On 35mm I only shoot with 50 mm. I tested quite a few lenses myself and found that at large openings there are significant differences. At F/8 the differences are marginal but for some lenses still noticable under optimal conditions (FP4 plus, tripod etc.). Based on my own testing, I found Nikkor 50 F/2 and Canon 50 F1.4 rather disappointing, to my surprise. Canon 50 F/1.8 and Minolta 50 F/1.7 perform better. But my absolute favorite is the Carl Zeiss Ultron 50 F/1.8, the one with the concave front element. Astonishing sharpness, yet a nice soft image and superb bokeh. Other Carl Zeiss lenses, like Tessar F/2.8 perform nice as well but nowhere near the Ultron. I've never tried a Summicron 50 F/2, but I believe that one is in the same league as the Ultron.... rather expensive though.
Standard lens comparison
-
A
- Thread starter blockend
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 9 Rolls FUJI Fujifilm SUPERIA PREMIUM 400 27 exp 3 pro packs
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 AI'd
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale DAHLE 552 (20-inch) Trimmer
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Leica M2 Camera ("Body Button", No Self-Timer Type) CLA'D
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Agfa Super Isolette CLA'd Medium Format 6x6
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
You probably had a bad sample of nikkor 50/f2. My nikkor-H 50/f2 is equally sharp as my M summicron.
That mey well be true, Darko.
Your comment is important: even with such prime lenses, there may be exemplary differences!
Since I'm talking about lenses that are 30-50 years old.... who knows what those lenses have been through during their long life. Even when they look great to the eye - no haze, dust, fungus, scratches.... - there is no guarantee that such an old lens still performs as good as it did when it was new.
Your comment is important: even with such prime lenses, there may be exemplary differences!
Since I'm talking about lenses that are 30-50 years old.... who knows what those lenses have been through during their long life. Even when they look great to the eye - no haze, dust, fungus, scratches.... - there is no guarantee that such an old lens still performs as good as it did when it was new.
That's just it. There is more variance introduced in the analog printing process than the raw image quality differences between taking lenses. Is your enlarger clamped completely rigid and flawlessly aligned immediately prior to printing? Are you using a double glass carrier with an APO lens of longer than standard focal length for the film format?
I can't tell a difference between my Canon FD and Leica Summicron in my prints. I can with a pro lab drum scan...just barely.
At some point we are no longer comparing lens, we are comparing film, developers, and enlargers.
Whilst it's fair to say most standard lenses are about the same when stopped down this completely ignores that they are generally quite different at wider apertures, and this is where differences can be exploited.
A lenses various aberrations give a lens it's character. These aberrations are most extreme at widest apertures and most are minimised or effectively eliminated when stopped down. Wider apertures is where standard lenses differ the most. Shooting one or two stops from maximum is a way to retain the character of a lens, it's bokeh and drawing style, whilst often minimising the worst and most damaging aberrations.
Bokeh is often ignored in lens tests, especially in magazines from last century, yet this is one of the main differences to be found in standard lenses (again, their performance being otherwise fairly similar when stopped down).
Of course if all you ever do is to shoot at F8-11 then it doesn't matter much what you use.
A lenses various aberrations give a lens it's character. These aberrations are most extreme at widest apertures and most are minimised or effectively eliminated when stopped down. Wider apertures is where standard lenses differ the most. Shooting one or two stops from maximum is a way to retain the character of a lens, it's bokeh and drawing style, whilst often minimising the worst and most damaging aberrations.
Bokeh is often ignored in lens tests, especially in magazines from last century, yet this is one of the main differences to be found in standard lenses (again, their performance being otherwise fairly similar when stopped down).
Of course if all you ever do is to shoot at F8-11 then it doesn't matter much what you use.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,823
- Format
- Multi Format
Hmm. Much of this discussion and especially the post I quote are reminiscent of discussions on www.mflenses.com. The OP might get better-founded and more specific advice there.
The Nikkor-HC 50/2 and the Canon FD 50/1.4 are among my favorite lenses... Good enough for me!
"Whenever I read the word bokeh, I reach for my revolver."
Unknown photographer. 20th century.
I agree. My Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 is one of my best 50's. It's so good I'd never consider parting with it......
Whenever I read the word bokeh, I know someone's reached for their wallet.
