50mm Stopp down sharpnes

[Zeeke]

Hello! Would it be possible to make some sort of vote on which of this 50mm lenses that is the sharpest stopped down.Only own experience ....
There are so many opinions so you do not know what to believe,some say Hexanone 50 f1, 7 other Zuiko 50 f1.8 ... Planar 50 f1.7 is the sharpest of the some 20 I have owned ...

[Orio]

All 50mm lenses are sharp stopped down.
The difference is made wide open.

[fermy]

[Attila]

[iangreenhalgh1]

What Orio said.

The 50mm lens was perfected a long time ago and they are all good.

[theart]

Trick question. At f8, they're all better than your camera.

[Zeeke]

Wide open my Nikon AF-S 50 f1.8 is sharper than those....I'm looking for best sharpness f2.8-8

[iangreenhalgh1]

They are all sharp and differences are miniscule, so your question is pointless.

[Zeeke]

Ok! If I add color contrast and overall build quality which is the best choice according to you?The old Pentax lenses have a nice feeling that I just only find in new Zeiss and Voigtlander,i have no experience with the Leica.

[hoanpham]

I have a few, but cannot see any differences, all razor sharp stepped down, all same sharpness wide open:
Olympus, Pentax, Canon, Nikkor... Stepping down, I rather take pentax M 50/2, pancake size.

[jjphoto]

[poilu]

at F8, all 50mm look the same because they are limited by diffraction
this graph is for m4:3, resolution is going down after F2.8, for full frame it is F5.6, for APS-C F4

the sharpest slr lens that Zeiss have tested is the Planar 50:1.4 ZF in the range F2.8 to F5.6
if it was still good at F8, they would have write range from F2.8 to F8

[Orio]

[Orio]

[fermy]

The obvious conclusion from your analysis is that one should go for 50mm macros. IMHO it's not a very practical conclusion. While most 50mm macros are good, they are optimized for stopped down work at close distances and as a rule cost at least as much as 50mm/1.4 lenses. On top of that, they are usually bigger and or heavier than 50mm/1.4. What's more, often fast 50's will easily outresolve them at f2.8-f4.

Personally I have 4 affordable macros in 50mm range:
Canon FD 50/3.5, Minolta MD 50/3.5 and two copies of Vivitar 55mm/f2.8. While all of these lenses are good wide open, good 50mm f1.4 is already inside or very close to it's optimum aperture range at f3.5. As a result, when shooting the usual mixed bag of subjects, I'd much rather be shooting with my Canon FD 50/1.4 or Minolta MD 50/1.4 at f3.5 than with the corresponding macro.

Granted you mentioned quite different lenses, and Zeiss and Leica macro might as well be outstanding wide open. However, I doubt that Nikkor is really that much different from my Canon or Minolta glass. Unless I really want to shoot macros, I'd rather have my fast 50s with me, spherical aberrations and field curvature notwithstanding.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Micro-Nikkor P 3.5/55 at 3.5 is extremely sharp and they only cost 30-40eu.

Best way to select a 50mm lens is by personal taste, which ones you really like. My favourites are:

Meyer Primotar 3.5/50
CZJ Tessar 2.8/50
Industar-50 3.5/50
Jupiter-8 2/50
Petri CC Auto 1.8/55
Konica Hexanon 1.4/50
Minolta MD 2/45
CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50

I like them each for different reasons, it's a matter of personal taste. I also really liked the Pentax-M 2/50, which many people aren't keen on.

[sammo]

I am also interesed in the sharpest 50mm lens at smaller apertures, around f/2.8. In the center they are mostly very sharp, but the corners are an issue. I am looking for a lens to use for widefield astrophotography, so it has to be a very good performer at infinity focus on point light sources. I haven't tested much yet, for some I can say:

Pancolar 50 1.8 - pretty good, but edges are not as sharp as I would like to have them at 2.8
Canon EF 50 1.8 (not MF but still) - sharp in the center, absolutely uselessly terrible edge sharpness
Rikenon (or Voigtlander Color-Ultron or Rolleinar) 55mm f1.4 - quite good sharpness, but suffers heavy coma on point light sources so it's not suited for astrophotography.

If I am more specific about performance of my "dream lens" - I am looking for a lens that is sharp through the whole field, but has still some abberation, so that brighter stars in the image are more prominent. When it's stopped down to f5.6 more or less all lenses (even plastic zooms) are so sharp that images look sharp and ...hm... sterile

[iangreenhalgh1]

Hmm, what about an enlarger lens, Sammo? They have flat fields and have to have good performance across entire frame. Something like a 50mm EL-Nikkor, E-Rokkor or Schneider Componon, they are really cheap these days.

[s58y]

This summer I'll also be doing some tests, trying to find a good 50mm lens that works acceptably at f/2.8 for astro. If you do find a good 50mm lens before I start testing, please mention it on the forum here, to save me a lot of effort.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that lenses 50mm and less need to be stopped down to f/4 for astro, especially the wide angle lenses. AT 85mm and above, some lenses do work acceptably at f/2.8 (best one I've found so far is the Contax/Yashica 85/2.8, wide open).

As for enlarger lenses, the APO EL-Nikkor has given good results for at least one person, but I think the test was at f/5.6, which is painfully slow for DSO astrophotography.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[hexi]

It doesn't matter so much how sharp a lens might be, what's really important is the kind of images you're able to produce with it.
Some might evaluate your image by the sharpness, but if the image doens't work, the sharpness serves to strictly nothing.

Once you get the sharpness stuff aside, it's one issue less. I think all this bokeh, sharpness stuff and lines per mm are somewhat a waste of time. Focus in what's important, taking interesting pictures