Best fast 50mm

[Golem]

Re: Wide lens for your "vintage" set. 

  

Forget Minolta's MD, stick with MC. 

  

One of the older Minolta wides is not 

even an MC nor MD but fits the same 

mount [sR/SRT]. It's the 21/4.0 that 

required mirror lock-up on SLRs, but 

is right at home on an E-SR adapter !  

   

IOW it's similar to Leica's M-mount 21. 

Nearly impossible to find, so if you do 

happen upon one, SNAG IT ! 

[IamJF]

Could you ever compare the 24 MD vs. MC? Would be a great help!

I often read the 20s and 21s are not working well on digital sensors - is this one different? To have a usefull 21 would be great.

 

I just recently bought the Zony 1635 - my only zoom lens :-) and I really like it. So I will first sort out my 50 and 135mm stuff and will come back to the wide end a little later. Thanks for all the advice!

[nomad]

At first view the Sony 16-35mm will leave most vintage wides in the dust, don't expect miracles there – expect from the Contax Zeiss 21mm, which is more expensive than anything else (large and heavy too).

 

But if you are into the vintage look (after all you're posting here), you can try any 20-21mm that was initially made for SLRs. The problems with digital sensors normally arise with rangefinder lenses only, not with retrofocus constructions. I've never tested the older Minolta mentioned above (which is a Biogon copy and probably not great on digital), but I own the newer Minolta 21mm f2.8, plus an Olympus 21mm f3.5 which I adore for it's small size and weight. Both have soft corners WO, but stopped down they are capable landscape lenses.

 

Just recently I tried Piccure+ on some shots from the Oly and compared an untreated shot at f8 to a shot at f3.5 treated with that impressive software. I was shocked how close my corners were now compared to stopped down. They have a 14 day trial, check it out! I'd say with some CA and vignetting treatment by any good RAW processor plus Piccure+ your landscape shots will leave nothing to be desired. BTW, modern glass has it's software treatment built into the camera, Sony is notorious for this, since even their RAW is not truly RAW.

[WeaselX100]

Could you ever compare the 24 MD vs. MC? Would be a great help!

I often read the 20s and 21s are not working well on digital sensors - is this one different? To have a usefull 21 would be great.

 

I just recently bought the Zony 1635 - my only zoom lens :-) and I really like it. So I will first sort out my 50 and 135mm stuff and will come back to the wide end a little later. Thanks for all the advice!

 

 

I own the Rokkor 24 MC and a Canon FDn 24/2.8 - honestly, the MC is a great lens with more interesting bokeh, the FDn 24/2.4 I guess the better allround performer,

I also made some macro shots of flowers with it and like the Canon Bokeh in macro images. A question of taste, off course. Canons nFD go for less money...

 

The MC 21 is - as mentioned - weak in the corners, even stopped down at F/5.6 (but probably I have a bad copy); you may consider the Flektogon 20/2.8 or 4.0,

both excellent and I think preferable over the Minolta. Off course, also the Fleks like to be stopped down to F/8, therefore the 20/4 is sufficient, but my impression is, they are better as the (or my) MC 21/2.8...

[nomad]

Well, I even stop the Minolta 21mm down to 8 or 11 for landscape use. The Flektogon can be better if you get a good copy.

Unfortunately their QC was lousy, so sample variation is really high. IMHO, a perfect Flektogon is remarkably good regarding distortion, but 'wide' open it's very low in contrast and the extreme corners are not much better than Minolta's.

[IamJF]

For landscape I would use the Seiss 1635, I don't think the vintages can cope with this lens stoped down a little.

 

I use the Minoltas for getting some sort of style, for example when shooting bands when they are recording at my studio or playing live. And of course video is getting more important and there is always to less light - so performance wide open is important and should be good in the corners, but not perfect. It should not have color cast in the corners! (problem for video?)

 

Canon FDn 24/2.8 also came to my mind, but the Minolta MD seems to be equal? (Link above)

The 21s you suggest don't show smearing and colour cast in the corners?

[nomad]

No. In my experience no lens made for SLRs is showing smearing and colour cast, that happens only with rangefinder lenses.

 

But older lenses are softer in the corners than modern glass – with the exception of the Zeiss 21mm…

[IamJF]

Ahh, now I get it.

So if the adapter is more then 20mm or about an Inch there are no problems with colour cast etc. (cause light rays are parallel enough). Only with M-Mount lenses with short flange distance.

 

I read the newer Minolta 20mm is not performing well on digital sensors - but maybe I screwed up the reason ...

 

Thanks for clarification.

 

 

Btw. - the Loxia 21mm is a lens where GAS is pushing hard ...

