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

A good 1.4? here's my list
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:52 am    Post subject: A good 1.4? here's my list Reply with quote
I'd like to add a good 1.4. I'm thinking to a 50mm that on my 7D would be like a 80mm, good for portraits but I'm looking for something that could be fine for macro as well.
On top of that need a sharp lens good for low light condition too.

This is what I'm thinking could be a good list, please let me know your thoughts and if there are more or better alternatives.
The price range shouldn't go over $80-100.

Code:
Mamiya Sekor 55mm 1.4 M42
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Yashica 50mm 1.4 M42
Olympus 50mm 1.4
Chinon 50mm 1.4


I'm not including the Takumar SMC because of the radioactive nature. Dunno if some of the lenses in my list may suffer of the same problem though.
Thanks for any info.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Radioactive nature?

Oh please, the level of emitted radiation is miniscule, even if you walked around with the thing taped to your testicles it wouldn't do you any harm, you receive a lot more radiation every time you fly on a plane. In many palces the rocks emit more natural radiation, it's just not worth worrying about the radiation a lens can emit, it's so tiny.

What about the Canon FD 1.4 SSC? It's one of the two cheapest 1.4s along with the Minolta MD 1.4.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1,

I know it may sounds silly, but that's my point of view and simply I'll not change my mind about it. Don't get me wrong but I'd prefer to don't talk about this matter as that would requires another thread.

So, no problems mounting the FD to the 7D?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both the Canon FD 1.4 and Minolta Md 1.4 are very easy to convert to EOS, worth doing as both are excellent and can be had for 20-30 euros with luck.

You really should consider all lenses though, regardless of whether they have Lanthanum, Thorium etc, even if yellowed, easy to fix with UV from sunlight.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ricoh/Sears and Chinon 55/1.4 are the same lens as Mamiya 55/1.4

Are you in Europe ?

If this is the lens you want, you can also find it under brands like GAF and Revue.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
At least some (early?) Olympus 50mm f/1.4 lenses are radioactive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkh0bEdjiFY

I've also read that some Yashica M42 50mm f/1.4 DS and DS-M lenses may be radioactive, but I have no firsthand knowledge of this.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
How about the Canon 50 1.4? That's supposed to be good.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have tried some 50/1,4;
Yashica Ml, CZ HFT rollei, EBC Fujinon, SMC M Pentax, canon FD SSC, Konica Hexanon AR (latest one)

Pentax is my fave for price/value
100% crop of below

original




Last edited by IAZA on Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:29 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's easier to use / adapt Pentax PK lenses on EOS then FD or MD thus you might include some SMC. You might have luck and snatch Zeiss Prakticar 1.4/50mm under 100 EUR. It's awesome lens. QBM Ultron / Planar / Rolleinar are also very good choice.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If anyone believes that radioactive lenses are dangerous, then they also have to accept that silly myths like this are spread by idiots who understand nothing about it. It does this forum no credit to allow this rubbish to be posted unchallenged. Well said, Ian.

I wonder how many times you're going to find the difference in speed between 1.4 and 1.7/1.8 lenses is going to be crucial. The Pentax-M 1.7/50 and the Super or S-M-C Takumar 1.8/55 are brilliant lenses - far better some of the cheaper 1.4s, they will mount directly on the 7D without conversion, they're as cheap as chips and, importantly for you, they aren't radioactive. If you're really sold on a 1.4 then the Pentax-M 1.4/50 would be a good lens for you, but it's probably going to be outside your budget. Quality doesn't come cheap.

Last edited by peterqd on Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:34 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In eBay two Practicar 50 / 1.4, both over $ 300. Not exactly cheap. More expensive than the CZ Planar


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Radioactive nature?
In many palces the rocks emit more natural radiation, it's just not worth worrying about the radiation a lens can emit, it's so tiny.


+1


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
muddus wrote:
In eBay two Practicar 50 / 1.4, both over $ 300. Not exactly cheap. More expensive than the CZ Planar


You can see frequently lenses on Ebay prized to 'Chinese buyers' asking price is double than selling price. As as seller I also have to decide targeted customers , western people rather make offer if price to high they are pass it. Chinese buyers rare buy on good price they always want to get for half Laughing so better to ask double price.

