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

Compared three of my best 50mm lenses........
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:08 pm    Post subject: Compared three of my best 50mm lenses........ Reply with quote
This is three F1.7 lenses at maximum aperture for comparing pop,bokeh and sharpness-
These are jpg from the camera and the sharpest ones of a bunch
Can you guess the lenses,one surprised me.
I have a few more that can be as good as these like Mamiya 55mm f1.4 and Super Takumar 8 element and more....









PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be honest, with few exceptions, all 50mm lenses are more than good enough.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Ian on the generally very good performance of most nifty-fifties.
Yours all look very good and I am hard pressed to see differences.
If I had to choose, then maybe the last one, but I have no idea which lenses were used.
Lovely model in all of them.
Thanks for sharing
OH


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm pretty much in agreement, except for one lens -- a Helios 44M. Well, it's 58mm, so let's just call it a "normal." I was testing it alongside a Yashica M42 50mm and noticed in post that it just wasn't as sharp as the Yashica. The differences were minor, but they were noticeable.

I tend to evaluate normal lenses more in terms of their maximum aperture than their brand or model.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The most impressive thing I see in these photos is that you managed to convince your model to stay still while you changed lenses twice and took many shots with them. Laughing

Seriously though, not much difference in sharpness and contrast between them. The most noticable difference is in background blur. Third one looks the nicest to me, second one is worst and the first in between.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
color rendering is also a bit different.

1.MD 50/1.7
2.Y/C ML 50/1.7
3.Zenitar 50/1.7 or cosinon 50/1.7


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great results, the differences are very few or no... double gauss design all, eh? If you used three different lenses, I only can say that the three are good. The third photo is soft bokeh than the other two, as a means f/ step.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
To be honest, with few exceptions, all 50mm lenses are more than good enough.

+1 Sure!

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Raxar wrote:
color rendering is also a bit different.

1.MD 50/1.7
2.Y/C ML 50/1.7
3.Zenitar 50/1.7 or cosinon 50/1.7


Like 1 small
Spot on with the third Zenitar M 50mm f1,7
That lens seems to blur background more than other lenses att same aperture


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
The most impressive thing I see in these photos is that you managed to convince your model to stay still while you changed lenses twice and took many shots with them. Laughing.


My daughter is fantastic that stands out with my stupidity... Rolling Eyes
I told her to lock att the same spot when I took the pictures and relax between.
Lens number one is Planar 50 f1.7 84xxxxx serial and I wanted to see if the so called Zeiss. "3D" is to be seen in an direct compression.......
Did the same compression with other motives and distances and more lenses,on glass kinda clear surface Zeiss has little little mor
Contrast otherwise it's mostly a heavy name would I say


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe that when you're out there shooting with any of these lenses the differences are so mild it makes no sense to think about which one to take with you, they have basically the same performance to the naked, non-inspecting eye, which is a good think actually because it ends up demystifying that one should pay a premium for certain brands to get to an acceptable level of image quality.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is my 3 lenses with best wide open performance.I have others that are sharp but hazy and glowy.
What surprises me is that number two the cheap Minolta af 50mm F1.7 is this close to mighty ZEISS........
To continue my ranking I gives the forth place to Rollei planar 50mm f1.8 and there after it's harder to say
but maybe Pancolar and the the rest,,Olympus Om,Pentacon,Konica 50mm f1.8(not the 1.7) and on.....


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChromaticAberration wrote:
I believe that when you're out there shooting with any of these lenses the differences are so mild it makes no sense to think about which one to take with you, they have basically the same performance to the naked, non-inspecting eye, which is a good think actually because it ends up demystifying that one should pay a premium for certain brands to get to an acceptable level of image quality.


Yes your right they are very similar and i tend to like Russian lenses because they punches over expectations


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Minolta AF 1.7/50 and the MD version. They are indeed very close to the Planar 1.7/50 in performance. The late Minoltas were really great lenses with fantastic coatings.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
The most impressive thing I see in these photos is that you managed to convince your model to stay still while you changed lenses twice and took many shots with them. Laughing



Laughing True! Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have the Minolta AF 1.7/50 and the MD version. They are indeed very close to the Planar 1.7/50 in performance. The late Minoltas were really great lenses with fantastic coatings.