[nomad]

Absolutely, I think that Loxia is a lens honoring it's heritage…

 

The newer Minolta is not performing as well as the older independently of sensor or film, since it's a much smaller and lighter construction at the cost of some quality.

 

If you are aiming at small and light, the Oly f3.5 is the clear winner (among vintage).

[michaeloneworldproductions]

Here's Viktor Pavlovic's 50mm 1.4 shootout http://www.verybiglobo.com/50mm-f1-4-legacy-lenses-shootout-wide-open/

He tests many lenses. Minolta. Pentax. Olympus, Canon and more.

 

Personally, I have been VERY happy with th Canon FDn 50mm 1.4. Viktor's tests show it the most sharp in the center but soft edges wide open.

I like it!!

I must admit, my tastes were shaped early with this lens when it came with my Canon AT-1 in 7th grade. (I'm now 50 years old)

Still going strong.

I have run personal tests against many lenses and it still tugs at my heart with a look I really like,

 

I also LOVE the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm 1.5 ZM.  But it's soft rendering turns many-off. Viktor also loves it.

I think the classical look, creamy bokeh and rich colors are tremendous.

 

My Parents are both from Prague (Like Viktor) and old school artists. I find this fascinating but probably just a coincidence.

I do often agree with his perspective.

 

The boring answer is, most probably, the Zeiss Sonnar 55mm FE Auto-everything will probably check ALL of your boxes.

 

Enjoy, Michael

[markphoto4u]

I'm a professional photographer, markwilhelmphotos.com, and over the last 40 years have had the pleasure of shooting with Nikon and Canon full frame DSLRs with some nice pro lenses. IMHO the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L lens is one of the best lenses money can buy, and is a fantastic bargain since the 16-35 has hit the market. I understand from my research that the "new improved" newer lenses are reportedly sharper, etc. I print my own Giclee prints on a Canon Pro-10, and the 12x18s have been sharp and gorgeous using both the Canon 17-40 and the Sony Zeiss 16-35, with one caveat. The 16-35 was a bit soft at 35mm for my landscape work. I basically used the lens as a 16-28mm. Since I had to change lenses from the 16-35 to the 24-70 to get a sharp 35mm focal length, I eventually sold both lenses and went back to the Canon 17-40 with the Foftdiox Pro Auto (is auto focus and I highly recommend) and got all the wide angle focal lengths I needed without the lens change. BYW, the 24-70 Sony Zeiss was too soft at 70mm for me so I used it as a 24-50 with excellent results for landscapes.

However, the older Canon L lenses like the 17-40 tend to auto focus a bit slower than the newer lenses like the 16-35. So if you are on the fence and can swing it you may find the 16-35 a bit faster to focus and a bit sharper. This is not an issue with me, because I usually shoot on a tripod and after auto focus (if I auto focus at all) I switch to manual. ( I usually hyper focus and shoot at f/8 to f/22). And yes, the 17-40 is sharp enough for landscapes at f/16 and f/22 on my 12-18inch prints. Of course the sweet spot is probably f/8 or f/11.

Bottom line the 17-40 is a fine lens, and the Fotodiox Pro EF-NX Auto is awesome for 106 dollars. With a solid tripod and this lens and adapter one should be able to talk great photos with excellent IQ. Of course, it would be ideal to borrow or rent the two Canon zooms and see how you like them. You may spend the extra money on the 16-35 just to get the faster focus, or not.

Lastly, I never thought I would spend more than a 4 or 5 hundred on a "normal" lens, but I did. I pulled the trigger on the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 and am sooo glad I did. I got a used lens at Harman's in Orlando with Sony Zeiss T filter for 750. I'm telling you. This lens is awesome. It's the right size, feels and looks great; it's fast, it's sharp across the frame and wide open. One hellava lens. I just look for excuses to use this lens. I can't say enough about it. You have to try it out.. Go to a camera store and put it on you A7 or A6000, it just feels right. Take some photos and go home and bring them up on your monitor. Better yet, rent it for a few days. Awesome lens.

Well I hope this answers your questions. All of the above lenses are really nice, and I think you could enjoy any of them. Above all, have a good time, and happy shooting.

 

 

markphoto4u

[IamJF]

Hi guys,

 

Tested some lenses today and will write some feedback. But first - I think I have to work on my manual focus skills :-)

 

Thanks for the link to the test - I knew the page already, but didn't found the test. But this one:

http://allphotolenses.com/reviews/item/c_10.html

The Olympus also seems to be a nice 50mm, but behaves a little different in these tests.

