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

Best 50-58mm lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Out of curiosity I've just compared some of my better normal lenses for infinity landscape at largest common aperture F2 on my Sony A7R II.

Tested lenses:

Sony FE 50mm/F1.8
Voigtlaender Nokton 50mm/F1.5
Voigtaender Color-Ultron (Rollei Planar HFT) 50mm/F1.8
KMZ Zenitar-M 50mm/F1.7
Yashica ML 50mm/F1.7
Leitz Summicron (V1) 50mm/F2.0
Minolta MD 50mm/F2.0
Minolta MD (Version II) 50mm/F1.4 (identical to Minolta AF 50mm/F1.4)

To make a long story short: By far the clear winner is the cheap Sony FE 50mm/F1.8 lens which can be purchased for EUR 200.- brand new incl. free home delivery (Amazon).

The only lens which is nearly as good; i.e. which is hardly distinguishable in normal viewing mode, is the Minolta 50mm/F1.4 (MD and AF). Surprisingly not even the Nokton is able to beat the Minolta and Sony lenses in this discipline.

All other lenses are relatively poor; i.e. not really recommendable when used at F2 or even fully open for landscape photography. It goes without saying that this picture may change totally when compared for e.g. portrait photography.

Nevertheless, when used stopped down to F5.6 (or even earlier) ALL of the tested lenses perform excellently and under normal circumstances nobody would use a lens fully open for landscape photography anyway.

Sorry, but this time I was simply too lazy to post all the pictures here.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just have to jump in a tell you guys that I love the Olympus Zuiko OM 50/2 macro.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:

at F2 or even fully open for landscape photography


Sounds as exotic use case. Really, I don`t remember, when last I have seen "infinity focused" landscape photo with F>2.8, made not for testing purposes.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleKawaiiNeko wrote:
tb_a wrote:

at F2 or even fully open for landscape photography


Sounds as exotic use case. Really, I don`t remember, when last I have seen "infinity focused" landscape photo with F>2.8, made not for testing purposes.


You're absolutely right. Therefore I stated "under normal circumstances nobody would use a lens fully open for landscape photography".
Nonetheless, I find it always interesting to see how lenses perform under extreme conditions: Some cope and some fail.

Interestingly the tested RF lenses (Voigtlaender Nokton 50/1.5 and Leitz Summicron 50/2) perform visibly better under such extreme conditions when used on my Ricoh GXR-M.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With the exception of low light landscape? Anyway, quite interesting...


PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
LittleKawaiiNeko wrote:
tb_a wrote:

at F2 or even fully open for landscape photography


Sounds as exotic use case. Really, I don`t remember, when last I have seen "infinity focused" landscape photo with F>2.8, made not for testing purposes.


You're absolutely right. Therefore I stated "under normal circumstances nobody would use a lens fully open for landscape photography".
Nonetheless, I find it always interesting to see how lenses perform under extreme conditions: Some cope and some fail.

Interestingly the tested RF lenses (Voigtlaender Nokton 50/1.5 and Leitz Summicron 50/2) perform visibly better under such extreme conditions when used on my Ricoh GXR-M.


The Leica literature told that in the M serie the wide angle and normal lenses are designed for better rendering at far focus


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love the old LTM leica Summitar 50mm f2.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have several older 50-55-58mm lenses here; currently have a Cosina 55mm f1.4 on my K-5 IIs and it's very nice...

some other notables:

Vivitar (Komine) 55mm f2.8 Macro
Porst Color Reflex 55mm f1.2
Pentax Super Tak 55mm f1.8

two flavors of Helios 58/2:

44M
44K-4

all have their pros & cons...


PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just updated the first post Smile
(more coming soon)


PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I do like my MDIII 50 1,4. Something special in tone richness. However I find my MDII 50 1,7 49mm filter thread not inferior with probably better corner sharpness for landscape users. Go figure.

I f you are willing to stop down a bit nFD 50 1,8 is shockingly good also.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
y wrote:
tb_a wrote:
I think it's multi-coated like all the KMZ lenses from that time. My copy is from 1983.
Do you have any sources that say the contrary?
To my knowledge the multi-coating on USSR lenses was not a standard even in 80s. You can still find lenses boasting with 'MC' on their name ring.

