Normal lens final act -or- I don't want to waste my life...

[enzo desiderio]

REQUEST

I put this before anything else, so you can give me the answers I seek

before reading all the stuff I've learned so far :) I wanted to write

this because maybe it could help others in making their own decisions,

but I would like to start this thread to gather all the information

needed on the subject, a kind of FAQ...

I would like to know your opinions about the sonnar vs planar designs

in terms of pro/cons and of general feeling of the lens and bokeh. If

you think that there's something wrong or something I missed in my

search, please tell me. Any suggestion/example image is really

appreciated!!!

 

 

PREMISE -1

Normal lens final act -or- I don't want to waste my life...

...trying to decide what to buy instead of shooting some rolls. As you

know I hope we all will agree that a lens can't change the quality of

a photo, it's the photographer that makes the difference. Don't want

to say more about that, it's obvious.

 

 

PREMISE -2

But when you have to buy a new lens you have to pay for it and so,

even if you're not an equipment feticist you usually want to buy

something that's the best you can get with the money you're willing to

spend. I needed a fast normal lens for my M3 and I did not want to

spend too much, so no Noctilux and no Summilux 1.4 Aspherical.

 

 

PREMISE -3

It's been a while since I began searching for that perfect lens,

cheap, fast, sharp and with a good bokeh. Of course I didn't find it

so I had to establish some priorities: cheap first, because if you

don't have the money, you can'y buy it, fast because I needed to do

some available light photography (handhold of course, it's an M3),

good bokeh because if you shoot nighttime you do it wideopen and the

"mood" it's something better to have than extreme sharpness (that is

not achievable by the way at low shutter times). By the way searching

for fast normals is way more fun than searching for f2 normals, as

there you have the easy choice of summicron (a later dual range one

seems to be the best for price/performance) or the new zeiss ikon

planar T*.

 

 

THE LENSES

I searched for all the available information on the net, now I can't

post all the links (it's easy to find 'em using google) but I've

browsed all the photo.net posts on that subject, photosig photos done

with that lenses, davidde, dantestella, erwin putts's site, a couple

of japanese sites testing the epson rd1 with various normal lenses

(nokton 40, 50, zeiss 50 zm, minolta-leica 40), pbase,

rangefinderforum, photozone, photodo, kensetsu camera collection,

cameraquest, a nice gallery comparing bokeh of leica 35 with 40 nokton

etc etc etc... At the end I had a nice list of possible lenses:

 

 

* Sonnar 7/3 designs:

 

- Canon 50 1.5

 

- Nikon 50 1.4

 

- Zeiss Jena Sonnar T 1.5

 

- Jupiter 3 50 1.5

 

From this group the clear winner for me is the Nikkor, as it focuses

down to 0.4mt (and not the usual 1mt), it's "optimized" for wide open

shooting (f2 optimum aperture) and it's sharper than the canon (but

the canon is contrastier, an usual tradeoff). The problem is that the

Nikkor is way more expensive and hard to find than the Canon, so that

one could be a reasonable choice too. Also the canon has more contrast

and it's less flat, something that many people could like but that I

don't need much as I usually post-process all my photos in photoshop

(and so having a flatter original that does not miss any detail could

be a plus, but I don't care much anyways). I like very much the mood

of the Jena Sonnar but it seems that it's really prone to flaring, and

it's hard to find too. The Jupiter 3 is a Sonnar replica and it can be

really a good lens, but there's too much variance between samples to

say anything about it. You have to be lucky, but cheap (but a Canon 50

1.8 can be almost as cheap, too)

 

 

* Planar 6/4 designs:

 

- Canon 50 1.8 - 1.4

 

- Canon 50 1.2 (7/5)

 

- Nokton 50 1.5 (Aspherical 6/5)

 

- Summilux 1.4 pre-asph (7/4)

 

 

- Nokton 40 1.4 (7/6)

 

Ok here the Nokton 50 and the Summilux are not really a

planar-replica (expecially the nokton is quite a bit different) and I

don't know anything about the design of the Nokton 40. All those

lenses seem to be sharper than the sonnar ones (the 1.2 being an

exception) and all seem to have worser bokeh (maybe the summilux is on

par but it's hard to compare bokeh). The Canon 50 1.2 is the less

sharp lens of the group and it does not have a good contrast too.