 

markphoto - thanks for the Input. But I already own the Sony Zeiss 16-35 and the 35/2.8 - so I'm very happy in this range and it's perfect for landscape (for my use ;-)). But for low light wide open vintage touch I ebayed a 24/2,8 MD Minolta - hope I will receive it next week. And also a Zeiss 50/1.7 should arrive these days. I'm quite sure this lens will serve my needs.

 

I did some quick tests with the Minolta 58/1.4 - but the first thing I had to do after I received it is cleaning and repairing ... eBay. But I repaired my first lens, how cool's that! :-)

I also detected why I like the 50/2 so much - MASSIVE vignette :-). The 58/1.4 changes a lot when stopped down, it's like 2 different lenses. There is quite some of the famous "glow" wide open - I think it's enough for my taste. Will have to shoot a little longer with it to get it known better.

 

And i also bought a Zeiss Contax 135/2,8 - what a lens! Very nice build and the big focus ring is very helpful and feels great at use. But it's quite front heavy on the A7s, more then the Minolta 135/2,8 (which is just a little lighter) and way more as the 90mm Macro (also just a little lighter).

To my surprise the Minolta is not that far apart – but the Zeiss has a little more resolution and contrast wide open. Also colour seems to be less different as with other Minolta lenses? In short - I don't see a need for a different 135mm, it's great. Maybe with eye auto focus and with a much higher resolution sensor - but such a lens is not available for now ;-)

 

And one more, the Zeiss bug bit me hard … :-)

I got a 200/3,5 for a fantastic price, so I couldn't resist. Was not sure about it's quality cause of mixed reviews – but it outresolves the A7s easy. Sharp where it should be and great contrast, I really was surprised. It's a massive lens, but handles quite good cause of the big focus ring and focuses very precise. Good match to the 135mm.

So I extended my arsenal to 200mm for EUR 120,-

 

Also detected how low vignetting is with these lenses – somehow unusual when you are used to modern Sony glass.

 

And last but not least – I really love the A7s in use with “vintage” lenses (the Zeiss Contax don't feel vintage!) . It's more about the picture and less about pixel peeping, maybe because there are not so much of them :-). These lenses really shine on the low resolution sensor.

 

Congratulations when you came that far ;-) and I will report next week about the Zeiss 50mm. 

[markphoto4u]

IamJF, could yo expand some on the Zeiss 50mm 1.7. Are you ordering it with a Leica mount and then adapting to Sony?

 

 

markphoto4u

[Golem]

Ahh, now I get it.

So if the adapter is more then 20mm or about

an Inch there are no problems with colour cast

etc. (cause light rays are parallel enough).

.......

Reasonably true. Consider that the very same

lens on the very same adapter could fit both

an E-mount APSC body and also an FE-mount

FF body. The light rays are more parallel with

the APSC body, simply cuz the less parallel

rays, the outermost ones, are cropped off.

 

But if lenses of equal FOV [not equal FL] are

used on each of those same bodies, then the

parallelism of the rays is about the same for

both formats.

 

A very few lenses for SLRs required locking

up the SLR mirror, as they sit mostly inside

the body where the mirror normally resides.

These look like pancakes when mounted for

use but when seen off of the camera, there's

almost a 2 inch length of lens barrel BEHIND

that pancake-like facade. Therefore, image

projection to the corner regions arrives at a

verrry oblique angle.

[IamJF]

Hi markphoto,

 

The Zeiss is in Yashica/Contax Mount, something like this:

http://www.ebay.at/itm/Carl-Zeiss-Planar-T-1-7-50mm-Contax-TOP-Zustand-/272094383458?hash=item3f5a16cd62:g:LIMAAOSwxN5WVOXX

 

So the adapter adds more then 20mm. But the 135mm and 200mm feel very good and not realy vintage like Minolta. Very interesting lenses and worth their higher price, if you look after a "modern" look of the lens!

[IamJF]

Btw - the Y/C to E Mount adapter adds 27,3mm, which makes heavy lenses a little front heavy.

 

Interestingly I have no problem with the big 200/F3,5, but the 135/2,8 feels front heavy. Maybe cause i use them different.

[IamJF]

Made some experiences over the last few days and want to report back - maybe someone is interested.

 

The Zeiss/Contax stuff is great! I really don't see it as legacy glass - Color, contrast and sharpnes is perfect, at least on my A7s. But you notice the age of the lenses wíth flare and CA (Portrait on the 135mm) - both are more as on modern (top) lenses. So I really recomend this lenses as perfect fit for Sony when you want to go manual.

 

The Minolta 58/1,4 is a mixed bag for me. I had a few problems with flare, e.g. I couldn't get a usefull shot of my kids in front of a big window, also stoped down. With a modern Seiss this a no brainer, I very rarely use/need a hood.

