Master 50mm thread.

[subimatt]

trying to compile threads where various 50's have been tested.

Bens done the L v 1.4 Test
We did the L v Sigmalux Test
Shawns done a 1.4 v Pentax Test
Bens done a test with his Oly 50.

If you see any, link em and we can organize it a bit better perhaps. Id love to see how many 50s we can compare across all systems.

Plus this which someone needs to buy.

Zeiss Planar ZE 1.4 50mm

[_L_U_C_A_]

Zeiss Planar ZE 1.4 50mm

Who in their right mind would drop $600 for a manual focus 50mm 1.4?

*flame suit on*

[case sensitive]

have you not met matt?

[subimatt]

Who in their right mind would drop $600 for a manual focus 50mm 1.4?

*flame suit on*

have you not met matt?

Im not really a MF guy but im really curious on the optics quality. Bens oly is noticably sharper than any 50 ive seen. Thats an old MF lens too.

[Jerome]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...E.html#reviews

The reviews got me curious...

[jacobsen1]

you considering the zeiss matt?

and yeah, my $100 50mm is the sharpest lens I've seen.

[subimatt]

you considering the zeiss matt?

and yeah, my $100 50mm is the sharpest lens I've seen.

Not really considering, but curious. Would love to play with one and it would be fun to have a MF only lens. But not in the budget right now.

[jacobsen1]

right, that ~$3k burning a hole in your pocket is set aside for the 85L and 35L.

go buy a cheap alternative option and an adapter. For <$100 you'll be able to see if the MF issue is worth it...

[subimatt]

pretty much then ill be one off from the so called holy trinity.

[_L_U_C_A_]

go buy a cheap alternative option and an adapter. For <$100 you'll be able to see if the MF issue is worth it...

Or you could just flick the AF button to MF for free....

[jacobsen1]

pretty much then ill be one off from the so called holy trinity.

right, because having that means something?

and Luca, it's different, trust me. First off, why MF an AF lens unless you must? Second, the old school (or Zeiss) MFs are sharper, so they make the forced MF worth it, third, if AF is there, even for a test, you end up using it... or at least that's how it works for me.

[_L_U_C_A_]

I see what your saying I can see how you could just get frustrated with it and flick back to AF. I thought your context was more along the lines to see if you even like MF'ing all the time... I just figured you could save yourself $100 if your just wanting to "play around" with MF.

But realistically, how much more sharper are these MF lens to trade off for an AF lens? I would consider all new present day 50mm's to be very satisfactory for sharpness, and once you run it through PS for sharpening, how could you ever tell the difference?

[jacobsen1]

I just figured you could save yourself $100 if your just wanting to "play around" with MF.

right, but this is Matt we're talking about.

But realistically, how much more sharper are these MF lens to trade off for an AF lens? I would consider all new present day 50mm's to be very satisfactory for sharpness, and once you run it through PS for sharpening, how could you ever tell the difference?

a lot sharper, but the colors/contrast are that much not as good.
yes, I would too.
and yeah, how noticable is it in prints?

but yeah, when you pixel peep, you'd be surprised. Go load the shots at the end of my sigmalux review in full res and check them out. The flare in the olympus shot makes it even worse contrast/color wise, but it's still significantly sharper which is pretty amazing considering.

[subimatt]

right, but this is Matt we're talking about.

I honestly dont see myself buying one, but id really like to try it.

[PhatheadWRX]

a.. HEM


[ame="http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11906"]Canon 50mm f/1.4 vs. Canon 50mm f/1.8 - NSOP Forums[/ame]

[sevendhappy]

I'm not good at reviewing lenses, but the Oly Zuiko 50mm f2 I have seems very, very sharp to my eye. DPR seems to think the lens is pretty sharp as well. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._o20/page4.asp

[_L_U_C_A_]

but yeah, when you pixel peep, you'd be surprised.

dude my surprise-o-meter just went overload.... That olympus is really ****ing sharp for old glass.





Even closely pixle peeping between the sigma and the olympus, its a tossup... some spots of the focused area look idential in sharpness and in a few spots the sigma is just a hair off on sharpness (setting aside the flares from the oly)

Its no question that the sigma is king of the 50mm lens world.

[subimatt]

remember the canon is back focused on Bens camera, so your looking at an oof area on the L.

[jacobsen1]

yeah, that and there's 2 from the canon, one at 1.2 and one at 1.4 to make it fair. The canon wasn't that far off on the sign in this series though if I remember matt, not like the backpack shots.... But it you peep these again Luca, check the sticker of the chick's face as that's where you can see the huge difference in front/back focus and then the wood grain of the pole behind the signs.

