What is todays best normal (50-55-58mm) lens?

[LeonardT]

This is a tough question for most photographers to answer as the normal lens is not generally included as a kit lens as it was years ago. Also a one brand photographer might have one normal and maybe a macro lens if any at all. I happen to love the look I get with a 50~60mm lens and shoot about 50% of my photos with one. These are the normal lenses I have and constantly use in the order I rate them.

Leica 50mm 1.4 ASPH, Leica current Summicron, Canon 50mm FD 1.2L, Leica 50mm DR Summicron, Nikon AF 50mm 1.8D, Leica Noctilux, Nikon AF 60mm micro, Nikon 55mm f2.8 AIS Micro, Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS. The following I don't use often but are in my ranked list order. Pentax SMC 55mm 1.8 (sm), Nikon 50mm f1.4 AI, Leica 50mm collapsible Summicron, Leica 50mm f2.4 Elmar (sm). I also use an Olympus Pen Ft with 40mm lens but it's hard to compare to the others because of the small negative size, but it's very nice.

All of these lenses have their own character but the Leicas are special.

Len

Nikon F5, F4s, F ftn (x2), FE, N70, S2 rangefinder, D2X, D70
Leica ... many M, IIIc
Canon A1
Pentax Spotmatic II
Olympus Pen Ft
Rolleflex T
Hasselblad 501CM

 

[haziz]

My opinion: the best normal lens is the normal lens that fits the camera you like to use at the time.

The above response is the most sensible. It's what you use on your camera. Since I try to always confuse myself with too much gear; here goes:

Zeiss/Contax 50 f1.4 on my Contax RTS II.
Canon 50 f1.4 on my Eos Elan. It also makes a fine fast portrait lens on a d*g*tal body with APS sized sensor but then it is a long lens, and I am risking being expelled from APUG!
Cosina/Voigtlander 40 f1.4 on a Voigtlander R3A (feels normal to me).

But my favourite normal lens of all is not for 35 mm miniature format:

A Caltar II N 135 mm f5.6 for my 4x5! My most used lens on 4x5.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[tony lockerbie]

You know whats nice about 50's..... they are all good, and cheap. The ones I use the most are a Canon 1.2L and Nikkor 1.4.
The Canon and the Leitz Summicron are the best wide open and the planar on my Contarex is just plain beautiful to look at!
Cheers, Tony

 

[Ray Heath]

i don't get the point of all these what's best threads, who knows? who cares? go out and use the equipment you've got, it's the 'best' for many reasons

 

[cmdrcody]

Leica 50mm 1.4 ASPH M lens

My vote for todays best normal lens goes to the Leica 50mm 1.4 ASPH Summilux lens. Even if you compare the MTF graph for the new Canon 50mm 1.2 L lens, the Leica lens appears to have a bit more resolution and less distortion from center to edge.

 

[Mark Layne]

50 f 2.8 recomputed Tessar on late Zeiss Contaflex

 

[zenrhino]

Helios 103 53mm f1.8 for my Kiev 4a.

But only because it's sitting right next to me and goes with me everywhere.

Might I suggest an answer of "Whatever 50 is on the camera you have with you right now."

Or as Charlie Papazian one said, "The best beer in the world is the one you have in your hand."

 

[Tom Duffy]

Leica 50 Summilux M pre ASPH. Phenominal bokeh at f1.4 - f2 and as sharp as they come at f8. A really great all around lens. Besides, it fits on a nice quiet rangefinder.

 

[craigclu]

Back in the mid-80's, a group of us ran Leitz, Canon, Minolta, Konica and Nikon glass through a routine for resolution using the Modern Photography lens testing kit. The best 50 proved to be the lowly Konica 50/1.7 of a friend which was a price point lens in those days. While there are many other factors to consider beyond simple resolution, this was an interesting result. The Minolta 1.4 was softer than expected and the rest of them sort of ended up muddled in the middle. A repeat with other examples of the same lenses could probably reverse the results, too!

Why is that the most finicky people (regarding their optics) tend to shoot 95% of the time handheld and have an affinity to Tri-X? It's nice to have confidence in your glass, so that's worth something, I suppose.

 

[skahde]

In Nikon land I have used the 50 F1.2 and found it to be really hard to get sharp focus anywhere, when used wide open.

Mick,
I had the same problem with mine. But then I started to use it on a F100 with its electronic focussing-aid: I get razor-sharp eyelashes since that day! To me getting quality pictures wide open is purely a problem of getting the focus on the right spot.

Btw: I agree with your comment about the 2,8/55 Ais. A real keeper.

 

[kunihiko]

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for highest CP.

 

[epatsellis]

hmmmm... tough question, I use (in order of preference):

Nikon 55 1.2

Pentax 50 SMC 1.7

Nikon 50 1.8 series E

Nikon 50 1.4


while the 55 1.2 is far from the sharpest, it does have a wonderfull oof look (bokeh) that works well with my shooting style. The sharpest lens I've ever used was a Nikon Micro Nikkor ( think it was the 2.8 verson). One lens that will never make it on this list is the Canon 50 .95, a true dog below about f11, and best left on the shelf for collectors.

erie

 

[rfshootist]

Why is that the most finicky people (regarding their optics) tend to shoot 95% of the time handheld and have an affinity to Tri-X? It's nice to have confidence in your glass, so that's worth something, I suppose.

