Beginning With a 50mm Lens...

<p>I've recently come back around to the classic normal lens world after a long side trip into very wide angle lenses. I looked over my inventory of 50mm lenses and they are pretty mundane. A Canon FD 1.4, a Canon screw mount Seranar 2.8, my Zuiko 1.8 and so on. Nice, but not exceptional, or world class. I usually make the mistake of selecting a body first, then getting lenses. I'd like to reverse that, and get an exceptional 50mm lens, and then find a workable or serviceable body. Or, maybe I have the body already.</p>

<p>What are regarded commonly as the most superb 50's? The bodies I have are: Screw mount rangefinder; Canon FD SLR; Olympus OM SLR; Contax G-series AF rangefinder; Bronica SQ-Ai MF. I enjoy both RF and SLR, and both work well into my interests, so either would be fine. I don't own an M-mount, but I wouldn't rule out getting one if that's what it really takes.</p>

<p>I know the 45mm F/2 Planar for the G1 is highly regarded, and right now that's on my list. So, I am looking for the others. Under $1,000 would be nice. I doubt if I can spend more than that and still sleep at night.</p>

<p>Well, I think your FD 50 1.4 is a pretty exceptional lens, but that's just me.</p>

<p>If you're looking to get a new body to access an exceptional lens system you should think about Konica. Several of their lenses including the 24 2.8, 35 2, 40 1.8, 50 1.7, 85 1.8 and 135 3.2 are generally considered to be amongst the best classic manual lenses ever made, sharp with good color and contrast. Some prefer the 50 1.4 to the 50 1.7 but they're both very good lenses (I have one of each). Additionally the 40 1.8 is a fantastic lens. I've just acquired the 35 2 which I'm looking forward using this weekend.</p>

<p>I'm right alongside Kayam regarding the FD 50 f/1.4; it's a truly great lens. You don't have a M42 screw mount SLR? There are so many great M42 lenses out there, the SMC Takumar 50 f/1.4 and the Auto Yashinon DX 50 f/1.4 for example, to name but a couple of my favourites. The choice is huge...Plenty of fine M42 bodies for sale out there, fetching slightly less than peanuts!</p>

<p>Kayam Rajaram,<br>

Wonderful. Already I have learned something new. I never knew about Konica. I can't say I ever saw one.</p>

<p>Tomioka [Revuenon|Yashinon|Tominon] 55mm f/1.2 for M42 screw mount. Epic lens.</p>

<p>Rick Drawbridge,<br>

I hunted through some old cameras and discovered I have an M42 - a Mamiya/Sekor DSX 1000. How fortuitous!<br>

Ok, so I can add that into the mix. I think it needs foam, but I can repair that. I look up those two lenses you mention there. Thanks.</p>

<p>Carl Zeiss Planar T. I have one in 50 f/1.7 C/Y mt that I like pretty well. They also come in 50 f/1.4. I am pretty sure they are available in M42 as well.</p>

<p>If you have an FD body, you can adapt even more lenses to it than are adaptable to the EOS bodies (in theory, you have to find the adapters, of course).<br /> I am another great fan of the FD 50mm f/1.4.</p>

<p>However, with M42>FD adapters, you can shoot the absolutely world classic Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f/2.<br /> There are some extraordinarily fine Takumars, for that matter.</p>

<p>Many of Nikon's best MF lenses work beautifully on FD.</p>

<p>Beuh B.,<br>

That Tomioka looks impressive. Do you have one? What's the best quality of that lens? I do like fast lenses.<br>

JDM von Weinberg,<br>

Just so I am clear - - I see some LTM versions of the Biotar 58. Do you mean there is an M42 adapter for that one, or for the Exacta mount - or both? I am a bit ignorant about lens adapters. In my life experiences "adapter" usually is a euphemism for "might work."</p>

 

<p>I hate to speak for JDM but, what I took him to mean was that you can find the lens in M42 mount and get an adapter to shoot it on your FD body if so inclined. Such as this one on ebay:</p>

<table cellpadding="3" summary="Other item info">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="1%" align="right" valign="top">Item </td>

<td valign="top">320683567491</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Tom Scott,<br>

Thank you. That's why I ask questions - usually I have it wrong! Thanks for the auction reference. Looks interesting. On my Contax G1, I have been very impressed with the Zeiss lenses. I have the Planar 35mm and Sonnar 90mm. Of course those are AF lenses.</p>

<p>I am quite impressed with the 50 f1.7 planar lens I have but, I have not been able to get used to the shutter speed dial being on the "wrong side" on the 139Q.</p>

