sharpest nikon 50mm MF lens

hi guys. i'm looking for a good, sharpest possible 50mm Nikon Manual

Focus lens. ive been looking over google but can't find much

information about these lensese (while theere are tons of articles

about nikon AF 50mm lenses)

i would like to hear some suggestions from photo.net guys. thank you

very much!

PS: also, feel free to suggest any 50mm AF lens if it's sharper than

the MF ones, or even from other manufactures. in fact, i'm just

looking for a sharpest possible 50mm lens in the $100 range

The Nikkor 50mm F1.8 is the sharpest 50. I am looking for one myself but I am in no rush. One will present itself sometime. A used one sells for anywhere from $50 to $100.

I have the 50mm 1.8 AIS. Great lens. Small sharp and fast enough for me.

Nikon 50mm f1.8 as long as it's AI or later. This includes the AF lenses, although I'd avoid the first AF version due to it's poor focusing ring. Note that the Series E is reportedly single-coated rather than fully multi-coated, but apart from a lack of flare resisitance, is just as sharp as the rest. The Series E is considered to be the value leader for the 50's, with the AI-S being the most expensive of the lot.

Another vote for the 50mm f/1.8. I use the AI-S version.

<p>If possible, *check* the lens before you buy it. I have had a nikon 50/1.8E which was adequately sharp at center at f/8, but a coke bottle at lower apertures and at the corners.

 

<p>The following tables have this format:

 

aperture (center lp/mm) (corner lp/mm)

 

 

<p>

<ul>

<li>1.8 31 15

<li>2 40 15

<li>2.8 50 15

<li>4 56 18

<li>5.6 63 23

<li>8 63 31

<li>11 50 45

</ul>

 

<p>The real lp/mm of the lens are in fact higher, as this was a full path test (taking lens -> film -> enlarging lens). As a comparision, I tested in the same roll a Pentax SMC-M 50/2, which by various reports is a dog.

 

<ul>

<li>2 45 28

<li>2.8 50 31

<li>4 63 35

<li>5.6 63 45

<li>8 56 45

<li>11 50 45

<li>16 45 45

</ul>

 

<p>A canonet 40/1.7 was also tested.

<ul>

<li>1.7 45 40

<li>2 50 40

<li>2.8 50 45

<li>4 50 45

<li>5.6 50 50

<li>8 56 50

<li>11 56 50

</ul>

 

<p>And a nikkor 20mm f/4

<ul>

<li>4 56 40

<li>8 70 45 (those were the last expositions of the roll).

<ul>

 

<p>Film was Tmax 100 developed in FX-2, target an USAF 1951, enlarger lens a EL-Nikkor 50/2.8. I checked the groups projected on the easel with a magnasight and a 4x closeup lens over its eyepiece. Nikon lenses had mirror lockup, canonet didn't need it, Pentax was shafted. I repeated the check with Minolta 50/2.8 and a Fujinon 50/3.5 enlarger lenses and results were similar. Test conducted at open shade.

 

<p> The contrast at low apertures of the series E was awful. Pentax shined there.

 

<p>Bottom line: beware of sample variations. By reports, the Series E 50 is very sharp. Mine was a bad dud.

 

MF sharpest below US$100? Try a pentax 50/1.4 or 1.7. I have only experiences with the 1.4 and is sharp. Others with experiences in other lines will surely chime in; I can only comment on what i've personally used.

Waste some time at www.nikonlinks.com.

At F5.6 to F8 all the Nikon 50mm's are decent; sharp. Here I have a 5.8cm F1.4; 50mm F1.4; 50mm SC F1.4; 50mm AI 1.4; 50mm F2; 50mm F1.8 AI; 5.0cm F2 LTM Nikkor. With extention tubes the 50mm F2 and 50mm F1.8 nikkors are better than the f1.4 lenses; less barrel distortion; better sharpness. With the F1.4 lenses; all the vast lens tests fron the 60's to today vary; even with the exact lens model.

You might also consider the 50/f2 AI.

The 50 E's are a deal and they are plenty sharp. Just go with the metal ring version because it looks nicer.

If possible, *check* the lens before you buy it. I have had a nikon 50/1.8E which was adequately sharp at center at f/8, but a coke bottle at lower apertures and at the corners.

 

The following tables have this format: aperture (center lp/mm) (corner lp/mm)

 

 

1.8 31 15

2 40 15

2.8 50 15

4 56 18

5.6 63 23

8 63 31

11 50 45

The real lp/mm of the lens are in fact higher, as this was a full path test (taking lens -> film -> enlarging lens). As a comparision, I tested in the same roll a Pentax SMC-M 50/2, which by various reports is a dog.

 

2 45 28

2.8 50 31

4 63 35

5.6 63 45

8 56 45

11 50 45

16 45 45

A canonet 40/1.7 was also tested.