There are other designs like the older Summilux 1.2 that should be

better than the Canon 1.2 (any info/photos taken with that one btw?)

too, but I ruled out the 1.2 designs and faster because they are

always too expensive and/or too extreme and too bulky (with a poor

performance overall) and I still wanted a lens that could be kinda

nice stopped down a bit and that is not too big and intrusive. The

Canon 1.8 is good and cheap but it's a slower lens too, so that's

ruled out too. What we have then? The Summilux 1.4 that seems to be a

tiny bit less sharp than the Nokton 50 but that seems to have as far

as I can tell a nicer bokeh too (but it's more that twice the price of

the nokton too!!!) and the Nokton 40 that is both cheap, fast, small

and sharp but that has a really harsh bokeh in my opinion.

 

 

MY CONCLUSIONS

Now the choice is up to you. A modern lens or another with an

historical value? A clinically sharp lens or one with more "mood"? A

compact one or a bulkier but better one? I'll try to but a Nikkor 50

1.4, after all no owner of that lens seems to complain it or a Canon

1.5 if I find a really good deal. If I don't find one at a reasonable

price, I'll go for the Nokton 50 even if the 40 is tempting as it's

much nicer (imho) and smaller because I think it's a better lens, but

I may be wrong, I did not see a good comparison of the 50 vs the 40

and I don't know how well those lenses compare in terms of flare, for

example, that it's really important for night photography.

 

Thanks for reading.

[john_shriver]

The Nikon 50/1.4 isn't RF coupled beyond the bump. Well, it might have an accurate cam down to the 0.7 meter limit of a modified M3, but that's all you get. Plus, parallax is a bear by then. So don't view that as a "practical" plus. Leica RF's are not for close-ups.

 

Also, you can cheat any screw-mount 50mm lens to focus a little closer. Just start unscrewing it from the body. Since the cam and the lens optics move at the same rate on a 51.6mm lens, it will work. Just don't drop it!

 

I've done one test roll comparing my Canon 50/1.5 and 50/1.8 lenses. To put it simply, the differences are not glaring. I've only used a loupe on the negatives so far. I suspect the most obvious difference will be a little more softness in the corners at wide apertures on the 50/1.5. This contrast/resolution stuff is very subtle. I will try and post some scans in a few days.

[lutz]

Geez, Vincenzo. With all that effort put in you could have worked a day or two, bought the Nokton for $329, be happy and call it a day... :-) It's a good, fast, modern lens with pleasant bokeh. Once you outgrow it, sell it for $250 to me. (But I doubt you will. ;-)

[gp_.]

What Lutz said. Given the modern formulation, the fact that you can buy from a trusted vendor B&H and not have to take your chances with Ebay, it is a very good choice. Bokeh wide open is quite nice in my opinion. Sharp, good build quality. Tad wider than the lux, about the same length. Smaller than most people have made it out to be. The older screwmounts are good choices, but the question is condition and how much you need to put IN if it is not in hit the ground running condition.

[john_morris4]

"[The second group of lenses] all seem to have worser bokeh [than the Sonnars]."

 

This shows how subjective your tastes in bokeh can be. Some people really like the swirly look of out-of-focus backgrounds that a wide-open Sonnar can give you. Other people prefer a smoother look that doesn't attract attention to it (like the 50mm pre-asph Summilux and 50mm Nokton).

 

If you've only read (and not seen) that bokeh from one set of lenses is better than from the other, maybe you should get both a Nikkor 50 f/1.4 and a Nokton so you can see which YOU like.

[andrew_c2]

Got my 50 Nokton for $200. I have a Jupiter-3 as well for $50. They give both a 'newer' and 'older' look. Get the Nokton.

[john_morris4]

Use the Nokton with an empty filter ring instead of the shade that comes with it, and with a plain 52mm snap-on cap instead of the cap that fits the shade -- the lens will seem much smaller that way. It handles very nicely on an M3.

[enzo desiderio]

Yes that's the problem. I own just a summitar 35 2.8 for the leica M and all the other lenses I have are "new" (80, 120 T* Zeiss on the Hasselblad, various canon EF lenses the most beautiful ones being the 85 1.8 and the 200 2.8 for me etc...) so I don't know exactly what's the difference between old and new look, sonnar vs planar design. I've seen quite a couple of galleries but with photos taken in different conditions, by different people, with different films is hard to judge... You say that the sonnars have more distracting bokeh for example, I've found on many examples to be true the opposite, the Nokton and similar "more sharp" lenses usually give strong highlights in the OOF zones with the typical bright edges on the OOF circle. The summilux seems to be better (more smooth). I know what I want but I'm not sure what I'll get with a Nokton or a Nikkor. I know that both are fine lenses, so I just ended up thinking "let's try" with one of those. Can anyone here post an example of the difference between those two different schools? By the way, yes I should not care so much about all those things and just go for the Nokton probably, but probably everyone should do this and still I see threads and threads on this vs that here, so you can understand how a "big" decision is to buy another lens for many of use, that are shooters but that also enjoy talking about equipment. There's also an aesthetic and historic value too... The M3 is beautiful, the summilux and the nokton 40 are beautiful too, the nikon is history etc... Ok, ok, I'll but the nokton ;)

[paul_neuthaler]

Put a 50 Summicron, rigid or collapsible, on your M3, hold it tight for night shooting at 1:2 @ 1/15 -- you'll be fine.