There are at least three versions of Zenitar 50/1.7. The common 'M' version - single-coated, 'MC' version - rare and multi-coated and finally 'MC ME-1' - a rare 'MC' clone with two-bladed aperture.

Here is a bit of info about 'M' vs 'MC' history - http://forum.mflenses.com/the-zenitar-that-doesnt-exist-t36574.html
Here is also a confirmation about the Zenitar's coatings - http://radojuva.com/2012/03/obzor-zenitar-m-50-1-7/

The zenitarcamera.com doesn't list a coating type for 'M' - https://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/zenitar-1-7-50.html but it does for the 'MC ME1' - https://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/zenitar-me1-1-7-50.html


I have only seen a picture of a Zenitar 50 1.7 MC version on this forum. Any idea why the square aperture ones are multi coated?

As for the common M version whatever its coated with is very interesting. It looks almost uncoated. I have only seen very faint yellow reflections coming from mine. Honestly though I don't care. This lens is wonderful for portraits. The skin tones and colors out of it are perfect.

The focus falloff is something else as well. It's an art lens.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting to see this old thread again.
In the meantime I've repeated my test with all of my lenses in this range in order to find the best one for landscape photography; i.e. typically at aperture F5.6.
The Sony FE 50/1.8 is best as well but this time only the Fujinon AX 50/1.2 came close and ALL OTHERS failed; i.e. no other lens performed not even nearly as good like this two ones in terms of absolute sharpness from edge to edge across the whole picture.
Test again performed with Sony A7R2 42MP sensor: http://forum.mflenses.com/in-search-of-the-best-50mm-lens-for-landscapes-sony-a7r-ii-t81513.html


PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be honest I don't understand why anybody would do this. Modern lenses with aspherical lens elements will perform better at infinity at wider apertures. I have some modern aspherical lenses that can deliver very good corner to corner sharpness at f/1.4 and even f/1.2. Why buy these old lenses if the intent is landscapes at the widest aperture possible?


PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Absolutely bonkers IMO to use vintage lenses for landscape anywhere near max aperture. Really at all if one is looking for contrast, sharpness and resistance to flare.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Obviously we have some understanding issues here. Most probably my fault as my English is not perfect.

I have no Idea why somebody would like to do landscapes with old lenses at open apertures, except for testing purposes.

As can be read in my other thread which I quoted above my favorite aperture is at least F 5.6 for optimal sharpness.

However, as I own plenty of such old lenes already for very long time I was interested to find out whether these lenses do make any sense at all if used for landscapes. The simple answer is no, at least not for me on my Sony A7R II.

My "perfect lens" in this field in combination with the A7R II is the standard Sony FE 50/1.8 used at F5.6.

On other cameras it may be totally different; e.g. the Minolta AF 50/1.4 (more or less identically to the Minolta MD III 50/1.4) works likewise nice on my Sony A850 with 24MP FF sensor or on my Ricoh GXR APS-C camera.

It's as always the combination of the used camera and lens and the desired output. This may be different for all of us.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Funny this thread resurfaced. I recently did a test between quite a few standard lenses:
http://forum.mflenses.com/big-standard-lens-comparison-t82388.html

Stopped down a little, most standard lenses perform quite similar (pretty good that is) IMO.
Some of them have somewhat better bokeh, but it doesn’t show on all images.
I thought the Mamiya EF 50/1.7 stood out in terms of (central) resolution. Real life advantage of that is debatable. I found the differences in general small, so I often just grab the best handling lens. IMO those are mostly Takumars, with their absolutely devine build quality.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Obviously we have some understanding issues here. Most probably my fault as my English is not perfect.

I have no Idea why somebody would like to do landscapes with old lenses at open apertures, except for testing purposes.

As can be read in my other thread which I quoted above my favorite aperture is at least F 5.6 for optimal sharpness.

However, as I own plenty of such old lenes already for very long time I was interested to find out whether these lenses do make any sense at all if used for landscapes. The simple answer is no, at least not for me on my Sony A7R II.


That was my fault. I confused the situation by mentioning f/1.4 and f/1.2.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate you doing the test and the information it provided.

Let me try again. Why f/5.6 for landscape? Generally these older lenses will have optimal corner sharpness at f/8 or sometimes even f/11. That's just another stop or two past f/5.6. Is there a reason you couldn't use f/8 or f/11 or don't want to?

As for optimal sharpness I think you are referring to optimal sharpness in the center. The problem here is f/5.6 is just a rule of thumb and different lenses behave differently. The other issue here is the aperture where optimal center sharpness is achieved isn't where optimal corner sharpness is achieved which is what you are after here. Let's take a look at your perfect Sony lens:

https://www.lenstip.com/516.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_50_mm_f_1.8_Image_resolution.html

You see here that peak center sharpness is reached at f/4 not f/5.6. f/5.6 has a slight drop in center sharpness but it also has a improvement in corner sharpness. This is why that aperture works so well for you. You are slightly below the center sharpness peak but are at the max corner sharpness.

The problem here is different lenses behave very differently.

Look at this Sigma 56 lens:

https://www.lenstip.com/550.4-Lens_review-Sigma_C_56_mm_f_1.4_DC_DN_Image_resolution.html

This lens achieves max center sharpness pretty much by f/2 and holds it to f/4. The peak center sharpness is at f/2.8. f/4 has the best balance between center and corner sharpness on this lens.

Now look at this Fuji lens. It's a 90mm and not a 50mm. However, it's pretty interesting.

https://www.lenstip.com/446.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_90_mm_f_2_R_LM_WR_Image_resolution.html

This lens reaches its best center and corner sharpness at f/2.8. The center at f/5.6 is worse than wide open at f/2.

This also completely ignores DOF and field curvature and diffraction which I am not going to get into.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@cbass

I've already explained my intention in the other thread:
F 5.6 is a very good compromise, good sharpness across the frame, no diffraction, good DOF, still relatively short exposure times allow free hand shooting at low ISO and (for me also important) no visible dust spots.
The Sony FE lens (as you rightly stated) performs best corner to corner at F 5.6 and all other lenses had to prove if they can be a valid alternative or even better. Only the Fujinon came close, all others failed.

The modern Sigma lenses are certainly good, even at faster aperture. However, for good DOF in landscapes this isn't necessary; i.e. in this case no advantage at all.

Longer focal lengths are definitely a valid option for panorama stitching. Have already done superb landscapes using e.g. Voigtländer CV 75/2.5, Leica M 90/2.8 or Leica M 135/4.

Anyway, I'm just on a fact finding mission in order to find the best lenses out of my rather big collection, particularly their usability on my A7R II for different circumstances.

Luckily I've no need to acquire any new ones. Wink

I just wanted to share my findings, that's all. Other's may have different needs or different cameras.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
To be honest I don't understand why anybody would do this. Modern lenses with aspherical lens elements will perform better at infinity at wider apertures. I have some modern aspherical lenses that can deliver very good corner to corner sharpness at f/1.4 and even f/1.2. Why buy these old lenses if the intent is landscapes at the widest aperture possible?


* Finances?
* Weight/size?

kymarto wrote:
Absolutely bonkers IMO to use vintage lenses for landscape anywhere near max aperture. Really at all if one is looking for contrast, sharpness and resistance to flare.


No, certainly not "absolutely bonkers". There are quite a few possible scenarios for using lenses wide open (or near wide open) in landscape photography:

1) Most important - blurred foreground
Image taken with a 300mm at f2.8 resulting in 1/125s. Image was published in a book (48 x 32 cm) and in a calendar (60 x 40 cm).



2) Another example for blurred foreground. Mamiya SX 1.7/85mm at f1.7.



3) Low light. Image taken with a 20mm lens at f2.8.



4) No tripod available - that's actually (for me) the most important issue. Beautiful landscape / cityscape images usually are taken at twilight. It's rare to have very good light suitable for publications (books, calendars and the like), so whenever I happen to have extraordinary light I must take as many images as possible within a very limited time (30-45min). When i'm in a city, i usually know the locations pretty well, and I'm running from one location to the other, to capture as many images as possible. Much easier without using a tripod, therefore I often take pictures at f2.8 (which means wide open for most of my lenses).

S


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark,

1) Are those images sharp corner to corner without cropping?
2) Are those old film lenses?
3) Are they lacking aspherical elements? Curious. What lenses those are.
4) Since you tested so many lenses how many of those old film lenses have been sharp corner to corner at wide apertures? Of those that were, what aperture?


PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
stevemark,

1) Are those images sharp corner to corner without cropping?
2) Are those old film lenses?
3) Are they lacking aspherical elements? Curious. What lenses those are.
4) Since you tested so many lenses how many of those old film lenses have been sharp corner to corner at wide apertures? Of those that were, what aperture?


All images taken with 24 MP FF, all images not cropped.

First image: Sony AL 2.8/300mm G SSM at f2.8. Tack sharp even in the extreme corners, no visible lateral / longitudinal CAs, slightly reduced contrast at f2.8 (which means at f4.5 we would have a slightly higher microcontrast, but no more details)

Second image: Mamiya Sekor SX 1.7/85mm. You may see here (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20212/big_4216_TEST_85mm_artaphot_1.jpg) how it performs, compared to other 85mm lenses. A Minolta MD 2/85mm would have had better corner sharpness and contrast - but here it doesnt matter that much since the low contrast is part of the image anyway because of all the snow coming down from the sky Wink

Third image: Minolta AF 2.8/20mm. The image was taken back in 2009. Back then (the A900 being brand new) the Sony 24MP sensor was the only 24MP FF sensor available. I was using ISO 2500 and manual exposure at 30s / f2.8, which was about -2 EV compared to the measured value. The image is so noisy, that the (considerable) drop in corner performance isn't really visibly. Vignetting is pronounced (probably another -2 EV or even -2.5 EV).

The first image technically is impeccable (even the vignetting does add to the impact the images makes on me). The second image was taken when trying a few Mamiya Sekor SX lenses; however I would have preferred a "better" lens for "real photography" (not lens testing). The third image was taken on a trip to mountains (Aletsch glacier) with a few 35mm lenses to test - and so I was limited with size and weight of the other lenses (such as the 20mm used here). Back then the ZA 2.8/16-35mm would have been the best lens for shooting supoerwides at f2.8, using the Sony A mount - but at 1 kg it was much too heavy compared to the 280g of the 2.8/20mm. So the MinAF 2.8/20mm was the most suitable lens to take with me ...

I still use the A900 very often, since its DRO processor (made by Apical, London) results in unique and very lovely JPGs which are easy to print. The A7 series is mainly used with Canon / Zeiss shift lenses and a 2.8/400mm L, the Sony A900 series for all other stuff.

S


PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Uhh...this is your first lens right?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892394-REG/Sony_sal300f28g2_300mm_F_2_8_G_Super.html/reviews

That lens has neither an advantage in size or weight nor finances. It's also a modern lens with three extra low dispersion elements and more controls than some older cars.
I don't think we are on the same page or even having the same conversation.

Your third image. The nightscape has softness in the corners. Unfortunately, it's probably a long exposure and what's in the corners are trees and shrubs that the wind has moved and thus blurred. I looked it up and it has a floating element system so probably does well without any aspherical lens elements. I doubt the corners are perfect wide open or even a stop down. At least this one has a weight and finances advantage and is a film lens. Ken Rockwel's review:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/20mm-f28.htm

This may be the only lens that qualifies if you can produce a better picture. It's also interesting because didn't Sony purchase Minolta and then build a DSLR? Didn't Sony design this camera so it would work with those AF Minolta lenses? This would give this combination and advantage. What is the sensor stack thickness of that A900? If it's thin (around 1mm or less), then Sony did what Leica does today and designed a digital camera to work with older film lenses.

There is an adapter for the Alpha camera's which worked with the old AF Miinolta lenses to E mount. The adapter has glass in it. Why does it have glass? Is it because it's correcting for the thicker sensor stack on the E mounts? It may be a completely wrong assumption but that glass is there for some reason.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/la-ea4.htm

EDIT: I looked up and the advertising literature says it is translucent mirror technology so may have something to do with TTL or focus or something else. This is where I will stop assuming because I just don't know.

Your second image with the Mamiya I would like to see at a bigger size. I don't think it would meet the tack sharpness tb_a was talking about. That second image there are many vintage lenses that could do that. For most people it would be sharp enough.

Look at your own test though. That Mamiya doesn't really clean up until about f/5.6. In comparison the Minolta's are doing much better than the Mamiya. I am pretty sure tb_a would fail it.
http://forum.mflenses.com/eleven-fast-85-mm-lenses-compared-t82408.html
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2