<p>M stephens - if all you're looking for is an outstanding 50mm (or thereabouts) lens to play with, have you considered a Fixed Lens Rangefinder? There's a whole host of Japanese RFs from the 70s available at throwaway prices with lenses which are world class. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the Konica Auto S2 comes to mind, as does the Minolta Hi-Matic 7S. Pretty much any of the Japanese RFs of that era have outstanding lenses. If you don't mind shelling out a little more cash and want something more compact the Konica Auto S3, Hi-Matic 7SII or the Canonet QL17 GIII are also superb.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Canon FD 50mm f1.4. It doesn't get much better than that! Seriously, there are so many excellent 50mm lenses out there. You need to shoot a few and see what works best for you. Some of my best shots were taken with a cheap FSU Jupiter 8!</p>

<p>Kayam Rajaram,<br>

I have a Canon QL17 GIII (2 actually), Canon QL17, Canon QL19, Minolta HiMatic 7s, Yashica Electro 35/GSN, and a host of other fixed-lense RFs with wider 35mm lenses. So, I have that reasonably well covered, although not with Konica.</p>

<p>They are quite good cameras and nice lenses (I use them frequently), but I wouldn't judge them as the very best one could do in normal lenses. I was wanting to get closer to the.....here comes the clich<em>é</em>....Holy Grail. I suppose just to see how far the 35mm format can go? You know, you read about these legendary lenses and eventually you want to experience it. And sure, my FD f/1.4 is "pretty nice" too. Maybe that's as good as it gets? Is there really no difference between a Lambo and a Corvette? (Warning: my car analogies usually aren't worth spit, since I know almost nothing about cars!)</p>

 

<p>its hard to go wrong with a quality 50, but that FD mount 1.4 is truly hard to beat. I sincerely doubt that you will see an edge from lenses costing hundreds of times more, other than bragging rights. That goes for any of the lenses suggested to you. I have E series f1.8 Nikon lens that most people sneer at because of its humble place in the pecking order of Nikkor glass, but I'd be lying if I said I can find a fault with its performance. Fact is, most 50's from a majour manufacturer have far more ability than the people who use them - certainly far more than I do, and unless you absolutely need that half a stop that an exotic 1.2 offers, your money is better spent on film:)</p>

If I read your post correctly, it sounds as if you have two choices that are good to go. That FD Canon f1.4 with the FD

body should serve you well just as the Olympus body with the 50mm f1.8 would. For occaisons where an SLR is too loud

or not compact enough then the 45mm Contax G lens is also highly regarded.

<p>Come to think of it, I think your car analogy is pretty much spot on - there is a huge difference between a Lambo and a Vette: price, exclusivity and display of status. As much as I am not a fan of Corvettes, at least they have a genuine racing pedigree and are useable every day cars with far more performance than 99.9% of the people who buy them will ever need (or be able to extract for that matter). Quite frankly, unless you're taking every shot from a heavy tripod with a proper lens hood in place, using only the finest grained film developed in the finest grain developer and printed on a perfectly adjusted and calibrated enlarger through an optic of equal or higher quality... the variables will far outstrip the technical edge any lens will have over the glass already at your disposal.</p>

<p>There is a clear case of horses for courses at play here - in order to actually even have a CHANCE of seeing the technical edge of some exotic lens over a very good lens like a 1.4FD or once of the SuperTacs or any of the lenses already suggested you will have to resign yourself to the kind of photography that is not the forte of 35mm. By the time you bolt that camera down to a 20lbs tripod and adjust the compendium lens shade, and squeeze that last bit of resolving power from your super duper exotic 50 aimed squarely at the USAF resolution chart... the guy with a run of the mill quality MF camera will outperform your set up every time as long as he covers his bases. </p>

<p>Which brings me to another point - what is the end result of your toils? Are you printing in a darkroom? If so, how good is your glass, how perfectly aligned is your enlarger? How big are you printing? If you're going to scan that film, well, actually, don't worry about your lens. People who use film cameras and then scan and output digitally do so because they enjoy the process and the classic gear - I don't think any of them do so in the misguided belief that they have some technical edge over a state of the art photocomputer with a bezillion megapixels. </p>

