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 50mm for A7r
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2015 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Buy Otus from Zeiss or Leica most expensive ones, like Noctilux Smile price will be helps to defense point of view why those are best Laughing Laughing probably any 50mm lens is good enough on a fantastic camera like A7R


PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2015 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Budget trusty sharp 50mm lens perhaps Pentax SMC 1.7/50mm.


PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2015 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My advice, the Contax Planar 50/1.7
Slrlensreview did a test, cropped and FF. Conclusion: one of the very best 50mm lenses around (and it's cheap!)




RemcoR


PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2015 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Buy Otus from Zeiss or Leica most expensive ones, like Noctilux Smile price will be helps to defense point of view why those are best Laughing Laughing probably any 50mm lens is good enough on a fantastic camera like A7R


You are most probably right. However, I would NOT recommend the Meyer/Pentacon 50mm/F1.8 in this case. Wink

ANY other lens from the well known manufacturers in this range is (at least stopped down to F5.6) rather excellent. To spend as much money as possible increases the psychological effect dramatically. Unfortunately it doesn't increase the quality of the result.


PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2015 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon FDn 50mm f1.2 L this one is very sharp but FE55 money

OM Zuiko 50mm f2 Macro this can be had for half of that so still not cheap but it is also very sharp

There is also the Konica Hexanon 50/1.7, Pentax 50/1.4, etc.


Or some say the Nikkor 50mm f2 is a 'sharp sleeper' as well.


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I started with A7r before returning it for A7.

without question no other 50/55 will equal the native FE 55/1.8 on that camera, period.

Next best might be: probably is, the Zeiss Loxia 50/2

These are the only 50s which have been designed for the sensor.

Failing those lenses my choices would be:

Leica M 50 cron V4 or later. about 1100 USD for nice tiny tabbed version. A7r loves this lens. Very tiny too.

ZM 50/2 Planar

If these are not possible I would go SLR. The cheap nikon micro 55s, both 3.5 and 2.8 are very very good, and I doubt anything is sharper on the A7r.

But if you need faster, any classic 50/1.4 will shoot pretty decent, or 1.8 for that matter.

50 cron, A7r: (no mods, stock camera)



50 cronic by unoh7, on Flickr


50 cron by unoh7, on Flickr


and wide open in the pre-dawn:

50 cron by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 5:58 am    Post subject: Best 50-58mm lens for Sony A7r Reply with quote
If your main criterium is resolution, the best lens I have found so far (without taking into account the Zeiss/Sony FE 55/1.8 and the Zeiss Otus, which are likely to be better) is the Pentax FA 50/2.8 Macro. The lens has a very flat field and exhibits superb resolution right into the corners from F/4 to F/11. Its modern coatings help it deliver great colors and superb micro-contrast. It has almost indiscernible chromatic aberrations and no distortion. It's not very fast at F/2.8 but it is already quite sharp wide open (even though the sharpness and micro-contrast are even better starting from F/4). It's an AF lens, but the focus throw is very long because it's a macro lens. There is also a focus dampener switch which is very useful in MF. Its metal construction makes it a very sturdy lens built to last. It doesn't require the use of a lens shade, because the front element is deeply recessed inside the lens barrel. Last but not least, it is part of the Pentax FA series, so it has a proper aperture ring, which is much more practical when used with an adapter.
Here's a picture of the lens (note that the lens barrel is metal, not plastic) :


(not my lens, mine has an undamaged filter thread !)

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can only agree that the FE 55/1.8 is definitely unbeaten in that category. Its sharpness boggles the mind. As for old, manual focus lenses, I´ve tried a large number of them (Nikkor, Canon, Minolta, Konica, Takumar, Zeiss Planar, Leica R, Yashica and probably some more), and the only conclusion I can draw is that they are all pretty good, with the Summicron 50 probably the sharpest (of those I tried).

Still, I can´t emphasize enough how much autofocus helps for getting a good shot of a non-stationary subject (if that is what your friend wants to shoot). Here´s the Sonnar 55/1.8 wide open, focused on my daughter´s eye (something I would have a very hard time doing with a manual focus lens).


Eager to start school by scepticswe, on Flickr


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you all for your opinions or feedbacks.

The FE 55 is clearly a fantastic lens with great performances wide open but I excluded it of my request.
My friend shoots mainly portraits and landscapes. He is hesitating between A7 and A7r.
The question of this thread is connected to this choice he has to do.
I told him that the A7r might be a better choice for landscapes.

The idea of using macrolenses is quite interesting .


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
Thank you all for your opinions or feedbacks.

The FE 55 is clearly a fantastic lens with great performances wide open but I excluded it of my request.
My friend shoots mainly portraits and landscapes. He is hesitating between A7 and A7r.
The question of this thread is connected to this choice he has to do.
I told him that the A7r might be a better choice for landscapes.

The idea of using macrolenses is quite interesting .


You should really ask him whether he is planning to produce very large posters. If that is not the case, the "normal" A7 or even the A7II would definitely be the better choice.


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For landscapes (when you stop down at least to fCool I doubt your friend will see any difference in sharpness between different vintage 50 mm lenses. The top manufactureres usually distinguish themselves from "lower end" ones when it comes to wide open performance. Portraits are probably also shot at f/4 or thereabout (if he wants the whole face in focus), so the same applies there. The Konica 50/1.7 is very cheap and has great performance, if I am to recommend a particular lens.


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="tb_a"]
memetph wrote:


You should really ask him whether he is planning to produce very large posters. If that is not the case, the "normal" A7 or even the A7II would definitely be the better choice.


Yes he does make big posters.


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
Thank you all for your opinions or feedbacks.

My friend shoots mainly portraits and landscapes. He is hesitating between A7 and A7r.
The question of this thread is connected to this choice he has to do.
I told him that the A7r might be a better choice for landscapes.

The idea of using macrolenses is quite interesting .


In my experience macro lenses do not work that well on landscapes and don't render portraits that well. Of course there are lenses that could work, like the Bokina (90/2.5), some AF lenses like zuiko 50/2 and Canon L 100/2.8, but these are exceptions... For portraits you don't need that much sharpness, any decent 50mm would do. As for landscapes, if per-pixel sharpeness is important prepare to invest...

IMHO, ofc.


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="memetph"]
tb_a wrote:
memetph wrote:


You should really ask him whether he is planning to produce very large posters. If that is not the case, the "normal" A7 or even the A7II would definitely be the better choice.


Yes he does make big posters.


In this case maybe this one would be a very good or maybe the better alternative:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fuji_GA645 Wink
I am very happy with mine for such purposes. Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Or the Contax G 45/2
Gets a whopping 4.7 on photodo
RemcoR


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
In my experience macro lenses do not work that well on landscapes and don't render portraits that well. Of course there are lenses that could work, like the Bokina (90/2.5), some AF lenses like zuiko 50/2 and Canon L 100/2.8, but these are exceptions... For portraits you don't need that much sharpness, any decent 50mm would do. As for landscapes, if per-pixel sharpeness is important prepare to invest...

IMHO, ofc.

The Pentax FA 50/2.8 is very sharp at infinity and delivers great results in lanscape photography. It also has one of the smothest bokeh I have ever seen. Here's a portrait taken wide open at F/2.8 (not my picture):


Credit: McKajVah on PentaxForums

And the 100% crop:


Credit: McKajVah on PentaxForums

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
memetph wrote:
Thank you all for your opinions or feedbacks.

My friend shoots mainly portraits and landscapes. He is hesitating between A7 and A7r.
The question of this thread is connected to this choice he has to do.
I told him that the A7r might be a better choice for landscapes.

The idea of using macrolenses is quite interesting .


In my experience macro lenses do not work that well on landscapes and don't render portraits that well. Of course there are lenses that could work, like the Bokina (90/2.5), some AF lenses like zuiko 50/2 and Canon L 100/2.8, but these are exceptions... For portraits you don't need that much sharpness, any decent 50mm would do. As for landscapes, if per-pixel sharpeness is important prepare to invest...

IMHO, ofc.


This is case by case. For example, even the Nikon 55 micro, made since the sixties, has some early versions which are as you describe. But the later models and all the 55/2.8 micros are fantastic at infinity. I mean fantastic.

These are very cheap in general.


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
By the way, I just realized that we all appear to be assuming here that outresolving the A7r's sensor is going to be really hard just because it has so many pixels (36 million!), but in fact those are distributed over a much larger area than crop sensors'. It's kind of obvious, but seems to have slipped my mind, that what we need to be concerned with here is not total pixels, but pixel density. And on that score, if I'm calculating right, the A7r has a slightly lower pixel density than a 16MP APS-C sensor (A7r: 41666.667/mm2, Fuji X: 43459.365/mm2). And probably way lower than a 16MP Four Thirds sensor. So if a lens can outresolve a modern crop sensor, then it can outresolve the A7r's as well.

In the center, that is. The big difference of course is that it now has to be sharp from edge to edge over a much wider area. So consistent edge-to-edge sharpness, rather than very high center sharpness, seems like it should be the most important criterium.


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
By the way, I just realized that we all appear to be assuming here that outresolving the A7r's sensor is going to be really hard just because it has so many pixels (36 million!), but in fact those are distributed over a much larger area than crop sensors'. It's kind of obvious, but seems to have slipped my mind, that what we need to be concerned with here is not total pixels, but pixel density. And on that score, if I'm calculating right, the A7r has a slightly lower pixel density than a 16MP APS-C sensor (A7r: 41666.667/mm2, Fuji X: 43459.365/mm2). And probably way lower than a 16MP Four Thirds sensor. So if a lens can outresolve a modern crop sensor, then it can outresolve the A7r's as well.

In the center, that is. The big difference of course is that it now has to be sharp from edge to edge over a much wider area. So consistent edge-to-edge sharpness, rather than very high center sharpness, seems like it should be the most important criterium.


Not "we all"! Additionally there are much more criterias than only resolution. However, you are absolutely right, that the density per given area is a more important factor and not the number of pixels alone. There are physical limits anyway. Therefore for maximal quality and sharpness the small sensor format up and inclusive 24X36mm has it's limits and for large posters a middle format or large format camera for film is still the better solution if the ultimate quality is the final target.


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The is a myth that the A7r can "outresolve" this lens or that. Not even close.

Here is A7 yesterday with 45USD Nikon micro 55/3.5 (late version)


DSC07843 by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:08 pm    Post subject: Link to test of 20 Leica/Zeiss/Minolta 50mm lenses inside Reply with quote
On my website (artaphot) i've published a small test of Rokkor lenses and the native Sony Zeiss 1.8/55mm on the A7R:


At f1.8 and f2.8, the Sony Zeiss 1.8/55 is much better than the Minolta MC 1.4/50mm (1973). At f5.6, which is were landscape images are usually done, the differences are negligeable.

I have tested about 20 normal lenses on the NEX-5N which has the same pixel pitch as the A7R:


A few more remarks:
* All Minolta f1.7 normal lenses are inferior to their f1.4 counterparts
* The Minolta MD 1.2/50mm (not included in the tests cited before) has a similar resolution as the 1.4/50 MD lenses, but more pronounced CAs
* The venerable MC 1.2/58mm is very low-contrast at f1.2, but good at f2.8 and really excellent from f5.6 on.
* The newFD 1.4/50mm performs nearly identical to the later MD 1.4/50mm lenses
* The new MD-III Minolta 2/50mm is nearly distortion-free (the f1.4 have quite a lot of distortion, in the 2-3% range)

I would simply start with a good FD or MD 1.4/50mm. Later, if one should not be satisfied any more, on mightmove on to the Sony Zeiss 1.8/55mm.

Stephan


EDIT: for unknown reasons, i cannot link my website directly. Go to artaphot.ch => Minolta SR/MCMD => Objektiv-Vergleiche => and then to the corresponding articles on the A7R and the NEX-5N, respectively. Sorry ...


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here it is:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Buy Otus from Zeiss or Leica most expensive ones, like Noctilux Smile price will be helps to defense point of view why those are best Laughing Laughing probably any 50mm lens is good enough on a fantastic camera like A7R


+1

even a sticky iris domiplan Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cicala published today an article on the variation of normal lenses. Quite a good read. The article includes MTF charts of many lenses discussed here which constructed from 10-copies measurement (as opposed to the usual manufacturer's _calulated_ charts).


http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variation-measurement-for-50mm-slr-lenses


PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
great link. This is the unmentioned scandal of modern Sony glass. Huge copy variation in FE 35, FE 55 etc.

Make proper lens testing not so easy LOL

Kubrick used to get many copies of the lenses he was using and finally pick just one.

The other day at L forum, a guy was talking about a meh copy of the 75/2, which he returned and a fantastic one which replaced it.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3