[range_flounder]

Paul has a good point; you'll be surprised at how far f/2 can go. But if you want a tip on a good Nikkor, kevincameras.com (no affiliation) has an SC-Nikkor for $275 with a minor cleaning mark/scratch. I was going to go for it, but got a Nokton.

 

I would try to find a used Nokton for $250.

[andy m.]

I never intended to become a bokeh fanatic, but the two examples below are from a concave tabbed Summicron 50 (left) and a Nikkor 50 F1.4 SLR lens. I have posted these previously.<p>

 

Surely no one prefers the right hand example... The Summicron (left) looks nice (to me)<p> The Nikkor is a very nice sharp lens and I appreciate that this aspect of image rendering is unimportant to many.

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3233483-lg.jpg">

[scott_mcloughlin]

Nokton is a good value. I have one. Doubling and rings and what not in OOF areas is a real issue if you care about stuff like that. I do, so I'll eventually replace it, but I'm taking my time considering the options. Speed isn't all that important for me, so current top contenders that have been recommended to me are: Nikkor 1.5, DR Summicron, current 50/2.8, current 50/2, non-ASPH Summilux.

[douglas k.]

You really put this much thought into choosing a normal lens? Do you have any time left for taking pics?

[range_flounder]

Andy,

 

If I'm not mistaken, the 50/1.4 Nikkor F slr lens has a totally different configuration than the SC-Nikkor, which was around 10 years older. The SC's is a Sonnar design that's been stretched for wide-open, close-up focusing.

[andy m.]

Hi Range,<p>

 

Yes, I was aware of that. The SC-Nikkor is a very desirable lens, the SLR variant is far easier to obtain. I very rarely see the SC/1.4 Nikkor for sale in the UK and it is normally expensive. <p>

I posted the images just to try to illustrate what I feel is real issue, not just photographer neurosis, as some feel. <p>

 

Cheers, A

[peter_evans4]

<p>There are also the Canon 50/1.4, Konica 50/1.2 (M-mount), Konica

60/1.2 (LTM), Simlar/Topcon 50/1.5, and others besides. Gotta keep

things complicated: while thinking about these deep matters, one is

actually saving money (by not consuming film).</p>

[enzo desiderio]

I've listed the Canon 1.4 in the planar-like section, the Konica ones are hard to find and I don't know about the quality of the Topcor/Leotax lenses

[peter_evans4]

OK, but you forgot to put the Canon 50/1.4 in your list above. The

Hexanon 50/1.2 seems to be excellent, from what people have said about

it here. The Hexanon 60/1.2 seems little known; I guess most were

bought up by rich fondlers in Japan. The Simlar/Topcor(/Leotax?) 50/1.5

is said to be Sonnarish; all I know for sure is that it's heavy even for a

fast old brass lens.

[furcafe]

The Jena 50/1.5 Sonnars are no more prone to flare than the 50/1.4 Nikkor-S (or the W. German Zeiss Opton/Carl Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnars).

 

---------------------

 

"I like very much the mood of the Jena Sonnar but it seems that it's really prone to flaring . . ."

[john_shriver]

OK, as promised, here come some responses with pictures through two of the lenses in question. All are taken on Ilford 100 Delta Professional film, exposed at an EI of 50, and developed at the Ilford data sheet times for EI 50 in Ilford Ilfotec DD-X developer. Metering incident with a freshly calibrated Gossen Lunapro. Camera Canon IV-SB2, I've never tested the shutter speeds, but it sounds great. Scanner Nikon Coolscan IV, no unsharp masking. Only adjustment was black point, otherwise a completly straight scan, no curves manipulation.<div></div>

[john_shriver]

Now stop down a stop.<div></div>

[john_shriver]

Now switch lenses. This is the early heavy chrome Canon Lens 50mm f/1.8, although they are all supposed to be the same formula.<div></div>

[john_shriver]

I'm ready for my close-up now. These are crops of the center, at my scanner's full 2900 pixels/inch resolution. Back to the 50/1.5.<div></div>

[john_shriver]

Now at f/2.0.<div></div>

[john_shriver]

Now back to the f/1.8 lens. Sorry, I botched the focus on this one, I'm not a very good tripod when I stoop. So I swung the crop over to the frog's side, where the in-focus area is.<div></div>