Another happy user here. Don't expect anything special from it but this is part of the magic. I like the comparison with the Summicron (of the same era, that is): Just a nice lens without flaws or idiosyncrasies. It just doesn't get in your way, mixes in some kind of fingerprint, strange behaviour, quickly wearing out effects etc. That is how a normal lens is supposed to be, at least in my book.
I own a pair of pre-AI 50mm f2 Nikkors, and they are very nice handling lenses. I find older Nikon lenses more characterful than later varieties which can be almost sterile in their rendering. Basically, my aesthetic sensibilities favour lower contrast lenses which flies against the prevailing fashion.
Lens testing is a regular part of my system. And every time I test a lens, I learn that the lens is better than I am a photographer.
Every time.
Every time.
The Nikkor SC 50 1.4 is not half bad either. What I'm more surprised about is the 50 f2 DR Summicron that just came back from Youxin Ye for a little CLA. It performs, I would surmise, about as good as it was new and really gives the Zeiss Planar a run for it's money.
Someday, I would like to perform a comparison test between the three best 50-something lenses I have ever used:
50mm f/1.4 Asahi Super Takumar (8-element)
55mm f/3.5 Nikkor Micro
56mm f/1.2 Fujinon
All three are well-built and produce excellent image quality.
The Takumar is the smallest of the three. It is a manual focus, screw-mount lens that came with my Pentax Spotmatic SLR body. When shooting theatrical performances with black & white film, it is my lens-of-choice.
The Nikkor is the slowest of the three (e.g. f/3.5 gathers less light). It is a manual focus, Nikon F bayonet mount lens designed for Nikon SLR cameras. It is my lens-of-choice when shooting close-ups and macro.
The Fujinon lens is the largest and fastest of the three (e.g. f/1.2 gathers a lot of light). It is an auto focus, X-mount lens designed for Fuji mirrorless cameras.
Fifty Something Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
50mm f/1.4 Asahi Super Takumar (8-element)
55mm f/3.5 Nikkor Micro
56mm f/1.2 Fujinon
All three are well-built and produce excellent image quality.
The Takumar is the smallest of the three. It is a manual focus, screw-mount lens that came with my Pentax Spotmatic SLR body. When shooting theatrical performances with black & white film, it is my lens-of-choice.
The Nikkor is the slowest of the three (e.g. f/3.5 gathers less light). It is a manual focus, Nikon F bayonet mount lens designed for Nikon SLR cameras. It is my lens-of-choice when shooting close-ups and macro.
The Fujinon lens is the largest and fastest of the three (e.g. f/1.2 gathers a lot of light). It is an auto focus, X-mount lens designed for Fuji mirrorless cameras.
Fifty Something Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Me too.
This is often said, but I have no idea what it means. A lens is a means to an end, just as moving to a larger format, or using flash, or filters are ways of changing the look of an image. Suggesting a lens will make someone a better photographer, or that their images don't deserve as many lines per inch, is a strange concept.
Even the S version is pretty good. If anything, I've noticed more pop from the S version and the compact K-type, AI, AIS, etc, than the SC version... The older lenses do have a more normal-shaped diaphragm than the later versions.
Nope, in fact, a lot of them were produced by Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc. Didn't have to be a Contax or a Leica, or, for that matter, a Hassy or Rolleiflex. Case in point, the NatGeo cover from the 1980's with the rather haunting expression on a woman's face. IIRC, Nikon body, Nikkor lens, K64 film.
-J
I think we can all agree the image quality of a 50mm SLR lens will not make a bad photograph good or a good photo lousy. Is the conclusion it doesn't matter what camera or lens you use so long as it doesn't fall apart? If so, are people stupid for spending £3k on a chunk of glass? Why not spend £15 on a Petri or Chinon 50 and be happy? Why did people move on from their first 50mm?
I moved on from my first 50mm lens because its camera body broke too often.
There are so many factors that are important, not just quality of the lens. For some it is important how close the lens can focus, for some is important precise framing and 100% finder in SLR, so some it is important that lens and camera are not on the way - and many factors are possible only with more expensive equipment.
I had a Petri, and many other cheap cameras - in comparing to Leica M3 or nikon F3 - it is not (only) about lens quality, it is about cheap camera and lens are standing between me and the photo - when I must think about the camera, and camera/lens are annoying me with strange, cheap and bad design and quirks - then I cannot concentrate on the photo making. This is why people are paying more.
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |