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

Fifty Standard Lenses Compared
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:10 pm    Post subject: Fifty Standard Lenses Compared Reply with quote

This is not my own work or content!

I came across this recently published test comparing the sharpness of a variety of ~50mm/'standard' lenses:
https://theothersideofbokeh.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/fifty-fifties/

I'm not sure I can agree with the methodology or results but the main thing to remember is that only the sharpness was being compared. As such, the interpretation of the results is quite difficult with the scene used, and other factors like contrast and vignetting come into play which all distort the perception of image quality. In the end, it broke my understanding of the performance of some lenses like the Takumar 50/1.4 and my own Minolta MC 50/1.4, as well as the Summicron-R 50/2.

I'd recommend to read from the start and scrutinise the crops of your favourite lenses yourself first but if you prefer to skip ahead, the scoresheet page is here: https://theothersideofbokeh.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/fifty-fifties-final-evaluation-of-sharpness-at-a-longer-distance/


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I own dozens of 50mm lenses, and comparing them has always struck me as a waste of time - they are all more than good enough, apart from one or two like the Domiplan and Meritar triplets.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I own dozens of 50mm lenses, and comparing them has always struck me as a waste of time - they are all more than good enough, apart from one or two like the Domiplan and Meritar triplets.


I agree, particularly as I only own a single system of lenses, but I don't buy any lenses based on sharpness when there are so many more impressing characteristics to make or break them and that is really clear in these tests, how those other factors muddy the image. Realistically, even some doublets and triplets can be very sharp so long as they are designed at the expense of everything else. Most 50/58 lenses are based on very similar geometry too, but there are a few interesting exceptions.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now that was a time robbing job!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I own dozens of 50mm lenses, and comparing them has always struck me as a waste of time - they are all more than good enough, apart from one or two like the Domiplan and Meritar triplets.


Hey, Ian - don't go knocking my favourite lens! Smile Nothing wrong with H Dennis Taylor's immortal Cooke triplet - until the design is overstretched and even then we get compensation in some very interesting effects at wide apertures. Who wants to put up with the monotony of a Planar or a Summicron when they can have the fun of a Domiplan?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, most Domiplans are bloody awful, but if you are lucky and find a good copy, it's a decent lens. The Meritar is mediocre at best. The Meyer Troplan 2.9/50 outperforms both of them by a wide margin. There are triplets and then there are triplets, I have a Schneider Radionar 4.5/105 that you would be hard pressed to find anything about it inferior to it's Xenar 4.5/105 sibling, I use them both on my Speed Graphic. Then there's my Voigtlander Bessas, I have one with the Skopar 105 and also one with a Voigtar 105, I think they are both 3.5s, the Voigtar is every bit as good as the Skopar at f8 and smaller.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Topcor 58/1.8 took 2nd place. Good

The rest are "usual suspects" when you focus purely on sharpness, I guess.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not surprising, the Topcor 1.8/58 is one of the very finest 50-ish lenses ever made, I doubt it's any sharper than the Hexanon 1.7/50 though, I consider those two the best of the Japanese lenses of that era that I have tried.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
. . . There are triplets and then there are triplets . . .


Yes ! Exactly that.Taylor's original computation was to cover a diagonal field of view of around 45 degrees at a maximum aperture of f6.3. He redesigned his lens using newly arrived optical glass(es) for a maximum speed of f4.5. As you correctly point out, good quality triplets of that speed can, and do, work very well indeed.

Although I'm not an optician, I'd be interested to know how the Domiplan differers from the Trioplan. Perhaps one of the Forum's better-educared and more experienced members mighthave that knowledge.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can tell you one way the Trioplan differs from the Domiplan - quality. I have a 2.9/50 Trioplan for Altix that is beautifully made, and it performs very well indeed. The Domiplan however, is quite frankly, a piece of junk, prone to falling apart. Therefore I expect the image quality of a Domiplan is often dependent on how far away from falling apart it is. I had a Domiplan where the optical block just fell out, lots of others have reported similar things, I also think that a lot of Domiplans are badly assembled so were never any good even when fresh from the factory.

You can see the massive drop in quality of Meyer products across their entire range of lenses. For instance, the old models like the Primotar 3.5/50 and the Primagon 4.5/35 are very well made, very nice build and image quality. However, the later stuff like the Lydith 3.5/30, the Orestegor 2.8/29 and Oreston 1.8/50 is markedly less nice in build quality. Then they became Pentacon and the quality dropped even further, compare a Meyer era Oreston 1.8/50 to a later Pentacon 1.8/50 and the difference in quality is clear, the materials got cheaper, the build quality dropped off, things became cheaper and nastier. This is simply the result of Communism and the command economy with all it's inherent inefficiencies.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I can tell you one way the Trioplan differs from the Domiplan - quality . . .


Ian - thanks for the whole set of observations in your previous post. I agree with your coments about the recognisable loss of constructional quality and in principle to those on the DDR's political and economic structuring - certainly in the later years of camera and lens production.

What I was wondering, though, was how - if at all - the optical design of the Domiplan differed from the Triotar or any other Meyer lens of similar speed and construction. I could well believe that the poor mechanical design and variable build quality could account for the 'inferiority' of the Domiplan - I bought an Exa with one in the early 60s and it did indeed come apart when I unscrewed the lens hood! - but I'm curious nontheless.


Last edited by scsambrook on Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:44 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, that's a good question, and one I don't know the answer to. Maybe they used different (cheaper) glass types in the Domiplan and thus had to recalculate it, much like the Russians had to recalculate the Jupiters when they ran out of Zeiss glass and had to start using domestic glass.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The fellow who did all this work is to be admired for his diligence and patience. Maybe his work will be useful for some folks who are considering some of those lenses or are looking for "the best" 50-ish lens. Had I seen this back in 2009, when I first started looking at MF lenses, I might have examined the data and made my decisions as a result. However, I took a much less calculated approach and just bought some lenses that I liked from the posts and images I saw. Today, I have evolved in my appreciation of lenses and know what I like. Sharpness was the major consideration when I started looking but now it is but one consideration and only has to be good enough.

I have found that I don't take to all lenses, even if they are generally highly regarded. I have put overall image quality ahead of any single criterion. Image quality is defined by myself based on my subjective appreciation (I don't say criteria because that would suggest formality). I do know what I like and I can prove it at any time by measuring my use of any lens and what I achieve with it. In fact, I posted a list recently that showed my usage.

To address some of those specific lenses, and I only have six or seven of them, my old and cherished Rokkor PG remains my most used and I will be forever in love with it. I find my Mamiya Sekor (different version from what was tested) may be the best combination of sharpness and bokeh (maybe). My Primoplan provides surprisingly sharp images at wide open and the Trioplan amazes me with its sharpness even at f/2.8, but of the three I have, one was not good and I should also mention that all are Altix mount. I have two Altix Tessars which are excellent and one other mount which is not. I lucked out with Domiplan, obtaining a very good copy on only my second try. The good one rivals the Tessar and Trioplan... almost. I also treasure my Oreston nearly as much as the Primoplan and at a fraction of the cost.

One last comment; In my limited experience, I have found the Altix lenses to have better build and optical quality than versions with other mounts.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Without meaning to, you just explained why such tests are a waste of time - personal taste is a lot more important than any technical aspect as it is very hard to find a 50 that isn't more than good enough.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Without meaning to, you just explained why such tests are a waste of time - personal taste is a lot more important than any technical aspect as it is very hard to find a 50 that isn't more than good enough.


Totally agree on that!


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Without meaning to, you just explained why such tests are a waste of time - personal taste is a lot more important than any technical aspect . . .


Aww, c'mon Ian, that's really not quite fair, is it? The man who did that massive test was curious to learn - to derive information in order to discover something that mattered to him. His criteria were his personal ones - and to some people specific technical aspects do indeed matter a great deal. I think most of us have spent at least some time doing comparisons looking for our particular "Holy Grail". But it's the individual's time to waste, and the important thing - as you so rightly mention in your signature, is to enjoy doing whatever we do.

And now I might make a comparative test of both my 3-element 50mm Domiplan standard lenses to see how their micro contrast varies and how both compare with my wide angle 7-element25mm Voigtlander Skopar Smile


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many of us do real world tests with every lens we acquire. Gaining experience with each, we gravitate toward subjects which bring out the unique qualities of that particular lens. That expose of differences is also missing from same scene comparisons like this. Fortunately we have many members who point at these finer qualities, found through their real world experience, not from MTF & test chart comparisons.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is so much more to be found in a lens than mere infinity performance, which is the only thing this test shows.

I feel that the outcome of this test could look quite different if a medium and a closest focus distance were taken into account.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I spent quite a long time looking at that mega test, mainly because I think I've got quite a few of those lenses - 7 actually Rolling Eyes - and it's always interesting to see whether other people agree with you, it's always good to have your judgement affirmed.
Did the test confirm that I'm a lens guru? No it didn't....but I wouldn't disagree with his test, because although sharpness etc can be measured technically, that's not what he did. It's a subjective test - the same as I do in the Churchyard and most of us do in our own way. He just did it on a grand scale. And I gain more insight into the lenses in that test than a similar test with lens charts, which I think most of us here do.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I spent quite a long time looking at that mega test, mainly because I think I've got quite a few of those lenses - 7 actually Rolling Eyes - and it's always interesting to see whether other people agree with you, it's always good to have your judgement affirmed.
Did the test confirm that I'm a lens guru? No it didn't....but I wouldn't disagree with his test, because although sharpness etc can be measured technically, that's not what he did. It's a subjective test - the same as I do in the Churchyard and most of us do in our own way. He just did it on a grand scale. And I gain more insight into the lenses in that test than a similar test with lens charts, which I think most of us here do.


Well there is a difference in say dong a "chart test" as opposed to real world application of the lens. I find the actual application of a lens more useful as a photographer. Sure, a chart test me reveal the tiniest of the lens intricacies, but as photographers we need images that please, not specs that compare the quality of various lenses. Specs are for engineers, images are for customers, family, and friends.

Don't get me wrong, I do like comparing glass, but at some point it just gets silly from my viewpoint. I come here basically to check out the images people are posting with their old glass. I love the images.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A quick poll how many of us use their 50 at infinity might be interesting. Smile Except that would have thrown another results skewing variable into the test. Actually, for many lenses must get focused for infinity as the rings can turn past.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Many of us do real world tests with every lens we acquire. Gaining experience with each, we gravitate toward subjects which bring out the unique qualities of that particular lens. That expose of differences is also missing from same scene comparisons like this. Fortunately we have many members who point at these finer qualities, found through their real world experience, not from MTF & test chart comparisons.


TrueLoveOne wrote:
There is so much more to be found in a lens than mere infinity performance, which is the only thing this test shows.

I feel that the outcome of this test could look quite different if a medium and a closest focus distance were taken into account.


Of course lenses perform differently in many aspects other than sharpness at infinity. Covering all those aspects in a controlled test takes a lot of work but it also makes those differences much more easily discernible.

In real world usage there are many more variables other than the attributes of the lens, the whole point of a controlled test is to minimise those. All the aspects that might be important to someone's personal taste can be examined in a controlled test with the right setup. It doesn't have to be about finding the objectively 'best' lens, you can still pick the lens(es) that best fit your personal preferences.

I know many here are quite happy having e.g. >50 50mm lenses but I try to do as little collecting as possible.

Photography is a hobby with a fairly limited budget for me, I like to have one go-to lens for every purpose and sell the others (to buy more lenses any maybe settle on a go-to lens for another purpose)
Having multiple lenses of the same type (especially when their value isn't trivially low) means binding capital that could be liquidated and reinvested in a way that brings me more enjoyment.
This doesn't mean that I won't keep more than one lens for every focal length but if I do there needs to be a good reason
(for example, I have my eye on the Sony FE 28/2 but I might still keep my Pentax K28/3.5).

When I end up with multiple lenses of the same type, a controlled test (like this one) is the best way to pick my go-to lens.

There's a long list of lenses I'd like to try and many of them are rather expensive (e.g. Canon FD 20-35/3.5L, 80-200/4L),
I'd rather sell some redundant lenses and try a new one from my list than keep 50 50s lying around.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
(...) as it is very hard to find a 50 that isn't more than good enough.

I can't think of a single vintage 50/1.4 that's 'good enough' at f/1.4.
Just look a t how an Otus 55/1.4 or Sigma Art 50/1.4 performs wide open, there a lot of room for improvement.

If you like the FOV and shoot landscapes at f/5.6 to f/11, many vintage 50s will be good enough even by quite high standards
but your standards need to be very low to make the differences at f/1.4 insignificant.


Lloydy wrote:
I spent quite a long time looking at that mega test, mainly because I think I've got quite a few of those lenses - 7 actually Rolling Eyes - and it's always interesting to see whether other people agree with you, it's always good to have your judgement affirmed.
Did the test confirm that I'm a lens guru? No it didn't....but I wouldn't disagree with his test, because although sharpness etc can be measured technically, that's not what he did. It's a subjective test - the same as I do in the Churchyard and most of us do in our own way. He just did it on a grand scale. And I gain more insight into the lenses in that test than a similar test with lens charts, which I think most of us here do.


Same here, good seeing the two 50s I've settled on (nFD50/1.4 & MC50/1.4) in the top of the ranking.


spiralcity wrote:
Well there is a difference in say do[i]ng a "chart test" as opposed to real world application of the lens. I find the actual application of a lens more useful as a photographer. Sure, a chart test me reveal the tiniest of the lens intricacies, but as photographers we need images that please, not specs that compare the quality of various lenses. Specs are for engineers, images are for customers, family, and friends.


Your lenses will perform exactly the same whether you point them at test charts or real life subjects, the test charts just make the differences easier to discern.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I very rarely shoot lenses wide open, especially fast ones like an f1.4/50, for one thing, with modern digital cameras, with clean high ISO output, there is no need and secondly, most of the pictures I see shot wide open with fast lenses, quite frankly, are crap, largely because not enough of the subject is in focus.

On the infinity thing, I probably shoot my 50s more at infinity than any other distance.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, I very rarely shoot lenses wide open, especially fast ones like an f1.4/50, for one thing, with modern digital cameras, with clean high ISO output, there is no need and secondly, most of the pictures I see shot wide open with fast lenses, quite frankly, are crap, largely because not enough of the subject is in focus.

On the infinity thing, I probably shoot my 50s more at infinity than any other distance.

Performance at infinity and at 50-100 times the focal length will be practically identical anyway and field curvature (which is often an issue with WA lenses at close range) usually isn't an issue with 50mm lenses
Many people use 50/1.4s as portrait lenses on APS-C or MFT, performance wide open and near MFD is hardly irrelevant for a 75/2 or 100/2.8 equivalent lens.

And while performance at large apertures is less important now than in the days of film for the same applications, modern sensors allow handheld photography in very low light and there, good performance at f/1.4 or f/2 is still quite useful.

Anyway, 50mm vintage lenses are quite good and fairly similar. This kind of comparison with vintage 16-21mm lenses would probably show much larger differences and be more interesting.

But then, there are probably more people with 50 50's out there than people with 21 21's.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I stopped down my 50s to f/5.6 or f/8, they would all provide much the same image.