View previous topic :: View next topic |
Sharpest stopped down |
Planar 50 f1.7 |
|
50% |
[ 6 ] |
Hexanon 50 f1.7 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Pancolar 50 f1.8 |
|
16% |
[ 2 ] |
Zuiko auto-s 50 f1.8 |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
Jupiter -8 50mm f2 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Rokkor 50 f1.7 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Pentax M 50 f1.7 |
|
25% |
[ 3 ] |
Pentacon 50 f1.8 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Zenitar M2s 50 f2 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
CanonFD 50 f1.8 |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
Total Votes : 12 |
|
Author |
Message |
Zeeke
Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 174 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:39 am Post subject: 50mm Stopp down sharpnes |
|
|
Zeeke wrote:
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 ... _________________ Pentax Ks1
Fuji XT10 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
All 50mm lenses are sharp stopped down.
The difference is made wide open. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Orio wrote: |
All 50mm lenses are sharp stopped down.
The difference is made wide open. |
+1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
fermy wrote: |
Orio wrote: |
All 50mm lenses are sharp stopped down.
The difference is made wide open. |
+1 |
+1 _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
What Orio said.
The 50mm lens was perfected a long time ago and they are all good. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
theart
Joined: 03 Jun 2011 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
theart wrote:
Trick question. At f8, they're all better than your camera. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Zeeke
Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 174 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zeeke wrote:
Wide open my Nikon AF-S 50 f1.8 is sharper than those....I'm looking for best sharpness f2.8-8 _________________ Pentax Ks1
Fuji XT10 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
They are all sharp and differences are miniscule, so your question is pointless. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Zeeke
Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 174 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zeeke wrote:
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. _________________ Pentax Ks1
Fuji XT10 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 410
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
Orio wrote: |
All 50mm lenses are sharp stopped down.
The difference is made wide open. |
+100
Total waste of time. You'll see very little difference between a $10 and $1000 dollar lens stopped down.
JJ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
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
Zeiss wrote: |
The new Planar T* 1,4/50 ZF went even further: It reached 320 lp/mm in the aperture range from f/5.6 to f/2.8, and 250 lp/mm at f/2 |
http://www.photodo.com/topic_96.html
_________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Zeeke wrote: |
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. |
Colour and contrast are not decisive factors if you are going to use the lens with a digital camera.
What you have to check in a double gauss lens (such as most 50mm lenses are) is, in order of importance:
- flare resistance
- spherical aberration wide open
- chromatic aberrations (esp. axial)
- geometric distortion
- focus shift from wide open to stopped down _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Orio wrote: |
Zeeke wrote: |
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. |
Colour and contrast are not decisive factors if you are going to use the lens with a digital camera.
What you have to check in a double gauss lens (such as most 50mm lenses are) is, in order of importance:
- flare resistance
- spherical aberration wide open
- chromatic aberrations (esp. axial)
- geometric distortion
- focus shift from wide open to stopped down |
And to answer my own points, here's some suggestions from me:
- in order to avoid flares, best choice is a T* coated Zeiss lens
- in order to avoid spherical aberration, stay clear of very fast lenses. Most f/2.8 60mm macro lenses (such as Nikkor, Zeiss, Leica)
are usually the best choice to avoid spherical aberration
- to avoid chromatic aberrations, again, the best choice is a 2.8/60 macro lens
- to avoid geometric distortion, again, a macro lens is usually best (with some exceptions, in Nikkor catalogue for instance the normal 1.8/50
is better corrected geometrically than the 2.8/60 macro)
- to avoid focus shift, again best choice is a moderate speed lens.
To recap, the type of lens that offers the most benefits is usually a macro lens of moderate aperture (such as f/2.8 )
Macro lenses are much cared for by companies so they usually are the best quality average.
If instead speed is a must, and shooting open air, then I would go for a T* coated Zeiss lens such as the 1.4/50 or the 2/50 macro
(keeping in mind that both these lenses have axial CA wide open, and the 1.4/50 also some residual spherical aberration).
A good non-macro lens is the Zeiss Jena Pancolar 1.8/50, because it has very little axial CA. It is less resistant to flare than western Zeiss lenses,
but if you take the MC version of Pancolar, and if you mount a lens hood, that should make it good for most occasions. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sammo
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Posts: 223 Location: CH and SI
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sammo wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
s58y
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 Posts: 131 Location: Eastern NY
Expire: 2013-09-10
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
s58y wrote:
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. _________________
flickr photostream
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
s58y wrote: |
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. |
Well, the good old 2.8/50 Tessar is very sharp at 2.8, and so cheap it's got to be worth trying. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hexi
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 Posts: 1631 Location: France
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
hexi wrote:
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 _________________ Happy owner and user of :
SLR's > Contax Aria - RX
DSLR > Canon 5D
Lenses : C/Y Planar 1.4/50 - Distagon 2.8/35 - Planar 1.4/85
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonnar85 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|