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

"Standard" Lenses - 40mm - 60mm - Must Haves
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So we're in full agreement then! )

BTW, isn't the Biometar a simplified double Gauss?

Yes. And so with the Xenotar with the rear doublet replaced by single element.


My understanding is that the Biometar, Xenotar and Planar fitted to the Rolleiflex are all simplified double Gauss, in the case of the Biometar, the simplification is removing one element in the front group, and with the Xenotar, it is as you say - removal of one element in the back group. Wray's Unilite is also a simplified double Gauss.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So we're in full agreement then! )

BTW, isn't the Biometar a simplified double Gauss?

Yes. And so with the Xenotar with the rear doublet replaced by single element.


My understanding is that the Biometar, Xenotar and Planar fitted to the Rolleiflex are all simplified double Gauss, in the case of the Biometar, the simplification is removing one element in the front group, and with the Xenotar, it is as you say - removal of one element in the back group. Wray's Unilite is also a simplified double Gauss.

To be precise, the Biometar, Xenotar and 5 elements Planar are simplified five element Planar type from the six element planar designed by Paul Rudolph. The original double-gauss design is 4e/4g. It seems most people refers the Planar when they think about double-gauss type lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon EF 50/1.8.
Cheap and plasticky but will probably out perform everything else mentioned... oh, wait... I get it now.

Canon FL 50/1.4.
A big lump of metal and glass for a 50 and without any PP is very neutral and seems to make everything look like a faded 40 year old print.

Pentacon 50/1.8
Just for old times sake and possibly even cheaper than a Helios. Nice action too.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wouldn't say 'must haves', but of the normal, 40mm to 60mm lenses I have experience with, S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50, Auto Takumar f2/55, Takumar f2/58, Pen-F 1.4/40 and 1.5/60 are the ones I cherish most


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use Nikkor AiS 50mm f/1.2 and Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4. Nikkor is dreamy and great bokeh wide open and gets very sharp stopped down (on a crop is sharp from f/2) while my Zeiss is not sharp as Nikkor but has superior microcontrast. I think both are must have for a 5D user.
On a crop I wouldn't be without Helios, Pancolar and Pentax SMC-M 50mm 1.4Wink

Alternate Internet ID wrote:
Canon EF 50/1.8.
Cheap and plasticky but will probably out perform everything else mentioned... oh, wait... I get it now.

Funny, I ofter read this, but I find this lens the only 50 not worthy having. Completely without character and sharp only in dead center until stopped down a lot Smile The Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is far better!


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't like the Canon EF 1.8/50 either, don't find it sharp until f4 but impressively sharp at f5.6.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't like the Canon EF 1.8/50 either, don't find it sharp until f4 but impressively sharp at f5.6.

Mine was bang on and for 70 quid you can't really complain even if it's lacking in character and feels like it will fall apart .
I've never used an AF lens that was perfectly in focus pretty much every time.
Was offered the Sigma 50/1.4 at a good price so sold the Canon.
Shouldn't have bothered really - the Sigma is much better built but it's not 5 times the price better, in fact thinking about it it's not better at all (apart from being f/1.4 - which isn't that much of a big deal).
I think I've just talked myself into selling it...


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Orio wrote:
Must have? The one that you can afford.
Fact is, you need only one standard lens, in proper working condition.
And that must be one that you can afford: there is no use in needing a Leica or Zeiss or Nikkor if you can not buy it.
Once you have one, then you may wish to try others, but that's no more "must have", it's a "would like to have".
And being in the wishes field (and not anymore in the basic needs field), I would say that a good option for a second
standard lens is one that uses a different optical scheme than the other one you have.
For example, if your first standard lens is a double Gauss type lens, I would get a Tessar-type lens, because it will
render the image differently.
And once you have saved more money, you can decide to upgrade one of your existing lenses by purchasing one that
performs better. And here start the problems, because it's not really easy to say that for sure about a standard lens.
Standard lenses have this characteristic, that they are pretty much standard, like their name. That is, they are a lot
similar to each other. You don't really have much room to invent anything fancy with a standard lens, as you can do,
for instance, with a wide angle lens. For this reason, most standard lenses available do perform very similarly to each other.


+1

However, there are some 'normal' lenses that have a character that makes them stand out. I'm thinking of the Sonnar 2/50 and 1.5/50 and their Russian copies and a good Triplet like the Meyer Trioplan 2.9/50. They are significantly different in rendering to the common double Gauss types, and I value that. However, once you close them 2 or 3 stops, they all start to become pretty much the same really.


I like to do not PP. Why? cos without post procesing, the image retains something that is inside the personal character of the lens.

The diferences between them, While it is true that tend to disappear near to middle apertures, are more in the images if don't use PP.

It's certain that PP do better pics, of course. But when the thema is to show what determinate lens can do, how can it comunicates the image to the sensor or film, here is not a bad idea preserve the original view, the natural language of these piece of glass.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Any lens made in Japan during the years 70-80 is above my skill as photographer. I like other designs as sonnar or tessar and I bow to Zeiss and Leica. But more often than desired, I can not distinguish between images made with one or the other, so I end up getting a humble and vulgar Yashinon, Konica or maybe a Rokkor, usually a FDn Canon 50/1.4 ... all impress me! Same as you Smile

Happy shots and Montilla-Moriles with moderation !!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3