50mm MF Lens - a serious question.

[tikkathree]

This is a serious question rather than a frivolous one.

I have a Canon f/1.4 EF lens. It's sharp, it does the things which I want a 50mm lens to do. It replaced a Mk1 nifty fifty EF 50mm f/1.8 which geve lovely results but sounded like.. well, crude.

I'm developing an interest in MF lens use and have so far acquired examples in 28mm, 135mm and 200mm.

Here's my serious question then: what could I get from a 50mm MF lens which my EF f/1.4 doesn't give me?

[ManualFocus-G]

Firstly, one of the reasons many people start using MF lenses is to get quality, fast lenses at low prices. Many enthusiast photographers can't afford / aren't prepared to spend £300.00 on a 50/1.4 lens.

You already have the EF 50/1.4 so the differences you should be looking at are:

* Better build quality (metal v plastic)
* Better MF ring (if that's the way you wish to focus)
* Sharpness across the plane (the EF may already do this!)
* Character

The last one is very important. Personally, I love the 3D "pop" that my Zeiss Planars produce. I have the MkII 50/1.8 EF and I don't like the character anywhere near as much. So, for me it's the clincher but of course likes vary among photogaphers and character among lenses!!

[Attila]

It is depend what you like to get from a lens, to me all modern lens with a few exception is too neutral what you see what you get lenses.

I recommend to you to try following 50mm lenses by your self.

Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm f1.4, 1.8, f2 M42
Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 M42
Carl Zeiss Tessar 50mm f2.8 Oberkochen M42
Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 , 1.7 Contax
Nikkon 50mm f2, 1.8, 1.4 Nikon 50mm f3.5 macro
Olympus OM 50mm f3.5 macro, 1.4, 1.8
Nikon 50mm f1.2 , Pentax 50mm f1.2

etc etc all compatible with your camera

[Attila]

http://forum.mflenses.com/a-kea-my-favorite-parrot-in-budapest-zoo-t1134,highlight,kea.html

On above sample bird color is green, but old lens made it to brown what I like it pretty much.

[tikkathree]

Attila,

You'd have me buy and try over a dozen lenses there.... help like that I can barely afford

and you'd include a lens which takes a perfectly healthy green bird and turns it to a pretty but muddy brown?

[poilu]

[Attila]

[tikkathree]

[Chris Watson]

I think if you want to explore why so many folks like the MF lenses, you should pick up a Helios 40 in any of its varieties. After that, you'll be hopelessly hooked!

[Big Dawg]

For me the thing that convinced me to get manual focus lenses is trying to photograph birds while they are perched among the branches of a tree. The auto-focus would invariably focus on the leaves and limbs instead of the bird. Manual focusing solved this but that can also be done with a auto-focus lens, but it just feels different with them. I love the feel of a good manual focus lens as I twist the focus ring. A well dampened manual lens just screams quality to me as I turn it. But back to the reasons...one good one is the ability to vary the focus point for different effects. You can use the select focus but to me....I repeat to me...it is just easier with a manual focus lens.

[Rusty]

The canon 50/1.4 is a bit soft wide open MF zeiss planar 50/1.7 is not.... maybe the zeiss 50/1.4 will give the canon a go....if you want the extra light
It has better color for skin tones anyway ,and micro contrast

[tikkathree]

[tikkathree]

No-one is mentioning the
Asahi Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4

I take it there's good reason for this.

[ersatz]

better tonal gradation (Leica lenses tend to excell in this category)
micro contrast (zeiss)
sharpness throughout the frame
color rendition
bokeh (crazy swirly type of biotars/helios, painterly brush stroke type bokeh, watercolor blotchy, etc)

This all culminates in character or the unique finger print of how they render a scene. Now, I'm not going to say you can see these differences in every pic taken with a certain lens. But once you understand the characteristics of the lens you can create a situation or condition that brings these unique characteristics to the forefront. There are many fine examples here and you can see the diversity of rendering amongst various 50/58mm lenses with the pics people have posted.

[hinnerker]

Nobody can answer this questions for you !!!

Your eyes, your needs, your feeling about handling and the way you are taking pictures will make the difference in one or the other direction.
The only think we can do, is to give informations what a good lens could be in our opinions and some terms.. not more.

The best way... try to find a cheap Zuiko 1.4/50mm
try to find a cheap SMC Takumar 1.4/50mm

or as much 1.4/50mm lenses from older days.. and compair them against your Canon EF 1.4/50mm...

You will find some important differences.. in terms of sharpness, bokeh, Handling, 3D, color rendering..

Buy some good MF lenses and make clear for you, what you prefer.. you will see big differences.. for sure. And sell the lenses, which not fit to your needs..

Cheers
Henry

[Attila]

[revers]

No one has mentioned Minolta. Some of you may remember a trial I did with several 50 something lenses & the Minolta 50/1.4 was the best performer. I have yet to test it against two Russian lenses I have only recently acquired & I am guessing the Helios 44-2 will be stiff competition.

[francotirador]

tikkathree
Post photos with your 50 1.4 compare to other interesting lenses.
I primarily use a 58/1.2 Rokkor. And the picture is very different to me. And use it professionally.

[Blue]

[tikkathree]

[Blue]

[aoleg]

[alex]

I'd have to add plus one to the tally for the CZ Planar 1.7 or 1.4 (have 'em both).

[revers]

Here is a link to the post Franco.

http://forum.mflenses.com/four-50s-compared-t28276.html

[djmike]

One thing I am sure that you will have a batch of 50mm lenses soon.....