Best fast 50mm

[IamJF]

Hi guys!

 

I'm looking for a great 50mm lens. At the moment I'm using Minolta MD 50/f2 on A7s - I'm looking for faster and more contrast. Bit sharper would be nice also, I will not always use an A7s :-)

 

My research brought me to Contax Zeiss 50mm/F1,7 or Olympus OM Auto-S 50mm/f1,4 - which one would you prefer? 

I'm searching for a more "modern" look then my Minolta, more contrast wide open, less flare (if possible). Bokeh should be OK, but I don't need a 58/f1.2. (Btw. I try the 58/f1.4 in a few days - looking forward) It should blend to the other Sony Zeiss lenses as good as possible (1635, 35/2,8, 90/2,8)

 

Of course I could buy the Zony 55mm/F1.8, I'm sure it would be perfect. But I'm a 35mm/85mm-135mm shooter (my standard set is Zony 35/2,8 and Minolta 85/2) and just recently detect the power of a fast 50mm - so I'm not ready to spend that much money on a 50mm.

 

Hope you can help me out,

JF

[nomad]

Get the Contax Zeiss, the Oly is very similar to the Minolta and has quite some 'glow' wide open. Plus, it's still relatively cheap because everybody is hunting down the 1.4.

[finarphin]

Hi guys!

 

I'm looking for a great 50mm lens.

 

Summilux

[joshinthecity]

Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 (in chrome :-)

[molan]

I like my Minolta 50mm F/1.4 very fast lens (nice t-stop, then again who need fast lenses with A7S).

[IamJF]

Thanks for the quick answers!

 

The Summilux is a little to expensive for my use. How is the Voigtlander F1.1 in comparison? It's not that much more expensive.

 

To be honest my fafourite at the moment is the Contax Zeiss, cause I will also go for the 135mm. (instead of my Minolta 135mm)

[addicted2light]

If this can help, I use different kits depending on the kind of results I'm after:

 

- Contax glass for general use (and the 50/1.7 is awesome, sharp and with extremely nice rendering, not that far from the 55/1.8 Sony / Zeiss from tests I've seen around but at 1/10th the price)

- Minolta glass (24/2.8 55mm filter ring, 55/1.7 and 100/2.5) when I want lower contrast and more pastel colors

 

BTW, if you liked the 50/2 try to get a Minolta 55/1.7 MC Rokkor-PF, it renders beautifully and is dirty cheap.

[IamJF]

Yes, this helps a lot!

 

I really like the somehow "vintage" look from my Minolta selection (Portrait, Musicians) - but it don't fits for every day shooting and don't blends to the Sony/Zeiss glas well.

What I search is a "mini 55/1.8" - so the 50/1.7 seems right.

 

btw. - My Minolta selection is 35/2,8 (not so good), 50/2 (surprisingly good!), 85/2 (sharp and small, but bokeh just OK and 6 blades ... you have to shoot wide open), and 135/2,8 (like it a lot, sharp enough on A7s)  

A Minolta 58/1.4 is on it's way - how is it different to the 55/1.7?

[addicted2light]

It is difficult to describe in words, but the difference in rendering is striking once you look at the images.

 

It might be a matter of taste, but for me the Minolta 55 has the nicest rendering - not sharpness - of every lens I ever used (with the possible exception of the Contax 28-85 @ 85mm and of the Minolta M-Rokkor 28/2.8).

 

Try searching Flickr or Flickriver for images shot with both lenses and you'll see what I mean.

[nomad]

I can't comment on the Rokkor 58 1.4 (there is no 55 1.4 AFAIK), but I own the 58mm f1.2. A huge chunk of glass and metal and fu…ing beautiful for portraits, on APS-C in particular. It has that sixties fashion magazine look, if you know what I mean. The f1.4 should be similar, more on the low-con side with beautiful bokeh, glowy romantic WO and sharpening considerable when stopped down a little bit.

 

The later 50mm f1.4 PG is my sharpness lens, not as much micro-contrast as a Contax and softer colors, but resolution is there and slightly stopped down it's analytical into the corners. It has less glow WO than a Nikkor from the same era.

 

Regarding the modern Zeiss look, you may want to consider the Contax G 45mm with a Techart adapter, which will give you AF too. It is very close to contemporary Zeiss, more so than my Contax lenses.

 

Oh, and I'm a fan of that Contax 28-85mm too, kills many primes in it's range! I only wish it had two-touch. But when I need to zoom while filming I use my Minolta 35-70mm (or an ancient Angie on S-16). Once did a very careful comparison with the Contax 35-70mm and – guess what – kept the Minolta!

