Which 50 has the best bokeh?

[Nikon75-150E]

I want to get a MF 50mm lens for it's bokeh. It can be a 1.4 or 1.8-but not 1.2. Can't afford one of those. I prefer Nikon or Pentax, but that's ok if it's another brand that I can use on my NEX-5n with adapter. I have the 2 Nikon 50 1.8's, the Series E and AF-D. Both have good image quality, but bokeh is not their strong points.

[calvin83]

[poshfoto]

thanks calvin83, I was wondering why it doesnt work.

[Mos6502]

What do you consider "good" boke'? Because from what I've seen the Nikon 1.8/50 D gives pretty smooth OOF areas for a 50.

[martinsmith99]

[Lena]

I had a 50/1.8D and sold it after I started playing with MF lenses. I own a 50/2 Ai and like it overall, but bokeh-wise I find it inferior to say a Revuenon 55/1.4 or even Helioses. Still, it's a matter of taste.

[tromboads]

Girls Guys..... he's obviously just after a direct answer here. Ok here goes. Which 50mm gives the best Bookeh?

Mine.

[hoanpham]

[Aanything]

I like my super takumar 1.4/50 bokeh. It can get a bit "busy" depending on the background, but it often have a painterly feel that I enjoy.
In the same league, ebc fujinon 1.4/50 is also really good.
If you get to like it and use it properly, Helios 44 has a very distinctive way of rendering oof areas, with some little differences between versions, and it's very cheap and common (everyone should own a Helios 44, I think).
Also, in the cheapos, pentacon 1.8/50 is smooth and pleasant.

But, in the end, it all really gets to personal taste and kind of background (distance from subject, highlights and so on).
Search for lenses here or in Flickr and see what you like best.

[Mos6502]

The Meyer 1.8/50 is ok. I much prefer it for color rendition with slide film than for any other qualities (although the close focus ability is also really great)

pens by berangberang, on Flickr


Untitled by Epicyclic Transmissions, on Flickr

I find the OOF areas sometimes give a "wooly" look and the tendency for slight bright-lining coupled with the sharp six blade aperture can sometimes produce undesirable effects in certain situations.

The Yashinon 2/50 is one of the forgotten lenses: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=48780&view=previous quite smooth OOF areas, and common and cheap, and pretty much always overlooked for the faster Yashinons.

I'm personally a fan of the Meritar's boke' prowess




But you're limited to f2.9, and it's perhaps unusably soft wider than 5.6
But it's I think as nice an example of classic triplet boke' as you can find in 50mm

[tromboads]

you just reminded me, as far as out of focus areas concerned, i cleaned up a 50mm Tessar 2.8 naturally and at its shortest distance I was gladly reminded yet again by its short depth of field

Clicky
And yes that is a spider web you can see going from the tip of the blade in the center to the left.

1 Tessar. That's all you really need

[sonyrokkor]

There are a lot of good bokeh normal lenses.

Old sonnar or biotar zeiss, leica summitar or summarit, old 8 elements super takumar 1,4, etc.

[Orio]

50mm lenses are basically of three different types: Planar-type (double Gauss), Sonnar-type, Triotar/Tessar-type.
Characteristics vary not only because of the type, but also because of the manufacturer *and* the historical period.
It would however be too long to discuss in detail.
One thing that it's rather acceptable to say is that the more a lens is corrected for spherical aberrations (and thus sharper wide open), the edgier it's bokeh becomes.
Therefore, lenses that do show signs of spherical aberration (which elitists call "Leica glow" ), usually have smoother bokeh than lenses that don't.
Another thing that can be said rather safely, is that lenses with aspherical elements tend to have smoother bokeh than all-spherical lenses.
Aspherical elements were introduced end of the 60s, but became affordable and popular only in the last 20 years or so.
In general, keep in mind that all lenses show a better bokeh when they are stopped down. This means that lenses with a high number
of iris blades are preferable because they show round highlights even when they are stopped down.
Final advice: do not overestimate bokeh. I have a decent photographic culture and know quite a lot of famous photographs. None of them
has become important and remembered because of it's bokeh.

[fermy]

+1 to what Orio wrote.