About Prakticar 1.4 this lens at least good as than Planar, I have both of them.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You will not find a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 within your expense budget I am afraid.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
If anyone believes that radioactive lenses are dangerous, then they also have to accept that silly myths like this are spread by idiots who understand nothing about it. It does this forum no credit to allow this rubbish to be posted unchallenged. Well said, Ian.

I wonder how many times you're going to find the difference in speed between 1.4 and 1.7/1.8 lenses is going to be crucial. The Pentax-M 1.7/50 and the Super or S-M-C Takumar 1.8/55 are brilliant lenses - far better some of the cheaper 1.4s, they will mount directly on the 7D without conversion, they're as cheap as chips and, importantly for you, they aren't radioactive. If you're really sold on a 1.4 then the Pentax-M 1.4/50 would be a good lens for you, but it's probably going to be outside your budget. Quality doesn't come cheap.


I agree on the speed thing, apart from the Canon FD 1.4/50 the fastest 50mm I own is a 1.8 (Petri 1.8/55, Oly Zuiko 1.8/50, Pentacon 1.8/50) and they are plenty fast enough for me. Perhaps it would be better to get a 1.7 or 1.8 and play with it for a while to see if a 1.4 is really needed?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/zuiko50.txt


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I won't suggest Prakticar 1.4/50 (I own both versions), they suffer from low contrast and poor color rendering in comparison to Planar 1.4/50 or Pentax-M 1.4/50.
I think that the Pentax-M 1.4/50 is hard to beat at it's price.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
I won't suggest Prakticar 1.4/50 (I own both versions), they suffer from low contrast and poor color rendering in comparison to Planar 1.4/50 or Pentax-M 1.4/50.
I think that the Pentax-M 1.4/50 is hard to beat at it's price.


and I 'believe' that the M lens is not radioactive, supposedly also not the early 8 element version of the Super Takumar, but I don't know for sure


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for your advices.
About the difference in terms of speed I can only ask you what you think, as I never owned a 1.4 neither a 1.7 or 1.8. So, since you're saying that 1.7 or 1.8 can be good as well, I can definitely look for this solution. The thing is I'm gonna use the lens for video shooting too and usually when the live view is on the

@Orio: About the Nikon I've seen a 50 F1.4 AI for $109. It's a bit over budget but, anyway, could be the AI good or do I need the AIS?

About the radioactive issue I'm sorry to hear these comments, especially from peterqd. I thought it would have been better to open another thread as like I said I didn't want to talk about this.
I see there are a lot of theories around this matter and I don't see the point to blame on what one believes in or not.

Said that my question was about helping me finding out an alternative to the list I posted and I explicitly said I wanted to avoid radioactive lenses. Replying that this comes from myths spread around by idiots doesn't actually reply to my post.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pdesopo wrote:
About the radioactive issue I'm sorry to hear these comments, especially from peterqd. I thought it would have been better to open another thread as like I said I didn't want to talk about this.

I see there are a lot of theories around this matter and I don't see the point to blame on what one believes in or not.

Said that my question was about helping me finding out an alternative to the list I posted and I explicitly said I wanted to avoid radioactive lenses. Replying that this comes from myths spread around by idiots doesn't actually reply to my post.

Pietro, firstly please note carefully that I did not say you are an idiot. Judging by your perfect use of English it's plain you are not, but you have certainly been listening to idiots, that's clear.

The point is simple. You may have your own theory, but the facts are as Ian explained. It is not right that you can post inaccurate beliefs for all to read and then not expect anyone to correct them. Many people who read this forum rely on it for good advice, and it isn't fair to lead them astray. If you like, we can delete all references to radioactivity in this thread, including your own, and then maybe we'll all be happy.

