with a fifty because I couldn't afford anything else, and without another lens to compare it to I never felt restricted. When I bought another lens it was a 28mm, which I found too much of a leap from 50mm. As time went on I got used to the 28mm focal length, but gradually adopted 50mm as a norm. Last year I ran a 35mm lens almost exclusively, which gave pleasing results on the image but seemed a slightly odd focal length through the viewfinder.

I own a range of focal lengths from 16mm through to 300mm but find it best to use them for specific purposes and stick with one length as my "seeing" distance. I believe a 50mm is as good as any for that purpose, which drew me to ask the original question.

 

[ColColt]

I did weddings and portraits for years with two lens, a 90 f2.8 and 165 f4-both leaf shutter lens for the 6x7. I had a 45 f4 that was of little use unless going to the mountains and landscapes.

For the Leica I find nothing better than the 35 and 50 and occasionally the 90 f2.8 ElMarit comes in handy.