From one of this sort I once read he needs this (theoretical) performance "to have his mind free". Thinking about these words for a while you must find them simply unmasking.

There is a simple reason for all that. These folks have no real clue of what they are doing. Otherwise they would see what the limitations of film, photopaper and human visual perception means for the real world, and the would judge soley based on prints. But that isn't what they are interested in, the real world.
This fuss can reach the intellectual level of lunatic asylums, when they try to get their irrational world and the real world together:
Once one of those told me that tho one cannot see the max resolution capacity of the 400lpmm of the XX lens on a film, which is limited to 120lpmm, one nonetheless could "perceive IT somehow" (the superior resolution capacity) on the prints (SIC!!!) ! :confused:

bertram

 

[Tom Duffy]

From one of this sort I once read he needs this (theoretical) performance "to have his mind free". Thinking about these words for a while you must find them simply unmasking.

There is a simple reason for all that. These folks have no real clue of what they are doing. Otherwise they would see what the limitations of film, photopaper and human visual perception means for the real world, and the would judge soley based on prints. But that isn't what they are interested in, the real world.
This fuss can reach the intellectual level of lunatic asylums, when they try to get their irrational world and the real world together:
Once one of those told me that tho one cannot see the max resolution capacity of the 400lpmm of the XX lens on a film, which is limited to 120lpmm, one nonetheless could "perceive IT somehow" (the superior resolution capacity) on the prints (SIC!!!) ! :confused:

bertram

I'd love someone to translate this into English for me...

 

[bjorke]

First define "Best"

Then define "Normal"

Because if you look at the MTF's on photodo then the clear winner is the Contax-G 45mm f/2. Kicks sorry Summicron butt at 1/6 the price

(Some Pentax lenses with "4's" in the number do well too)

For SLR lenes, I have a 15-year-old Zeiss (SLR) 50 f/1.4, and a 1-month-old Canon 50 f/1.4. The Zeiss seems a little snappier picture-wise, but the lack of Auto-aperture when mounted on my Canon makes it a chore to use (works great on the RTS, of course). Does that make it less "best"?

 

[Bromo33333]

Nonetheless many bite. As always. Tho there is no answer. Dan's remark says it all.

bertram

Perhaps a good comment would be "What normal lens do you like best and why?"

For me, it is like beer -- the one I have is the one I like. Currently a AIS 50/1.8 for my Nikon FM2N, though I just got a Kiev 4A with a Jupiter 50/2 that seems extremely well done - surprisingly so. If only my photographic talent was so good...?

 

[Bromo33333]

Why is that the most finicky people (regarding their optics) tend to shoot 95% of the time handheld and have an affinity to Tri-X? It's nice to have confidence in your glass, so that's worth something, I suppose.

My wife is EXTREMELY finicky about that sort of thing, prefers medium format, shoots from a tripod and either likes slide film (Kodak) or TMAX. I suppose that makes her exceptional, but I already knew that ...

 

[braxus]

Perhaps a good comment would be "What normal lens do you like best and why?"

I guess that wording would have been better. I came back to this thread noticing it had replies. I passed on it a month ago. I guess my thoughts of "best" would be the sharpest lens with the best bokeh. Maybe one doesn't exist. Maybe there are many. I know there are many great 50s out there, Im just not that familiar with all of them having used mostly Canon gear. I plan on getting the EF 50 1.2L lens in the future because that I hope will be the favorite 50 I can use on my EOS gear, but its tempting to see other brands (like Leica or Zeiss since there are adapters for EOS). I guess maybe this thread was stupid to ask, but its nice to see what others think their favorite best 50 would be. And once again Dann can you please drop the attitude and hostility you give in so many of my threads? I'm still learning much of this and it would be great for a more civil reply. I should have been more specific in my first thread.

"And why do opinions matter? Most of us have too little experience with a wide range of lenses to reply much more than "I have an X and its ok" or "I've heard the Y is ok."

Hence why Im asking for others opinions and looking to see if common lenses are mentioned more then once. I guess there wasn't any that stood out. And for now I use the lowly EF 50 1.8 so Im aware there are better lenses out there- I just don't know them. Its a sharp little lens, but it needs more aperture blades to improve out of focus areas. I guess Canons slower 50s are not their best, unlike some F2 lenses replied on here. And yes this question is relevant to photography and taking great pictures because shots I've taken have been critisized because of the technical quality of the equipment which prevented me from getting a better looking shot. The 50 EF 1.8 is an example (aperture blades). In all I was seeing if there were some lenses to consider for my EOS/other outside of Canon.

 

[Bromo33333]

I guess there wasn't any that stood out. And for now I use the lowly EF 50 1.8 so Im aware there are better lenses out there- I just don't know them. Its a sharp little lens, but it needs more aperture blades to improve out of focus areas.