Actually I did reply to your post and give you the best advice I could. It was me who first suggested you think about 1.7 or 1.8 lenses. If you compare the price of these to 1.4 lenses from the same manufacturer, or even to 1.2, you'll see that the price rises exponentially for the faster lenses. In other words, for a given expenditure you will get far better quality for your money if you choose the slightly slower lenses. Just look on the forum for pictures taken with the f/2 58mm Helios-44 variants for example. That lens is probably the cheapest you'll ever find, yet it produces wonderful pictures. And truthfully, the difference in terms of exposure settings between 1.4 and 1.7 is minimal.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi,

If i remember well, there was a forum member selling a Zuiko 50/1.4 a few days ago at 75$ ... Check the marketplace to see if it is still available ...

Otherwise, you could consider also the "old" Nikkor-S 50/1.4, in Nikon-F mount, that should be cheaper than the Ai/AiS version ...


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
pdesopo wrote:

@Orio: About the Nikon I've seen a 50 F1.4 AI for $109. It's a bit over budget but, anyway, could be the AI good or do I need the AIS?


All Nikon 50mm lenses are excellent. Bjorn Roerslett however states that Nikon has been constantly improving their 50mm lenses over the time. This means that the most recent ones should be the better ones. However I don't think that there should be a big difference between the AI and AIS model (I only had the AIS). The most likely improved thing in more recent AIS is probably the coating. I don't think that the optical scheme can really be so different as all the fast 50mm lenses in the post war age all use the same so called "double Gauss" optical scheme.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:

Pietro, firstly please note carefully that I did not say you are an idiot. Judging by your perfect use of English it's plain you are not, but you have certainly been listening to idiots, that's clear.

The point is simple. You may have your own theory, but the facts are as Ian explained. It is not right that you can post inaccurate beliefs for all to read and then not expect anyone to correct them. Many people who read this forum rely on it for good advice, and it isn't fair to lead them astray. If you like, we can delete all references to radioactivity in this thread, including your own, and then maybe we'll all be happy.

Actually I did reply to your post and give you the best advice I could. It was me who first suggested you think about 1.7 or 1.8 lenses. If you compare the price of these to 1.4 lenses from the same manufacturer, or even to 1.2, you'll see that the price rises exponentially for the faster lenses. In other words, for a given expenditure you will get far better quality for your money if you choose the slightly slower lenses. Just look on the forum for pictures taken with the f/2 58mm Helios-44 variants for example. That lens is probably the cheapest you'll ever find, yet it produces wonderful pictures. And truthfully, the difference in terms of exposure settings between 1.4 and 1.7 is minimal.


peterqd,

it was clear to me that you were pointing at others not at me. I'm sorry if my reply sounded like I was saying the opposite.
By the way thanks for the advices.

The thing that sounded confusing to me is that I never stated that radioactive lenses are universally recognized as something harmful. That's just my point of view based upon what I read around. I would never try to convince anyone that this is the truth. Also I think we shouldn't delete the threads about the radioactivity topic as I believe everyone should get the chance to make their own thoughts.

Hope this can clear things up Smile

Thanks Orio for the hints about Nikon.
indianadinos, I'll check the Zuiko on the market place.

Thank you all.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You are going to be using this for video, which camera will you be using it on?

The high ISO performance of some cameras means a 1.7 or 1.8 will be perfectly adequate.

As it is for video, perhaps if you consider what qualities you want that would help us guide you?

If it is for bokeh, then there are lenses like the Chinon 1.7/55 that have great bokeh, quite distinctive in that example.

Clickless aperture would also be handy for video.

Also for video, it doesn't need to be really sharp, colours, contrast, bokeh, CA, flare resistance are all more important than sharpness when used for video imho.

Great colours and bokeh, the Meyer/Pentacon 1.8/50 is hard to beat in those aspects, it's weakness is the coatings, it isn't as contrasty as some, suffers a little flare, but I really love it (have four copies) for the images it produces, they have such nice colours and bokeh and are plenty sharp enough.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1,

I'll use the lens on a Canon 7D. Dunno if it's possible but what I was looking for is something I could use both for sharp portraits and macro video shooting.
I was looking at some of the Pentacon samples around and as you said colors and bokeh are really pleasing. I think that lens could be a good candidate.

Thanks
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2