If smoother rendering is desired, I'd get one of the older lenses: Canon FL, all metal Minolta MC, Meyer Oreston, Zeiss Sonnar or a Russian clone.

[sonyrokkor]

[Oreste]

[plasticmotif]

Out of every 50 I've shot with three lenses stick out -

Minolta 58/1.2
Sigma 50/1.4
Canon 50L

Honorable mention to Zeiss 50/1.7 - lovely little lens!

The Rokkor is easily my favorite 50. The 50L has an amazing look to it. I really enjoy images made with this lens.

[Lightshow]

The Canon FL 55/1.2 & Olympus OM 55/1.2 are the most affordable 1.2's that I can think of.
The OM 50/1.8 MIJ & 50/1.4 are both good lenses.
The Canon FD 50/1.4, Minolta MD 50/1.4 are nice too.
The Topcor RE 58/1.8 is surgically sharp on my NEX-7.

[JohnBar]

Some say one man's meat is another man's poison

and it when it comes to Bokeh there is implicit a modern Japanese look versus the classic German look

anyway these are the 50's I hold in great esteem - more west than east

Agfa: Soligon
Angenieux: S-type
Astro: Kino, Tachar
Bausch & Lomb: Aminar, Baltar, Raytar
Boyer: Saphir
Dallmeyer: Super Six
Enna: Annaston
Isco: Westagon
Kinoptik: Apochromat, Fulgior
Kodak: Ektar, Aero Ektar
Leitz: Elcan, f/1.2 Noktilux,
Sumarrit, Summar, Summitar,
Summicron, Dygon
Meyer: Domiron
Rodenstock: Heligon
Ross: Xtralux
Schneider: f/1.9 Xenon, Xenogon
Steinheil: Quinon
Taylor-Hobson: Amotal, Ivotal,
Kinic, Opic Panchrotal, Speed
Panchro
Wollensak: Raptar
Wray: Copying Lens
Zeiss: Biotar, Flexon, Pancolar

[eno789]

Does 50-55mm macro lenses count? Because you can focus closer, the background blur is smoother.

Any of these are good:
* Canon FD Macro 50mm f/3.5
* Konica Hexanon 55mm f/3.5
* Minolta MD Macro 50mm f/3.5
* Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 or f/3.5
* Vivitar Macro 55mm f/2.8

Of the normal lenses, I like Minolta MC 55mm f/1.7 and SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8. Below are taken with Minolta MC 55mm f/1.7.

[Orio]

Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
It is the modern version of the classic 1.5/50 Sonnar.
A couple of examples of photos with evident bokeh:




Sonnar type lenses in 50mm focal lenght are quite uncommon compared to double Gauss (Planar) lenses and 4-elements (Tessar) lenses.

[Attila]

I love them all, to me no best ones, I am happy many of them a bit different.

[Misha_M]

You should give the Helios 77M a go...

[nixland]

Nikon 50/1.4 Ai or Ais is worth to try too. I got the Ais in excellent condition for $100.

I also got the Pentax K 50/1.2 for about $220 It has the smoothest bokeh among my 50-55 f/1.2 lens so far. I had sold it to my MF lens friend though

[bruzzo]

I don't have a lot of 50mm lenses so can't compare much. But I agree to Attila, I like all of them. I think they are a good focal length to work with and different brands and versions of the lens have different characteristics bokeh wise and just overall image. And different lenses in the same situation can bring different tones or textures. Hence, sometimes I bring two cameras with two different 50mm lenses just to get two different takes in the same situation. For example, I have a Rokkor-X 50mm 1.4 got from my father's old dry cabinet and a Nikon 50mm 1.4 AI, and I think they are both very sharp in my standard. But the Nikon to me is very business-like sharp and true to the original object. The Rokkor in the other hand sometimes has a tiny soft glow on the object that gives a different texture to the image.
Just two different lenses with two different characters. I guess there are more extreme examples.

And I agree to Orio too, we often like to discuss which is the sharpest, and which has the best bokeh, the bokeh monster, etc, but in reality, bokeh is often not a big factor as to determine whether a photo is important or to be remembered. Maybe not even a factor.