<p>35mm cameras are incredibly versatile, really good at a great many things. Question is, what is it that your current results lack that you aim to solve with a different lens? I've asked myself that question many times, in regards to many different pieces of equipment, every time the answer laid in something I was doing, not in something I own. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, there is some undeniable pleasure in owning a truly high end, exotic anything - car, lens, camera. And if your wallet allows, I am sure that just holding on to that Leica with a Noctilux hanging off the front is reward in and of itself - its just a pleasure to own something that special, and I would never fault anyone for wanting to for that reason alone. I know I do - just as I know that a rolex will not make me more punctual than a timex, but there is a joy in feeling the craftsmanship and tradition contained in one vs the other. I just don't understand people who can't freely admit that, or see it as some shameful weakness and feel the need to veil it guises of technical deficiency of more "pedestrian" gear... (not suggesting you are one of them - just a general comment that fits the majority of the Grail hunters, or chasers of the various "magic bullets").</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Beuh B.,<br /> That Tomioka looks impressive. Do you have one? What's the best quality of that lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do have this lens -- in fact, I have three (I really like this optic!). I am not a lens tester or MTF fanatic but I feel like this lens deserves its high reputation. It's sharp even wide open and the bokeh is exceptionally beautiful. Maybe I will take a couple of pictures later today and post them.</p>

<p>Check out <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/02/great-50mm-lenses.html">this link</a> for a list of great 50mm lenses (one guy's opinion of course). Note that he lists the Canon 50 1.4 EF, which is essentially the same optical design as the FD 50 1.4 (per the Canon Camera Museum).</p>

<p>Here is a bit different thought....if you are sticking to a 50mm, I'd get some sort of rangefinder. If you shoot handheld, your results will be better (I know mine are) simply because there is no mirror flopping up and down. In screw mount, consider the Voightlander 50mm f1.5 (now discontinued) or one of the more modern Canons/Nikkors. I have a Canon f1.4 and it is pretty nice, but a bit big for a rangefinder (it is on a well used M2). The other screw mount I love is a Industar f2.8 on an FED2....it isn't supposed to be good, but it is. In the M world, it would be hard to go wrong with any Summicron or a Zeiss M. My next purchase will probably be an M3 with a Summicron-M or Zeiss f2.0. I've used a number of 70's era Japanese rangefinders, but I seem to make them break quickly so I gave up on them....they took great images, though.</p>

<p>Peter Galuszewski,<br>

Oh, now I have a flat tire or two! Thanks for the common sense reminders that yes, this is more about the satisfaction and fun of ownership than the actual printed output on paper. I do love the gears as part of the enjoyment of the hobby. And you are quite right on this too - I shoot film because it is fun, not because I think the output will be better than a new computerized camera. This is all just a wonderful amusement. Sometimes it's just fun to dream of a new toy and let practical matters of the world be put aside.</p>

<p>Bueh B.,<br>

Love to see your pics with that lens. I hope you get to post some.</p>

<p>Mark Fisher,<br>

I have a Bessa R (LTM) RF. I already put an Ultron 28mm on that one! Nice camera. And yes, there are some fabulous 50s available there. Really, REALLY spendy though.</p>

 

<p>Yes, as already indicated.. plus<br /> The Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f/2 was made in the following mounts. All of them are theoretically capable of being adapted for infinity focus on an FD camera, but I only have M42 and Nikon adapters in my own bag.</p>

<p><em><strong>Mounts of the Biotar</strong></em><br /> M42x1 (Contax S originally, later known as Praktica, Pentax or "universal")<br /> Exakta (inner bayonet mount, possible for FD though I only have EOS adapters)<br /> Praktina bayonet (adapters are theoretically possible)<br /> LTM - the only "Biotars" I personally know of in this mount are the Soviet version of the Biotar, the Helios 58mm f/2 lenses. LTM can be a adapted to M42 and then to something else. I don't remember off hand whether infinity focus is possible or not. I should also mention that not all "LTM" are really completely compatible with Leica - The Soviets and some others played around with M39x1 and other anomalies, such as slightly different flange distances.</p>

<p>There are other focal lengths, but they are much more costly. One of the best of all time, ever, is the Biotar 75mm f/1.5 lens. (Did I mention that I like Biotars and Planars, and other such double Gauss designs?).</p>

<p>There are also some super Sonnars from 50mm on up.</p>

<p>If the Voightlander 50mm is too spendy, try one of the black Canon 50mm. They are amazingly good and not all that expensive. An f1.8 (or is it 2.0?) is about $200 and the f1.4 is maybe $250-300. Honestly, you have to work really hard to find a bad 50 from any manufacturer. For your SLRs, they are dirt cheap so try the all....(:</p>

While I love the Tessars and you should definitely have one for your G1, I'd also look into the Sonnar 1.5 for the Contax and also available in LTM as the Jupiter 3. or the C/Y 1.4 Planar. It's very nice. Like JDM mentioned these double Gaussian designs are kind of neat to compare with their brothers; the Tessars.