Sharpest 50mm lens

[Ian Rance]

I have used many 50mm lenses, but only one has made my local lab ask me "what lens did these" and that lens was the Nikkor 50mm f2 K.

 

Ian, UK

[jeffpolaski]

Thanks, Dan. I never really paid much attention to lens sharpness. These days my camera holding isn't all that steady, and in my youth, well, you remember how we were in those days.

 

I never have been able to blame a bad photo on my equipment.

[patrick j dempsey]

Yeah Don, and in the U.S. so is going to a doctor. But I'm pretty sure that the cost of some of these lenses would buy me film and processing for a few years.

[vivek iyer]

<u>Any</u> 50mm is shaper than the current, atrociously priced and fuzzy plastic contraption being sold everywhere, called a 'lens-baby'.

<p>

For that matter any lens of any focal length is sharper! :)

[arjun_mehra]

My Zeiss 2/50 Pancolar (Exakta mount) is as sharp a lens as I've ever seen. That said, it's almost an unanswerable question you've asked. Hell, one lens might be great focused on infinity while another is phenomenal for macro work. Sure, there are good lenses and bad, but the, within any certain range, it's hard to make a decent call as to "best," and people always just end up playing favorites. Even lab. tests are a bit unreliable in that lenses vary in performance a little from piece to piece.

[don_e]

"But I'm pretty sure that the cost of some of these lenses would buy me film and processing for a few years."

 

For 35mm slrs, many 50mm lenses are exceptions to the rule: fast, sharp, and inexpensive -- you can only have two. The various Pentax 50mm 1:4s are given away with the body in auctions. Mine cost 42$ last year from KEH. That's maybe 2-4 rolls processed w/ 6x4s and a cd.

[Rob_the_waste]

This may seem a little off topic, but there are other variables that may come into effect. We have all these wonderful lenses where the quality control has been questioned. We have the way the cameras are used that has been questioned. One question that hasn't been asked yet is have all these different cameras been accurately collimated? I've had lenses perform differently on different camera bodies, only to find out the mirrors had to be adjusted on two.

[dan_fromm2]

Um, Rob, in the example you gave the bodies had to be adjusted but the lenses didn't need to be recollimated. With SLRs, where focusing is done through-the-lens, collimation, as long as the lens will focus at least to infinity, isn't that important. With RF cameras and cine cameras that are scale focused collimation is critically important.

 

A while ago I dismantled some aerial cameras, each of which had a pair of 38/4.5 Biogons. The lenses were marked with measured, not nominal, focal length to 0.1 mm and with flange-to-film distance to 0.01 mm. The cameras had no provision for focusing; instead there was a shim, with the lens' s/n and thickness marked to .01 mm, between lens and body. Those lenses were collimated to the body.

[pensacolaphoto]

I agree with most of you so far. I have done no formal sharpness testing, but I am not blind either.

 

 

 

My sharper lenses:

 

 

1. Pentax 50mm macro

 

2. Canon 50mm macro

 

3. Nikkor 5cm/2 RF LTM

 

4. 50mm/1.8 on the Konica IIIM RF

 

5. Pentax SMC 50mm/1.4

 

6. Zeiss Planar 50mm/1.8 and 1.4 for Roleiflex 35mm SLR

 

7. Nikkor SLR 50mm/2.0

 

8. Canon 50m/1.2L

[pensacolaphoto]

I forgot about listing the Planar 50mm/2 for the Contarex.

[pensacolaphoto]

Neil,

Where at photo.do can I access the lens sharpness listing? Thanks.

[alex macphee]

I don't know what the sharpest 50mm lens in the world is, because I haven't experience of them all, or even most of them. But I do know that of all the lenses I have used, my Zeiss Planars (I have both the 1.4 and the 1.7) take my breath away. They are fabulous.

[vidom]

1. What, exactly, do you mean with "sharpness"? Acutance? Resolution? Contrast? MTF? Photodo-ratings?

2. A forty year old Zeiss Planar for a Contarex is a wonderful lens, so is a 50 year old Contax Sonnar, but neither of them is famous for great wide open performance by modern standards. I know, I'm using all of them. A 4th gen. Summicron (M or R, it's the same cross section) blows them away. It is an entirely different question whether you like the performance as it is - old Zeiss lenses - any old lenses - may be great shooters, but that has nothing to do with "sharpness", whatever that may be.

3. Will you be able to see the difference?

[john carter]

I started wih a 50mm coated Elmar F3.5, then added a 50 F1.4 Super Takumar, the in 1970 on a whim I bought a Konica C35 with a f2.8 fixed lens. I was so happy with my cameras but I had no idea it would be down hill from there.

[shadowfox]

I'll join the fray in the never ending quest of the "sharpest" 50mm. I don't know if the lens I'm speaking of is the sharpest, maybe it is, maybe it's not, but it has to be somewhere up there with the best.

 

It's also one of the cheapest 50mm that practically fell into my lap.

 

The CZJ Biotar 58mm/2 in M42 mount.

[vincenzo_maielli]

The sharpest 50 mm lens, for me, are my Leitz Summicron 50 mm f/ 2 D.R. and the Contax Zeiss Planar 50 mm f/ 1,4 of my brother.

Ciao.

[brucecyr]

Mr. Currie's old.photodo.com list of 4.6 lenses omits at least one crucial entrant:

 

4.6 Lenses:

Contax Planar T* 50/1,7

Leica Summicron-M 1:2/50

Pentax-F 1:1.4/50

Pentax-F 1:2.8/50 Macro

 

I bought a sample of both the f1.7 and f1.4 Contax 50mm and decided to keep the former. I haven't been fortunated enough to try many of the other nominees, but I note that the old photodo site didn't get a chance to test the sterling new zooms, teles and super-wides coming out in recent years, some of which I believe have probably caught up with the grand old primes.

 

If you consider the nominees here and the stand-outs on old.photodo.com, you see that 35mm-100mm primes largely peaked out 30-40 years ago, and I don't think they've been notably topped -- maybe incremental improvements, but nothing overwhelming.

 

OTOH, zooms and non-normal (sub-wide and tele) primes have benefited from several decades of intensive computer-aided design and new materials and have shown remarkable improvements over the decades to the point where (major heresy here!) they rival normal primes.

[tri-x1]

Another vote for the 50mm f2 ai Nikkor (non ai wasn't bad either),

[casper_de_vos]

Oke, I asume that 55mm's can also join the contest.

I've used a lot of 50mm and 55mm lenses. My personal top 4:

 

1. Micro Nikkor 55/2.8. Watch out capturing skin with this one!

2. Vivitar 55/2.8 (Surprising eh?). Except wide open, this lens is on par with the micro Nikkor.

3. Rikenon 55/1.2. (also sold as Vivitar Series 1 and the newer version of the Revuenon 55/1.2). In fact, I believe this is not a true F/1.2 lens, I get exactly the same shutter speeds wide open as my Takumar at F/1.4). Resolution is excellent wide open.

4. SMC Takumar 50/1.4. Lovely lens, very sharp, even wide open. The Rikenon seems just a bit sharper though.

 

The macro's win this contest. They are not sharper at infinity but for closer objects they win.

 

I've heard that the older Micro Nikkor 55/3.5 and the Rikenon XR 50/2.0 are terribly sharp.

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Does the Canon FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical count as a 50mm lens? If so, it gets my vote for the sharpest non-macro. If not, I'd have to say that the honour goes to the EF 50/1.4. Sorry...</p>

<p>And yes, photography is a bourgeois art form. To wit, it's one of the few redeeming qualities of my class. </p>