Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

50 mm: 1.4 or 1.7?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you very much everyone for your responses, which have been much better than my question. There are some differences in the conclusions, but this makes me think that all you're right, and that there are many different reasons to decide between one or the other.

drjs ..."In almost all cases, the 0.8 stop of light may not be the most compelling reason to pick one vs. the other when high ISO performance is so good on modern DSLR"... 0.8 or less... Your logic is crushing! I agree.

Basilisk ..."f1.4 to f1.8 (which is a more common option than f1.7) is closer to whole stop than a third of a stop - so a real difference in low light situations (actual light transmission might be a bit less than that of course)"... Good remarks.

..."Also f1.4 has nearly 30% more background blur wide open - which I would say is noticeable"... The blur difference is not much (in my opinion), but it is certainly noticeable... with the cost of degradation of the subject, which can be secondary or not.

simbon4o ..."About 1.4 - most of them are very awful at 1.4, almost unusable. More CAs, more prone to flare"... Your experience is identical to mine.

tikkathree ...""... Smile

Nordentro ..."It's softer and bokeh is in general better with less dept of field"... Indeed. That softness are optical imperfections, physical limits, they almost never help me, except in very rare occasions. But I know that this is a must for many people.

poilu ..."1.7 are budget lenses, almost as good as the 1.4 version"... I agree on this and I almost dare to say that they are indistinguishable in practice.

Attila ..."Really no matter, my safe zone start from f4"... oh, I believed that for you f4 is nonexistent Smile

fermy ..."the question is whether the improvements you get are worth those penalties"... Indeed.

..." an f1.4 lens stopped to f1.8 is typically sharper and contrastier than f1.8 lens"...

I did some tests obviously unscientific, although these tests do indoors, the light was slightly changed, I had to make up a little to get similar results. I think enough for a good eye. They are direct JPG. I preferred a FF for this test, but I only have a G1. Imagine that the test you did with FF and then cut a quarter to 100% crop Smile Lens: FD 50/1.4, Planar 50/1.8 and Yashinon DS-M 50/1.7, all multicoated.

Canon FD 50/1.4 stopped at f71.7-1.8:

Full resolution: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8544/8683217846_55d932b203_o.jpg

Yashinon DS-M 50/1.7 at f/1.7:

Full resolution: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8546/8683220514_755d20d1de_o.jpg

Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.8 at f/1.8:

Full resolution: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8546/8683223202_cb26f927ed_o.jpg

Regards.

Last edited by anktonio on Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:12 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Your last image url has a typo, the correct one is:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8546/8683223202_cb26f927ed_o.jpg

It seems the Canon sample is focussed on the edge of the cutting board, where the other two are focussed on the orange?


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you. Fixed. It is assumed that all are focused at sticker text on the orange... maybe I should repeat the test :/


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tikkathree wrote:
I think, dodging flames, brickbats and rotten tomatoes, that people have a tendency to buy 50mm primes subjectively rather than objectively.

So EOS nifty fifty? That'd better be the 1.8 MkI then, not the later plastic "junk lens".

1.8? Really? Oh dear, that didn't cost much so the 1.4 is the one to have.

Yeah but the 1.2... so much more poke, looks like it costsalot and it does costalot so that's the one to be seen with.

Performance? Whaddya mean performance? Widest is best innit?

I'm here to tell you that I chopped in a perfectly good but noisy 1.8 Mk1 for a 1.4 and wish I hadn't bothered. What I do shoot with most of the time on the 5DII is the FD 55mm 1.2 which trifox converted for me.


There is always an element of this in people's thinking.
Camera Clubs are hotbeds of this kind of logic.
Truly, from my experience, it will depend on the skill of the photographer as to which lens gives best results.
When we get to know our lenses and the cameras that we use them with, we won't put them into situations that we know that they won't handle. Lenses that flare badly won't be pointed at light sources. Lenses that are dogs wide open, but take amazing images closed down a little won't be subjected to this kind of no-win situation, but will be used to show their strengths.
I really don't think that there is a universal lens that will give award winning images to every photographer in every circumstance.
What is the best lens for you - the one that you are using at the moment, when you know its strengths and limitations.
Light is your friend - learn to use it with what you have.
Cheers
OH


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
anktonio wrote:
Thank you very much everyone for your responses, which have been much better than my question. There are some differences in the conclusions, but this makes me think that all you're right, and that there are many different reasons to decide between one or the other.

I did some tests obviously unscientific, although these tests do indoors, the light was slightly changed, I had to make up a little to get similar results. I think enough for a good eye. They are direct JPG. I preferred a FF for this test, but I only have a G1. Imagine that the test you did with FF and then cut a quarter to 100% crop Smile Lens: FD 50/1.4, Planar 50/1.8 and Yashinon DS-M 50/1.7, all multicoated.



A very good round up - and nice to see the tests, though I think Rawit is correct on the slight difference of focus.
It is interesting to see how similar the rendering of the lenses is - we spend a lot of time arguing about tiny differences!
A couple more points - an f1.4 lens will be disappointing if your focusing technique is not good - or your camera doesn't have good focus assist tools (like peaking on the NEX range). An old fashioned cats eye screen is good enough for a film SLR, 100% pixel view may be necessary for digital. Otherwise at f1.4 you will miss focus more than you hit it. On the other hand it is a good tool to improve your focusing technique if you don't mind missing a lot of shots while you get better!