But it delivers the "look" and the colours of a vintage Minolta wide open, sharpness is OK and bokeh is fine. Maybe a bit to less vignetting for my taste ;-)

 

Thanks to everybody giving advices, I'm very happy with the "new" lenses.

 

 

p.s.: Btw - when Sony would have anounced the new 50/1.8 a few weeks earlier or even would give us a roadmap (*HINT to Sony*) I would have bought it for sure. But not sure if it can beat the Contax 50/1.7. Maybe with autofocus speed ... :-)

[addicted2light]

Made some experiences over the last few days and want to report back - maybe someone is interested.

 

The Zeiss/Contax stuff is great! I really don't see it as legacy glass - Color, contrast and sharpnes is perfect, at least on my A7s. But you notice the age of the lenses wíth flare and CA (Portrait on the 135mm) - both are more as on modern (top) lenses. So I really recomend this lenses as perfect fit for Sony when you want to go manual.

 

The Minolta 58/1,4 is a mixed bag for me. I had a few problems with flare, e.g. I couldn't get a usefull shot of my kids in front of a big window, also stoped down. With a modern Seiss this a no brainer, I very rarely use/need a hood.

But it delivers the "look" and the colours of a vintage Minolta wide open, sharpness is OK and bokeh is fine. Maybe a bit to less vignetting for my taste ;-)

 

Thanks to everybody giving advices, I'm very happy with the "new" lenses.

 

 

p.s.: Btw - when Sony would have anounced the new 50/1.8 a few weeks earlier or even would give us a roadmap (*HINT to Sony*) I would have bought it for sure. But not sure if it can beat the Contax 50/1.7. Maybe with autofocus speed ... :-)

 

 

Your Contax glass is AE or MM? You can easily tell by the color of the last aperture value: if it's white is AE, green MM. The MM versions had better coating, that will not flare that easily (even though, for this exact reason, many videographers hunt the AEs) and, again thanks to this different coating, are more contrasty.

 

BTW, based on the first images Sony shared I don't think the new 50mm will be able to replace your (and mine) 50/1.7 Contax. The colors, the tonality and the contrast of these first shared shots seem to me to have a typical Minolta rendering. Again, these are low res samples, we will see.

 

Oh, and don't be worried should you ever want to step up the megapixel count of your camera: I use almost exclusively Contax lenses (and Minolta MC/MD when I want lower contrast and pastel colors) on an A7r and they still manage to out-resolve the sensor. If I shoot close-up with the 18mm or at whatever distance with the 60mm macro I have most of the time actually to turn down Lightroom default import sharpening because the images will otherwise look too crunchy...

[IamJF]

It's AE, couldn't find MM for a reasonable price. Would love to get MM lenses, at least for the 50mm.

 

What I could see from the shared pics of the new sony lens is that uninteresting light makes uninteresting portraits :-) But I think I will change my APS-C 50 against the FE 50, so it's more flexible.

 

Btw - I also found an Minolta MD 24/2.8. Does exactly what it should - good sharpness, nice colours, OK contrast, some flare, nice vignette. Very nice compagnion to the Seiss 1635.

[Trad]

My copy of the CY 50 1.7 is a later AEJ, 679xxxx, I might have lucked in with transitional coatings of the MMJ, but the colours i get from this lens always floor me. I'm guessing this image will look crappy online, i shot it today, through glass and wanted to get the reflection of the guy fishing, compromises all round but i still like the image, and the colours are so rich and full of detail

 

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!

[Trad]

Heres another...moonah trees near one of our beaches, the light and shapes caught my eye

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!

[Gilgenberg]

i have a lot of 50mm lenses but with great distance the nokton 50mm 1.5 is the best lens i have

 

they are all nice but sharpness from corner to corner, contrast and bokeh  is brilliant with the nokton

 

it is very sharp and has nice contrast open but some CA at 1.5 but no glow like the Olympus or the Minolta MD 50mm 1.4

 

and it is very small and light

 

the Minolta MC 58mm 1.2 is also great but a little bit to heavy so i take most of the time the nokton

 

P.S. the olympus 50mm 1.4 has to much glow at 1.4 IMO

[IamJF]

The bokeh of the voigtländer looks quite busy in the real world shots here:

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

 

Do you also find this in your shots?

[JimmyD]

+1 for the Minolta MC 58 1.2.  The Nikon ais 50 1.2 is a touch soft at 1.2 but is really good at 2. 

[RightAngle]

Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 in Nikon mount has great bokeh and can be found rather cheap.