[IamJF]

I found mixed pics of the Minolta 55 ... it somehow reminds me to the Voightländer here:

http://www.systemkamera-forum.de/topic/96520-voigtl%C3%A4nder-nokton-50mm-f15-asph-beispielbilder-und-diskussion/

Sometimes bussy Bokeh, sometimes perfect.

 

The Sony 50mm is quite good in this comparison - this little fellow in Fullframe would be fine for me I bet. (btw I have this APS-C lens and really like it on APS-C. Fantastic value. But useless on A7s)

[addicted2light]

I found a few old test shots that can help you. The crops on the right are 100% on an A7r (heavy tripod, 2s self timer, 100iso).

 

I used for these pics the Minolta 55/1.7 Rokkor-PF and a Yashica ML 50/1.7 (the Contax 50/1.7 will be quite a bit sharper, and with smoother bokeh; even if many think they are basically interchangeable they are not).

 

The Minolta sharpens up considerably at f/1.7 if you add a 15/20 points of clarity to counteract the effect of the less than state of the art (for 2016) coating. BTW, I don't think I ever seen the Minolta deliver busy bokeh...

 

Minolta 55 @ 1.7

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Yashica 50 @ 1.7

 

Minolta 55 @ 2.8

 

Yashica 50 @ 2.8

[ACG]

The pentax m 50 f1.7 is excellent. Superb build quality, excellent sharpness and colour rendition, compact and looks great on the a7.

even better..... it's dirt cheap!!

[Golem]

Rendering ... oyez.

 

Try a Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 AI/AIS.

 

Images are so appealing that you'll

question your desire for lens speed.

And anywho f/2.8 ain't exactly slow.

 

My usual preference in rendering is

for a "classically imperfect" look,

typical of the 50/2.0 Nikkor, but

other lenses also do the job. Since

thaz my preference, I can't suggest

a sooper sharp fast 50 by my own

experience. But the Micro Nikkor is

something I own for other reasons,

and so I've experienced it's "look"

and it's quite impressive.

[nomad]

Maybe like the Contax 60mm Macro f2.8 – it's a wonderful portrait lens too.

[Trad]

Spoilt for choice. I have 4 50's which is 2 too many, i like the FL so I bought a Canon 50 STM for those AF moments on my A7ii, and that really is a nice cheap lens, and it's always in my bag with one of my MF 50's.

The other 3 are the Contax 1.7 and 1.4, and a Summicron R 50 V2. They're all different. The 1.7 is probably my favourite, but then the Cron is my only Leica piece of kit (I just haven't been able to pony up the $$$ to date for the Summicron R 35 V2 which is on my bucket list) and I'll probably never part with it. I haven't warmed to my copy of the contax 50 1.4 for some reason. My 1.7 (an AEJ) is sharper, from WO, maybe I haven't given the 1.4 (an MMJ) a fair go.

If the Yashica 1.7 is as many suggest, a rebadged Contax, I'd just go with that and pocket the difference.

[Trad]

At the end of the day, the best 50 is the one you use to capture what you envisaged. A mate of mine sent me an interesting article written by Steve Coleman on Sharpness, and there are links to his articles that venture into visualising and creativity which as he says is really what it's all about. It's very easy to get hung up on "sharpness" but don't lose sight of the shot you had in mind while getting hung up around gear...it's something I'm going to work on...

 

http://www.lightinframeblog.com/sharp-photography/#sthash.uwjSa9st.xRUHkb6K.dpbs

[finarphin]

Is f2 fast?  This is film, also not scanned at particularly high resolution.  Nevertheless this is my favorite 50mm lens.  Leica Summicron 50mm collapsible.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[nomad]

 I haven't warmed to my copy of the contax 50 1.4 for some reason. My 1.7 (an AEJ) is sharper, from WO, maybe I haven't given the 1.4 (an MMJ) a fair go.

If the Yashica 1.7 is as many suggest, a rebadged Contax, I'd just go with that and pocket the difference.

 

 

The 1.7 is sharper, I own both.

 

That Yashica is different, some others are the same optical formula, but in all cases the coating is different. Zeiss never gave that away…

[addicted2light]

The 1.7 is sharper, I own both.

