Sharpest 50mm lens at any aperture under f/2.0

Even people who can handhold well still lose sharpness when shooting at slow speeds. Some kinds of shooting (landscapes for instance) suffer a lot from that. Others not so much. Also most people start to lose the ability to take even a "pretty sharp" picture once the speeds start coming down below 1/60 or 1/30 for a 50mm full frame camera. Granted it varies a lot with person and technique. So image stabilization can give you an extra stop (or way more depending on the system) of "acceptable" sharpness.

Unfortunately for me I have rarely had stabilization systems, but as I get older, it becomes more attractive. What I DID do was to buy a camera that could shoot at ISO 6400 with great results. Kind of a different way to get to the same deal. Turn on stabilization, turn up the ISO, or buy a really heavy expensive lens I guess (or a combination of those).

And yes sometimes the subject is moving (even for me with landscape photography given that there is wind), but even then, image stabilization (or higher ISOs) means you can turn up the shutter speed.

I did a ‘shoot out’ once, with the M42 50’s that I own, Yashica DS-M f1.7, Yashica DS 50mm f1.9, Super Tak. 55 f1.8 and 55mm SMC f2.0, Super Tak. 50mm f1.8, and a beat up f2.8 zeiss tessar. I couldn’t see any significant difference in any of them, on wet prints or scans, that would bother me. That’s not to say of course, that I wouldn’t notice a difference comparing these to the best of modern designs when pixel peeping, but would I notice on a standard 8 x 10 print, which is my usual output? Maybe, I expect it would be subtle at best, and would it be worth the difference in cost from £30 to £1500? Not for me.

 

Sure, there is a big difference between your average hobbyist’s requirements to the pro requiring exceptional quality output for larger images, and for those guys, no doubt the financial cost is worth it. For the rest of us, I suspect we mostly spend our money on these expensive toys because it makes us feel good, and why not? Just like beer really.

Yes, but of course, there is the matter of taste as well. Especially with beer. For instance, I've grown weary of all the IPAs out there these days. I really don't care that much for IPAs. I much rather like the darker ales -- even the stouts and porters. So to each his own. And in many ways the same can be said about lens preferences.

I thought it somewhat interesting your choice of lenses for a shoot out. A few years ago, I found a Yashica DS 50/1.7 and a Helios 44-2 (58mm f/2) at a pawn shop. I think I paid $10 for the pair. Both are in very clean condition with unmarked glass. And I decided to do a shoot-out with these two lenses. My results were that the Yashica was the clear winner. In fact, I would have to conclude that the Yashica is probably one of the sharpest normal lenses I own. I own several f/1.8s and f/1.7s in various brands and several f/1.4s in various brands -- Canon SSC, Nikon (pre-AI, AI and AIs), Pentax (M42 Super Tak and SMCT, and K-mount), and Minolta MD. All are great lenses, but I must admit that my favorite is my Canon 50/1.4 SSC. I also own a Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and an FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC. They are the same optical formula, the coatings being the primary difference. I've found that these lenses actually are capable of very good resolution even when shooting with them wide open. But I also found that a fair amount of discipline must be employed when shooting with these lenses at f/1.2. When shooting at closer subjects, where depth of field is more critical, I discovered I had to be cogniscent of my body movement. The slightest movement fore and aft, for example, would be enough to throw the subject out of focus. I found that this sort of movement affected shots with these fast lenses more than any blur caused by slow shutter speeds.

Nikon F90S would be a good choice. I have no experience with an F100

You are in risky territory...watch for mold in older lenses Check your shutter speed carefully. As good camera stores die it may be harder to get good used gear. I had a Nikon 1V1 for almost 2 years. I regret selling it. If you're looking for a digital alternative, consider a used Nikon 1 V series, I'm Canadian; the situation may be different in the US.

Nikon F90S would be a good choice. I have no experience with an F100

Many(not all, but many) of the lenses under discussion here are G-type lenses.

While G type lenses are usable on the N90(s), they only work in P and S modes. There is no possible way to set the aperture from the body, so A and M are not possible.

Also, someone mentioned a lens with Tamron's equivalent of VR. I seem to recall that the N90s won't activate Nikon's VR, and if Nikon's doesn't work I doubt Tamron's does either. I don't remember whether or not this applies to the N90s, but on some other mid-90s bodies VR doesn't work but it will drain the batteries if left on.

My N90s mostly sits on the shelf(I need to shoot the roll of Plus-X loaded in it) but I use my two F4 bodies a lot and they share a lot of the same lens compatibility "quirks" of the N90s(although I know VR is completely dead on them and I don't have to worry about turning it off). G and AF-S are both fine, but G lenses have the same limitations. I still use them, but they certainly aren't as convenient(esp. since I prefer aperture priority).

The F100 is a different story. It's a modern "two dial" camera that gives exposure in all modes with G lenses. It will also activate VR-at least on Nikon lenses. Your only modern limitations-at least for now-are that it can't activate the aperture on "E" lenses and can't focus at all(manual or auto) with AF-P lenses. These limitations aren't unique to the F100, but are shared by all film cameras. Of course, it will also meter with AI and AI-S lenses, but only in A and M modes and without matrix.

Aside from price, I can't think of any reason to prefer the N90(s) over the F100. To answer succinctly, the F100 just gives you a broader range of lens compatibility. Also, this is purely opinion, but although they are great cameras the N90, N90s, and the N80008 all feel somewhat "clunky" to me. They have a late 80s/early 90s UI that seems to me to try to do too much with too few buttons(although the N6006, N70, and the data back for the F4 are all worse). Also, the mirror is decidedly jarring on them. Aside from the messy custom functions, most of which you only have to set once(if ever) and if you want to change others regularly you will probably remember them or can consult a cheater card, the F100 is very straight forward to use and anyone who has used a mid range to high end Nikon DSLR will be right at home on it. The AF is quieter, faster, and more decisive than what's on the N90(s), and both the mirror and the film advance are quiet and refined sounding.