 

1.7 45 40

2 50 40

2.8 50 45

4 50 45

5.6 50 50

8 56 50

11 56 50

And a nikkor 20mm f/4

 

4 56 40

8 70 45 (those were the last expositions of the roll).

Film was Tmax 100 developed in FX-2, target an USAF 1951, enlarger lens a EL-Nikkor 50/2.8. I checked the groups projected on the easel with a magnasight and a 4x closeup lens over its eyepiece. Nikon lenses had mirror lockup, canonet didn't need it, Pentax was shafted. I repeated the check with Minolta 50/2.8 and a Fujinon 50/3.5 enlarger lenses and results were similar. Test conducted at open shade.

 

The contrast at low apertures of the series E was awful. Pentax shined there.

 

Bottom line: beware of sample variations. By reports, the Series E 50 is very sharp. Mine was a bad dud. MF sharpest below US$100? Try a pentax 50/1.4 or 1.7. I have only experiences with the 1.4 and is sharp. Others with experiences in other lines will surely chime in; I can only comment on what i've personally used.

Wow My Kiev ARSTAT H 50mm It is also in Nikon Mount f2 matches all of those LOL

Remember that lens test aren't very significant if conducted by different persons and with different procedures. I am very conservative in evaluating what is resolved and what is not; someone else may arrive at higher or lower scores with the same negative.

 

The point of posting various lens scores was to facilitate a direct comparision, as all were rated by the same person (me), in the same roll, and evaluated in the same session.

 

As this was a full path test, from object to print, the resolution limits af TMX100 and the enlarger lens also affect and degrade the result.

With a given setup of lens; film; f-stop setting; Resolution varies with exposure level on the negative. It will rise, then peak, then drop off from min to max exposure. This is why you can get a jumble of data from magazines and amateur tests.

By being patient and shopping carefully, you probably will not have to shell out the amount you mentioned above and still end up with an excellent lens. One of my current favorites is my Nikkor-H Manual Focus 50mm 2.0 (good enough for me) which I picked up at a thrift store in a case for less than $20.00

I am just getting started with Nikon equipment so I don't have as many variations of the standard lens as I do in other mounts. My standard lenses are: 50mm f/2 Nikkor H (2 of these), 50mm f/2 "K" Nikkor (rubber focusing ring but still not AI), 50mm f/2 AI Nikkor, 50mm f/1.8 AIS Nikkor. I think the AIS lens is the final version. It is the smaller size model with the metal ring in the center, a dark orange f/22 marking and the AIS indentation on the mounting flange. I also have a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor SC and I am waiting for the delivery of a 50mm f/1.4 "K" lens. I will not count my 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor P even though it has very decent performance for distant subjects.

 

There are two other 50mm lenses I would like to add to my collection. They are a 50mm f/2 Nikkor HC and an early 50mm f/1.8 (larger size) AI Nikkor. The 50mm f/2 was not made in AI form although some may have been converted to AI later. I find all of my 50mm f/2 lenses to be very sharp and I do not know how much improvement you can expect to see by going from a 50mm f/2 AI Nikkor to any of the 50mm f/1.8 lenses. So far the bodies I have include 3 Nikomats and 4 Nikkormats but nothing later than the FT2. For this reason I was a little disappointd when I got 50mm f/1.8 AIS lens because it has no metering prong. The lens also focuses only to 2 feet and not 1.5 feet like the later f/2 models and the earlier and larger f/1.8. I have read that both the 50mm f/1.8 E lens and the compact 50mm f/1.8 Nikkors can show hot spots under certain circumstances but I have not seen this myself.

 

One more consideration when looking at these lenses is bokeh. This is the quality of the part of the image which is not in focus. In theory the best way to get better bokeh is to have more aperture blades so a more round aperture is formed. When the lens is used wide open this is not an issue because the blades are not showing. All of the 50mm f/2 Nikkors from the H to the AI have 6 blades. My 50mm f/1.8 AIS lens has 7. The 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S had 6 blades and when it was changed to the SC it went to 7 blades. You can't test for bokeh with a flat test target. You have to use three dimensional subjects. Some lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 Canon New FD are known to have terrible bokeh. This Canon lens has only 5 blades. I guess Canon was looking to save money on this one. This is odd because I have two versions of the second generation Canon 50mm f/1.4 FL from about 1968 and they both have 8 blades. Nikon only went to 7 blades several years later. I have two 135mm f/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 lenses. They are very sharp and a joy to focus but they show very poor bokeh if they are used at the closest focusing distance of three feet and closed down more than a little.

 

In your price range I don't think you can go wrong with any of the 50mm f/2 lenses from the H model on. The earlier S model is more of a collector's item. The benefit of the later f/2 models, from the HC on, is that they have better coatings and will work better in situations where flare might be a problem.