Totally agree, I have the MD 50/1.7 (and the mighty 45/2 with the same planarish formula) the MD 50/1.4 and the AF 50/1.4


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The idea all 50s are the same is ridiculous. Wink

In these samples, I'll take #1 Smile

Each is quite distinct in this scenario, and I'd bet they don't look the same in many other situations as well. And I'm not even considering the crops, which are dead center at very high speed with nothing close to gauge how the lenses move in and out of focus. Very cute shot though Smile

I imagine an alien confronted by vogue might also remark: oh these human models all look the same!


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeeke wrote:
ChromaticAberration wrote:
I believe that when you're out there shooting with any of these lenses the differences are so mild it makes no sense to think about which one to take with you, they have basically the same performance to the naked, non-inspecting eye, which is a good think actually because it ends up demystifying that one should pay a premium for certain brands to get to an acceptable level of image quality.


Yes your right they are very similar and i tend to like Russian lenses because they punches over expectations


Given the better resale value of German or Japanese glass, financially wise I guess it makes sense to buy them. Image quality is another matter all together tough, one can't beat the price-quality ratio of Russian copies, period.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
The idea all 50s are the same is ridiculous. Wink

In these samples, I'll take #1 Smile

Each is quite distinct in this scenario, and I'd bet they don't look the same in many other situations as well. And I'm not even considering the crops, which are dead center at very high speed with nothing close to gauge how the lenses move in and out of focus. Very cute shot though Smile

I imagine an alien confronted by vogue might also remark: oh these human models all look the same!


Nobody said they were all the same.

The small nuances of difference are irrelevant to most people, to other people they are reasons to spend large sums of money. Each to their own.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
The idea all 50s are the same is ridiculous. Wink

In these samples, I'll take #1 Smile

Each is quite distinct in this scenario, and I'd bet they don't look the same in many other situations as well. And I'm not even considering the crops, which are dead center at very high speed with nothing close to gauge how the lenses move in and out of focus. Very cute shot though Smile

I imagine an alien confronted by vogue might also remark: oh these human models all look the same!


Nobody said they were all the same.

The small nuances of difference are irrelevant to most people, to other people they are reasons to spend large sums of money. Each to their own.


Ridiculous is to believe that negligent differences in sharpness or bokeh smoothness are gonna take your photos to a whole other level, that is ridiculous.

But then again, people are "ridiculous" from the moment they pay between €100 and €200 for a German designed 50mm like a Planar or Pancolar so they can have "pop" and "smooth bokeh" and "uber sharpness" and then they go and pay the double for an Helios-40 so they can have a soft lens packing a bokeh that is more distracting than Kim Kardashian's cleavage...

I love people (and Kim Kardashian too)! Wink


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Go to buy some fast 50s(F2 or F1.9) made in the 1950s for SLR. You will discover they are not quiet similar. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This picture was taken at the maximum aperture with one of the cheapest 50mm lenses I have Pentacon 50mm f1.8
It is not a great picture, but it still shows the lens potential and that it surpasses me as a photographer......



PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeeke wrote:
This picture was taken at the maximum aperture with one of the cheapest 50mm lenses I have Pentacon 50mm f1.8
It is not a great picture, but it still shows the lens potential and that it surpasses me as a photographer......


I really, really like that one. Highlights are a little hot but Looks great to me!


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually, I found the above portrait to be excellent. Yes, I bit hot, and probably due to the lens. But adjustable in post.
We all enjoy our gear and get caught up on gauging everything by the numbers. But in the end it's the image. And it doesn't require the most accurate color, highest contrast, or the sharpest, it's the composition and how much it emotionally engages the viewer.

All the photos presented are very nice, and your daughter is adorably charming and patient!

I chose #3 as my favorite, personal preference...not that I think it's best. It has an Olympus Zuiko look, but I know it couldn't have been them since their 50 is f/1.8. Contrasty, neutral, transparent.
#2 More warm, a touch less contrast and more flattering as a portrait lens than #1 or #3. She looked best in #2.
#1 is a combo of the other two.

The Russian is a surprise for me.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1