Bokeh is a strange beast - the best Bokeh seems to me to be on a soft focus lens. I personally don't care since the picture subject is my concern, and I tend to stop down enough the out of focus points are small - this may be a cheap solution for you.

I have found it is best to figure out how to work with the limitsations of your equipment before buying a bunch of new gear. Every camera and imaging device has limitations - and figuring out how to get accpetable results within those limits is important.

Having said that it seems to me that you like working with really shallow depth of field, which makes the "bokeh" very large and visible. Simplest solution to this, if you don't want to change your style, is to stop it down a bit, or get a diffusion filter to have a bit of "soft focus" effect.

And ... who is criticizing your equipment? That seems weird, unless you are using the equipment well outside of its strengths.

I assume that your subject and composition are fine?

 

[braxus]

Yes I like to use my lenses closer to wide open, especially with portraits in and out doors. The quality of the out of focus areas in the photos I've taken are not as smooth as some lenses I've seen photos of. This seems to be a characteristic of the 50 lens I use on my EOS. I could get the 50 1.4 lens which seems to be an improvement, but I'm holding out for the new L lens to see how it compares. I use the 50 more then any other lens in my system, so I for that range want to get a good one. My plan is to migrate to digital full frame down the road that compares to medium format 6x7. And use film for B&W. Then I can get rid of the rest of my equipment which if you know is numerous. I seem to get my best results with 35mm and it works the quickest as well, so Im concentrating in that area. Medium format is great, but its limiting for me in some shots and it seems to be permanently stuck on a tripod to get sharp results. And I can't get close enough with it for some face shots. And I need autofocus because I seem to be having more trouble these days to get the focus point correct on my manual focus gear. One recent shoot proved that. I've read many compliments on the quality of Leica lenses and how they give sharp results, good bokeh, contrast, and that 3D look. But they're expensive, so I'd have to be sure that is what Id want before grabbing a lens and adapter for my EOS. I've also heard others comment on how other manufacturers lenses give a similar look, so this is why I asked all this to get some others comments.

 

[carnun]

There seems to be a general perception that the Nikkor (AF) 50mm f1.8 is sharper than the AF f1.4, but that its pretty much of a muchness. The one complaint is that the build quality of the f1.8 is not up to scratch as it's very plasticy (as I can attest to after my toddler drop it).

 

[Bromo33333]

Yes I like to use my lenses closer to wide open, especially with portraits in and out doors. The quality of the out of focus areas in the photos I've taken are not as smooth as some lenses I've seen photos of. This seems to be a characteristic of the 50 lens I use on my EOS. I could get the 50 1.4 lens which seems to be an improvement, but I'm holding out for the new L lens to see how it compares.

If you are doing portraits, you also may want to consider a slight telephoto, such as 85mm since it will have a flattening effect making faces look much better - Canon have a nice one, if a bit expensive. Still, you could save a lot of dosh by getting a diffusion filter and seeing if you like that - or by stopping the lens down a touch - such as to f4 or something like that.

My plan is to migrate to d[#%^&%$&]l full frame down the road that compares to medium format 6x7. [...]

You might be waiting a long, long time .... [And you might get banned for life using that D-word! ]
[Oh and full frame D&*(%^&$*^%&*l is going to remain rather expensive since it uses the same sensor area and won't miniaturize]

And I need autofocus because I seem to be having more trouble these days to get the focus point correct on my manual focus gear.

It becomes compounded when shooting wide open - and SLR focussing is very difficult compared to a wide base rangefinder - though the patch is small in those as well.

I think if you are after "good bokeh" - if you get lots of leaves in your aperture, you will be happy. I would stop it down a touch, and consider using a diffusion filter. Also consider a 85mm or so lens with a wide open capability to flatten you field for a portrait, or a mild soft focus lens for really good "bokeh" at the expense of some sharpness.

 

[Bromo33333]

There seems to be a general perception that the Nikkor (AF) 50mm f1.8 is sharper than the AF f1.4, but that its pretty much of a muchness. The one complaint is that the build quality of the f1.8 is not up to scratch as it's very plasticy (as I can attest to after my toddler drop it).

I found the 50/1,8 AIS to be acceptably sharp - and have better results than using the 50/1,4 AF in the sharp category. I think the extra 1/2 stop loses you something.

 

[braxus]

Anyone have any comments on using Leica/ Leitz 50mm f2 R Summicron and using it on EOS with adapter? I see some with ROM contacts and wonder if that would cause a problem with the mirror on Canons? They seem to sell used cheap enough.

 

[sanderx]

There seems to be a general perception that the Nikkor (AF) 50mm f1.8 is sharper than the AF f1.4, but that its pretty much of a muchness. The one complaint is that the build quality of the f1.8 is not up to scratch as it's very plasticy (as I can attest to after my toddler drop it).

Umm... It dends on the AF 50mm f/1.8 you get. The older non-AF-D AF 50mm f/1.8 does not have a plastic barrel. Optically they are all the same though.