Best legacy 50 f1.4 prime

I was thinking of the Canon FDn 50 f/1.4 as one good deal for ~80€ + adapter but then I heard of the Rokkor 50 f/1.4 as "one of the best 50mm ever made" and find it for ~50-70€ on eBay...

Now I want to ask only two questions:

When I am going to buy only one 50 mm prime, for which one should I go (max. 150€)? First I have seen some Olympus 1.8, then the Canon FDn 1.4 and now the Rokkor... every lens for between 50€ and 100€!

Is the SEL 50F18 in terms of picture quality anyhow comparable?

I had a Canon 50mm f1.4, then later had the opportunity to purchase a Minolta Rokkor PG 50mm f1.4. I found the Rokkor to be very slightly sharper and to render a better bokeh, as well as providing better colours. In one word, I found the Rokkor to have more character than the Canon, so I sold the Canon.

But I think it really is a matter of taste. I fully understand people claiming their love for their Canon : both are really good lenses.

As for the SEL50F18, the fact it has OSS allows to shoot in very low light, like the Canon and the Minolta f1.4 do. It has AF, which I sometimes find handy to say the least. Still, I usually find more pleasure focusing manually with the Rokkor. So I use both the SEL50F18 and the Rokkor, depending on the type of shooting I expect to do. For example, family gatherings will be covered with the Sony, important portraits with the Rokkor.

My 2 cents...

Marc

I recently picked up a like new, later (serial number > 1M) version of the Olympus 50/1.4. At f1.4 it was more than adaquately usuable. But at f2.8, I was astonished at the clarity and resolution. As an added plus, with the Oly>NEX adapter it is appreciably smaller and lighter than the Nikon/Canon offerings. Just my $0.02. YMMV.

Ed B.

You will get all sorts of replies here, depending on who has which lens. Between the two, Canon is sharper at all apertures and has better contrast wide open. Minolta  has smoother rendering of out of focus area and punchier colors.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/
http://verybiglobo.blogspot.com/

you might find this test helpful: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1161662/

--
hobbes

http://xkcd.com/386/

photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28476552@N04/

Yeah I love the stop at infinity and I hate the that E-mount lenses don't have one...

Actually the canon looks like the smallest?

OM MD FD

Thank you for the clarification, in this case (and because of the smaller adapter) I think I'll go with the Canon!

Am I right if I say the Canon is always sharper and has more contrast except in the corners? The Minolta is very crispy there!

Is this a Canon FDn or a FN? eBay

Could I say the difference is the silver ring? I think many FDn are marked as FD and sell much cheaper than the one which are marked as FDn...

I chose the Minolta Rokkor MC 50-1.4. It's very similar in performance to the later MD version, a bit heavier but rock-solid construction.  The adapter is simple and much easier to operate than the fiddly FD adapter.

The best legacy 50mm. f/1.4 lens I have ever experienced is the Contax/Yashica, Carl Zeiss Planar lens.  It's even sharper then my Leica R Simmilux 50mm. f/1.4 lens.  It cost a fraction of the price and is much lighter and smaller.  I now keep it on my camera most of the time.  You probably won't believe this but it is true.  I do small paintings which I can directly scan and print.  However, I found that I can photograph these small paintings with my NEX-7/Carl Zeiss f/1.4 lens., then scan the photo and print.  The photographed version seems sharper and brighter then the direct scan from the original, -which should not be possible.  This can also be a drawback as it can catch the drawing errors and glitches more easily that you hardly notice with the naked eye on the original painting.  I'm getting sharper images then when I used my Hasselblad for this purpose, and there is far less fuss doing it.  The 50mm. is about 75mm. on the NEX, I think, which is perfect for copy work.

Yes, look for those without silver ring. Officially there is no FDn signature. But it is all black and with a bayonet type mount (no silver breech lock).

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/
http://verybiglobo.blogspot.com/

Using a 1.53x crop factor, a 55mm is a little more than 84mm equivalency, which is close enough to 85mm to make me drool. I keep seeing threads about manual fifties, when a manual 55mm was my first thought once I saw focus peaking was a workable on the Nex-5n.

Thank you
Russell

The Konica Hexanon 57mm f1.4 is one of the best lenses available.  Try it, you'll like it.

Cheers,
GB

sounds about right though there apear to be a number of apertures where it is a little close to call one way or the other in the center. the test is not mine, but somebody else's who tends to have similar opinions to me about the lenses we've both shot with. i personally haven't shot with that canon, but also haven't seen anything to make we want it over the other ~50mm lenses i already have (rokkors, olympus, pentax, contax, leica, a different canon, etc).

--
hobbes

http://xkcd.com/386/

photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28476552@N04/

[1] wide open, [2] mid frame, [3] corners, and above all for general clarity; more contrast can be always added in PP

jpr2

--
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

Super-Takumar (M42 mount) is very good.

I wouldn't buy any of those, they are quite poor wide open.

SEL 50/1.8 is a lot better in almost every respect. It's hard to find as good lens cheaper than Sony.

This might be of interest http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1152763.html