cedric_thevenaz Posted October 10, 2001 Share Posted October 10, 2001 Good day and thanks in advance. I have read the very few previous posts on this lens vs. the older 50 or the newer 65, but they were not entirely conclusive. Would you permit me to ask another. I shoot landscape / cityscape, have the 110, like 24mm in 35 format, wish to purchase a wide angle - preferrably the 50 ULD (since it is apparently improved upon the older 50). But I have heard that the 65 is an excellent lens, better than the old 50 in terms of sharpness, etc. How is the newer 50ULD in comparison to the 65 in terms of corner to corner sharpness, infinity sharpness, contrast, etc.? Again, previous posts on this lens were brief, some 'assuming', and not entirely conclusive, and therefore I would like to gather more definitive info. on this lens, which would help me and perhaps others who may contemplate the 50 ULD. Thanks again. Cedric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrico_pocopagni1 Posted October 10, 2001 Share Posted October 10, 2001 Hi Cedric, before every other consideration, I think a moderate wideangle and a super wideangle are not comparable in terms of perspective and of general useage. Exactly, optical performances have different meanings and tastes for the different lenses. Talking about optical performances, old 50 wasn't that bad: optimal color rendition and sharness at mid distance. For my personal taste, and considering that a "lens character" rather than a true flaw, it was a bit soft at infinity, so I sold it and bought a used 50 ULD. It's still in trip from U.S. to Italy. I hope it arrives quick and it's as better as I heard about. Here you can see some samples of old 50 performances: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=149557. Greetings. Enrico Pocopagni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredlee70x7 Posted October 10, 2001 Share Posted October 10, 2001 Hi Cedric, I won't be able to answer your question and I'm exactly in the same position as you. Without waiting for more advices from this forum, I ate the bullet and have just ordered the 50 ULD lens from Robert White in UK. I'm not unhappy with 65, actually I don't own it. My decision on 50 ULD over 65 is because I think a wider lens will be more suitable for general landscape especially for mountain shots. Who knows I may add the 65 lens later. I'll stay tuned to any comments/answer to your questions although they will not change my plan of buying the the newer 50 ULD instead of the 65! Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_kaskan Posted October 10, 2001 Share Posted October 10, 2001 Hello; I just bought a 65 f4L-A, as I couldn't afford the 50 ULD. The 65L-A is a superb lens! (It is the newer 65 - with the floating element.) I'm saving for the 50ULD as the 65 is not wide enough in some instances. Cheers, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_harrison Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 I don't know how you might get "conclusive" information on this, but in any case you're going about it the wrong way: rather than balancing the technical merits of the 50 ULD and the 65, surely you have to decide what angle of view your work necessitates. I have the 65 and it's excellent, better than the standard 50 - but I use both about equally according to circumstances, and on the printed page there is little to choose between them. I believe the 50 ULD is better than my standard 50, and if I had the spare cash I'd buy it - but it's not a priority. Do you need a wide angle, or a semi-wide angle? Decide first, then (if it's WA) get the standard 50 in the full knowledge that stopped-down well it will turn in repro-quality results - or if you have the money, by all means go for the ULD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cedric_thevenaz Posted October 11, 2001 Author Share Posted October 11, 2001 Hello Enrico, Fred, Peter and Anthony: Thanks already for your kind responses, I appreciate them all. As you can see though from the way this thread is going, it is exactly like any of the previous threads on this site regarding this lens. I.e. no one is commenting who has actually really used it. All of your comments and previous comments are useful, don't get me wrong, its just that I'm hoping someone will step in who actually HAS this lens and is actually USING this lens. I guess I'm just hoping for a confirmation that this lens truly is a worthy successor to the old 50 and rivals the 65, plus any technical details on its characteristics and operation. Again, thank you all very very much, and here's to hopefully getting some actual feedback on ACTUAL USAGE OF THE ULD 50mm f4.5. Happy days! Cedric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredlee70x7 Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 Coincidently almost all of your the responses said : "Choose your lens based on the angle of view you need not by individual lens quality you expect". This sounds common sense in photography. The 50 ULD lens I ordered through Robert White came today. Hopefully I can bring this out and shoot several roll to see its effect in the next while. However, I'll be busy this time and not sure when I can make a time out (I'm not a professional but an amateur only). Unfortunately, I don't also own the 65 nor the older 50 lenses. So direct comparison is not possible. But I'll be one of those few lukcy guys who actually uses this 50 ULD and gives yhou come subjective comments later. BTW, there is not much price difference between the 50 ULD and 65, may be less than a hundred British pounds. Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_may Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 Fred - any results yet? Like Cedric and the others I'm considering switching. I have the standard 50 and am not happy at all with the shrpness at infinity nor the light falloff (I take primarily landscapes in the everglades and have lots of vast landscapes off to the horizon and vast skys). Maybe it's ok for pub, but for hanging on the wall it's not so great. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrico_pocopagni1 Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 Hi, Tom. I too was unsatisfied with the infinite sharpness of old 50. In addition, some recent shots showed a prominent barrel distortion. So, with a favourable circumstance on e-bay I switched to to 50 ULD. Improvement is evident to the naked eye, and is not limited to the sharpness, but it involves saturation and straightness too. I'm very happy with the change. For some samples you can check my 50 folder. Happy new year! Enrico Pocopagni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredlee70x7 Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Hi Cedric and Tom, Sorry for not "feedbacking" my experience earlier on using the new 50ULD. I did take a few chromes with it and I totally agreed that this lens gives very sharp image with accurate color rendition. Since I don't have 65 or older 50, I cannot make any comparison. But I'm very satisfied with the 50 ULD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_collard Posted February 15, 2002 Share Posted February 15, 2002 Hello All, I have owned both versions of the 50 and the current 65. The new 50 is better that the old one all around. It is a very nice lens, very sharp. The new 65 is awesome as well. You will be happy with either one of the new versions. Base you lens selection on how wide you need to go not just sharpness. The 65 is not really wide enough for some landscapes. Have fun and go shoot. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now