 

That Yashica is different, some others are the same optical formula, but in all cases the coating is different. Zeiss never gave that away…

Yashica and Contax, while similar, are definitely not the same lens. For a while I owned both and to decide which one to keep I did a quick and dirty bookcase test. You can see the results here on the forum (scroll way down):

 

http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/2022-need-suggestions-for-50mm-and-above/

 

Especially at current prices the Contax is a clear winner IMO.

[WeaselX100]

Hi guys!

 

I'm looking for a great 50mm lens. 

 

Since you do not search the Rokkor feeling:  Canon FD 50mm/1.4 (S.S.C) is also a very good option - sharp and kind of neutral, also quite cheap.

 

I also do like the Porst 55mm F/1.4 (I posted some pictures from it in the showcase - I guess it is a Komura lens...), comes with M42 mount and is pretty sharp.

 

Nevertheless - I would recommend the minolta MC Rokkor 58mm F/1.4 - it is not too expensive but beautiful! The F/1.2 is too soft I think, the F/1.4 pretty sharp with

- to my taste - the nicest rokkor bookeh...

[finarphin]

There is much mention of sharpness here, which is certainly a factor, but I think it's made too much of.  It might be like the relationship between income and happiness: if you're very poor your chances of being happy aren't very good, and as your income rises you have a better chance to be happy, up to a point, and then it doesn't matter.  If you have a crappy lens that's not sharp at all and worse in the corners, you might not be happy with it compared to something more expensive and tightly engineered.  There are plenty of lenses nowadays where the measurable difference between them is rather slight.  Besides, as far as sharpness goes once you get out into the field there are many other factors that influence sharpness, like camera motion and subject motion -- I guess everybody knows that.

 

The rendition aspect is another matter, more subjective, and it seems it's subtle enough so that many don't pay much attention to it, and of those who do some prefer a triplet quality and others a double-gaussian one; I guess it's more of an issue once you get away from 50mm.

 

And then there is what might be called the mystical aspect.  Edward Weston had a Turner Reich 12-21-28 triple convertible (I think; I haven't looked it up in a while), and at one point wrote that ninety percent of his work (at that time) was done using one of the longer elements.  So presumably he was in accord with it.  I like to feel I'm in accord with one of my lenses; it's one I apparently rescued from decades of inactivity.  It likes to take good pictures, and I think it likes me.  Now if I loved her more it might be that we could produce some beautiful offspring.

[nomad]

So true. That's why I gave so many suggestions. If you are into legacy lenses at all (and you wouldn't post here if not) it's all about the look and because you don't appreciate the clinical perfection of most modern glass. Even modern lenses cheaper than quite a few of the old ones suggested here can give you better sharpness.

 

But IMHO classical lenses with their different optical compromises (and there are always compromises, even if sometimes hidden by in-camera trickery these days) are like fine-tuned musical instruments. They need to sound, err… look, right to you to make your pictures resonate. Being able to focus goes only as far as finding the correct pitch. But you can find the right pitch on a cheap plastic violin or on a marvel from the past…

 

Have a look at this guys blog, he fas a very sound attitude as far as I'm concerned: http://www.verybiglobo.com

[IamJF]

Thanks for all the help - this is a great thread!

 

For clarification - it's not about perfect sharpness. Otherwise I would have to buy the Zony/Seiss 55mm. I look for 2 sets of lensen - Modern (1635, 35/2,8, 90 Macro) and Vintage (Minolta 35/2,8, 50/2, 85/2, 135/2,8).

 

I'm missing a 50mm in the modern set, but It's not my main focal range, so I'm looking for a reasonable priced manual focus lens. Should have "modern" contrast and schould be fast (<= 1,8). Sharpness should be good on A7s, so not THAT hard. For really sharp and portrait I use the 90mm.

And it have to have the same focus direction as Minolta/Sony. I have on Nikon direction lens - I don't get it :-) (but it's a 8mm Fisheye, so focusing is not the main problem ;-))

 

The Minolta 58mm/F1.4 is on it's way (should come on monday, got a good price on ebay) and I will try the Contax 50/1.7. I will report back! The Minolta 55/1.7 Looks great on these samples.

Received the Contax 135mm yesterday, but still have to wait for the adapter ... aaahhhhhh!

 

p.s.: I'm also looking for a good but not to expensive wide lens for the "Vintage" set. Minolta MD 24/2,8 looks good:

http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/450-24mm

But maybe I should start a new topic for this ;-)

[xya]

have a look at one of my sites http://www.a7camera.com/lens_comparison.htm there are quite some lenses in the 50mm range.