Extra light is good, but modern digital cameras can produce good images at 3200, so not always essential. In bright light, at 100 ISO and 1/4000, you can still find you are forced to stop down so f1.4 may not be useable without an ND filter.

Good f1.8 lenses are the cheapest good lenses out there, so no shame in using them. On the other hand Canon produced quite a lot of FD 50 f1.4 lenses, so they are not that expensive (and bargains can be found), and there are quite a lot of Super Takumars f1.4 lenses around too.

At 50 mm on a crop frame I usually don't take shots where I really care about edge sharpness - more portraits and closeups. Centre sharpness is much more important.
At 35 mm and wider I am more likely to stop down and need everything in focus - my Flektogon is great for that.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the round up. Wonderful discussion.

I recommend getting them all, you can never have too many lenses!

Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The differences are indeed subtle. It makes me even more curious how expensive lenses like the Leica's or M-Hexanon's compare to this.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
here some samples from my 50s
here some samples 50 1.7 vs 50 1.4
here some samples more 50s on 16mp matrix

Pentax M 50 1.4@1.4

Zenitar 50 1.7@1.7


And crops
1.4

1.7


And crops at 2.0

Pentax

Zenitar


So for me the 1.7 lenses are much safer and cheaper choice. I have recently bought A 50 1.2 pentax and when compared it to my other lenses it was softer closed down, yes the smoothness of the bokeh is great at 1.8 and further, but still Zenitar is sharper. More lens elements are for correcting the problems of bigger lenses. More lens elements and bigger ones causes only problems for sharpness. Actually with distance from the object on focus the difference between 1.2 and 1.7 is getting closer to nothing in terms of defocus and since most of 50 1.4 lenses needs closing down to 2.0 ... I have made a comparison test of Pentax A 50 1.2, FA 50 1.4 and Zenitar 50 1.7 in terms of bokeh and I will post it soon Smile


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doh, of course a shot @f1.4 will look softer than the one @f1.7 even due to different DOF, not to mention that the makers are completely different. I guess APO-Summicron ASPH for $7K will be sharper than all lenses here, so are we to conclude that f2.0 lenses are the safest bet Wink

Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC

Canon FD 50mm f1.8


Both tests on NEX-3 performed by the same guy: http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
About 2.0 lenses - no most of them are budget to the limit lenses and are much worse performing than 1.4 and 1.7/1.8 models.
Summicron 50 1.4 is maybe the only 50 1.4 that I think is perfectly usable at 1.4 and there is a price for it ....
Another expensive lens - Planar 50 1.4... not so usable at 1.4 so it depends.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
About 2.0 lenses - no most of them are budget to the limit lenses and are much worse performing than 1.4 and 1.7/1.8 models.
Summicron 50 1.4 is maybe the only 50 1.4 that I think is perfectly usable at 1.4 and there is a price for it ....
Another expensive lens - Planar 50 1.4... not so usable at 1.4 so it depends.


Summicron means f2.0, it's Summilux that is f1.4, so I guess you are not in the market for Leica yet Wink There are plenty of f1.4 lenses usable @ f1.4, really depends on the subjects and objectives:



Canon FD 50mm f1.2 @ f1.2


Canon FD 50/1.4 wide open. Note that the wedding picture was intentionally softened with negative clarity and contrast.






Minolta MD 50mm f1.4 wide open


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
simbon4o wrote:
About 2.0 lenses - no most of them are budget to the limit lenses and are much worse performing than 1.4 and 1.7/1.8 models.
Summicron 50 1.4 is maybe the only 50 1.4 that I think is perfectly usable at 1.4 and there is a price for it ....
Another expensive lens - Planar 50 1.4... not so usable at 1.4 so it depends.


Summicron means f2.0, it's Summilux that is f1.4, so I guess you are not in the market for Leica yet Wink There are plenty of f1.4 lenses usable @ f1.4, really depends on the subjects and objectives:



Canon FD 50mm f1.2 @ f1.2


Canon FD 50/1.4 wide open. Note that the wedding picture was intentionally softened with negative clarity and contrast.






Minolta MD 50mm f1.4 wide open


I maintain that equipment has very little to do with wonderful pictures. These pictures are wonderful because the artistry of the photographer instead the equipment they use.

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:


I maintain that equipment has very little to do with wonderful pictures. These pictures are wonderful because the artistry of the photographer instead the equipment they use.

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


Thanks, drjs. I'll happily take the credit since I pretty much agree with what you say Laughing

Seriously though, the IQ differences between all decent lenses are not that great, so it's light, subject and photographer that make or break the picture in 99% of the cases. With f1.4 you do get slightly more flexibility compared to f1.7, that's the main difference.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Basilisk wrote:
Centre sharpness is much more important.


Yes, much more, also for me, my eyes is always directed to that area, instintive.

Oldhand wrote:

Truly, from my experience, it will depend on the skill of the photographer as to which lens gives best results.


This is much more important than 1.7, 1.4....
I always thought: camera + lens = 10%, photographer = 90%, brand = 0%
I think this is true even for those who do photography for fun only, as I Smile

Regards. Happy shots!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2