Matt, next time you're in RI, we need to redo these (just the wide open shots) with all three LIVEVIEWED and w/o the flare on the oly to give it a good run. The other thing everyone forgets is the SIZE of the oly, it's smaller than a canon 1.8.

but yeah, you can argue the siggy -vs- the canon and front/back focus issues all anyone wants as those 2 lenses are very close. The OLY SMOKES either in sharpness w/o a doubt. It really is an amazing lens. And for $100 WITH the adapter.

[_L_U_C_A_]

We need somebody to buy this nifty fifty.

http://mediacogs.com/post/92361184/c...a-famous-zeiss

[jacobsen1]

f/.7?

I thought f/.95 was fast.....

[subimatt]

omfg!

[collegedropout]

We need somebody to buy this nifty fifty.

http://mediacogs.com/post/92361184/c...a-famous-zeiss

f/.7?

I thought f/.95 was fast.....

I think it's a Motion Picture Lens...


and has anyone had a Chance at the Carl Zeiss ... b/c I need a nifty fifty....

[thomps6s]

I just ordered an F/-.05

You can shoot in a light sealed room at iso400 1/75th nothing is in focus, but that doesn't matter.

[astockwell]

Here is mine...One of mine. I have a SMC-A 1.8 I need to do a test on sometime. And do one on my FA.

This is the DPreview test
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/

[BobbyT]

I just ordered an F/-.05

You can shoot in a light sealed room at iso400 1/75th nothing is in focus, but that doesn't matter.

[Idjiit]

Surely I posted a review of the 50mm f/1.4G?

[astockwell]

Oh and I will be picking up a Rikenon (Ricoh) RK 50mm 1.7 here soon. So another old glass review coming. Supposedly one of the sharpest 50's ever made, and the things are unknown and cheap. There are two on ebay right now for less than $40.

[Angelo]

I guess this is as good a thread to post in as any.

I want a 50mm prime bad, and the Zeiss has been sitting in my shopping cart all day. I'm not a pixel peeper, but some of the bokeh I see is really, really bad. Other times it looks incredible. Pleh. I think I can live with MF only, and otherwise the IQ of the lens is fantastic, but I tend to shoot at pretty big apertures, so crappy bokeh is not a good idea.

For a little bit less, there's the Siggy, but I seriously feel like it's a bad idea because of the QC issues. A good 'copy' is a thing to behold, though, and it's nice that it can use the same filters as most 'pro' lenses (77mm thread).

I used to have the Canon 1.4 (Saad has it now)... it's a good lens, but it's not phenomenal. It's definitely consistent, though.

Then there's the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro and the Canon 1.2L, which are both way out of my price range.

Blargh.


-A

[thomps6s]

Buy the Sigma knowing it will go to repair and be happy. I love mine.

[subimatt]

I guess this is as good a thread to post in as any.

I want a 50mm prime bad, and the Zeiss has been sitting in my shopping cart all day. I'm not a pixel peeper, but some of the bokeh I see is really, really bad. Other times it looks incredible. Pleh. I think I can live with MF only, and otherwise the IQ of the lens is fantastic, but I tend to shoot at pretty big apertures, so crappy bokeh is not a good idea.

For a little bit less, there's the Siggy, but I seriously feel like it's a bad idea because of the QC issues. A good 'copy' is a thing to behold, though, and it's nice that it can use the same filters as most 'pro' lenses (77mm thread).

I used to have the Canon 1.4 (Saad has it now)... it's a good lens, but it's not phenomenal. It's definitely consistent, though.

Then there's the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro and the Canon 1.2L, which are both way out of my price range.

Blargh.


-A

Didnt you just get a 5d2?


Micro Adjust is your friend.

[Angelo]

Buy the Sigma knowing it will go to repair and be happy. I love mine.

Yeah, but... I want to buy the Sigma and use it, not buy the Sigma and then have to wait to use it.

Didnt you just get a 5d2?


Micro Adjust is your friend.

I did, but I'm under the impression that Ben found the back/front focus issues weren't consistent with regard to ... well, anything?

All of PoTN is telling me to go with the Sigmalux, too.


-A

[subimatt]

sigmalux or the L

[Markitos]

You can wring your hands over the focus issues of the Sigmalux all day, or you can go out and shoot with it and be happy that you spent less than half of what the 50 f/1.2L costs and still have a pretty good lens. I find that it consistently front-focuses on my 5D, but only close to MFD, and is perfect on my 1D3 with no microadjustment. Once I get away from MFD, it's fine.

[Angelo]

I guess so. I just feel that for the Sigmalux's price, I shouldn't have to worry about that, you know? If it were a $100 lens, okay, I'd let the QC issues slip.

Me and my silly expectations that products do what they're supposed to do!


-A

[thomps6s]

I understand where you are coming from and had the EXACT same feelings. After trying a canon 50mm f/1.4 and noticing the terrible CA at 1.4, I knew there was no way i was going to buy that canon lens.
I bought the sigma, had to send it in, had it back a week later and haven't looked back. It's just an amazing lens.