I get that stabilized lens has issues for some things, but for hand held low light using a film camera and trying to minimize grain, I think it is something I would like to try. I know the old canons eos and nikon f5 onwards can use newer stabilized lenses. With the tamron 45mm vc I can shoot 2.5 stops wider without the focus problems and still somewhat sharp compared to an f/1.2. And an f/1.2 that is sharp wide open is just too much money. Finding a stabilized close to normal perspective lens (prime or zoom) for a canon or nikon film camera is easy. The more I think about the f100, the more I realize its in the sweet spot between awesomeness vs. not too expensive.

But what about Pentax MZ-S or PZ-1P? Will a sigma OS or Tamrom VC designed for k mount work with stabilization on these cameras?

What about the Contax N1? Is there any way to get a stabilized lens on the N mount?

What about the sigma sa9? Will sigmas SA mount OS lenses work with stabilization on this camera?

- Why? It makes absolutely no sense to make things more difficult than they need be.

 

Not to mention impacting the environment by using polluting chemicals and depleting natural resources unnecessarily.

 

There are no merit stars awarded by a viewer for how difficult you technically made getting the image.

 

I've posted this before quite a lot, but here's a same area crop from an old D700 (left), and a Nikon F2 using Delta 3200 (right). Lens used was the same, and the same aperture and shutter speed was used. Although I could have put a bottle-bottom on the F2 for all the detail it captured on Delta3200.

[ATTACH=full]1271468[/ATTACH]

Reminds me of what my high school geometry teacher said about our proofs:

"Why do it the easy way when there is a hard way".

If someone does want the look of film, including grain, are there programs that will convert

digital images? Say, for example, one wanted one that would be difficult to detect

the difference from film? Not that I know why one would want that.

Sometimes there is just the challenge of doing something different.

As others have noted, VR works for camera motion, but not subject motion.

Sometimes one is the problem, sometimes the other. Someone with unsteady hands

would find a big advantage in VR.

And an f/1.2 that is sharp wide open is just too much money.

- Which f/1.2 lens would that be?

Sharp wide open + f/1.2 = oxymoron.

"Sharp wide open + f/1.2 = oxymoron"

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, and I am not in the market for either this lens or the associated camera system, but for about $2,500, Canon may have produced a 50mm f1.2 lens thats sharp wide open: Canon RF 50mm f/1.2 USM L - Review / Test Report

- Which f/1.2 lens would that be?

Canon R 50/1.2

And there will be new generation of such lenses, Nikon and Panasonic with Leica (new full frame mount) will make such beasts but for a lot of money.

I'm way late to this party but would agree with the choice of an F100 if you want film and auto focus and overall quality, and like Nikon lenses. The only thing I'd be a little wary of is that when my wife was using an F 100 and got a very nice, sharp 50/1.4 D lens, it back focused, and there was no good way to compensate in AF for this. It's much better on digital cameras that allow fine tuning. But if you get a good lens, and it's either properly calibrated or manually focused, an F100 is grand.

With that said, I'd also agree that with film, just about any good prime 50 will give you beautifully sharp images, and if you don't need AF and VR, you could pretty much pick your camera to go with whatever lens you find. One of the best lenses I've found, both in sharpness and overall image quality on film, was a first generation (55 mm. front thread and lots of metal) Minolta 50/1.7D that a generous Photonetter sent to me a few years ago, free with a working X700, which I would put in a close second place to the best 50 I've ever used, the Nikkor 50/F2 AI. If you're willing to give up that stop, there's a super-duper lens with no bad habits, and last I saw it was still dirt cheap. I've also used various 50's from various places, and would rate them so close in quality that it's kind of a wash, but those two stand out just a little.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as Rodeo Joe's comparison here, hoping at least that some films have improved. I never exhausted the possibilities of all the fast films there were back a decade or so ago, but my results with anything over 400 was pretty dismal. And while I think there's little better and more beautiful than a good slide, I think even the best film is unlikely to challenge the sharpness of any decent lens, and I doubt real and useful differences will appear if you find a good camera that works, and a good fast 50, and use it right.

As for myself, I just can't make myself go back to film except every once in a blue moon. The ability to waste shots on macros, and to change ISO with a flick of the finger, has seduced me.

...hoping at least that some films have improved.

- Nah!

Where's the incentive to pump R&D money into film? Or the expertise to make improvements?

Not when you can just churn out the same old **** on the same old machinery, and people will lap it up and be grateful.

I ended up buying a tamron 45mm vc in ef mount.

Looking back, I should have bought the Nikon maybe as I hear that it works on the f100,f5,f6...probably others

I have an eos 620 and it did not work. It autofocused but only after pressing the dof preview button. VC did not work at all.

So I decided to buy the last film eos slr canon released instead of the first, the canon T2. It was 40 dollars. To my suprise I actually love this little camera, and it IS little. Also has 35zone metering, 3fps advance, 1/4000 shutter, built in flash and hot shoe, lighted lcd screen 7 af points I think and is the smallest and lightest camera I have ever used.

And, AF + VC with the tamron work just fine on the t2. I’m getting keepers at 1/6 walking around the city at night with tmax400.

This tells me that the tamron willl work on other never eos as well, but maybe not all. I’ll be buying a 3 or a 1v eventually, but for now I’m liking this setup. With the 40mm pancake, size is almost laughable.

Fits in my (large) jacket pocket!