Legacy 50mm options

I'm looking at getting a manual focus, fast (1.2 or 1.4) ~ 50mm lens for portraits and low-DOF work. There's a bewildering array of choices out there so I'd like to get some comments/suggestions.

I'm looking to spend $200 max and I'd like to get good sharpness and minimal ghosting/CA wide open. It would be great if it were really compact as well. I'll be using it with a GF1.

The problem with using 50mm legacy primes for portraits is that most 50mm primes were not designed for pleasant bokeh. Film is a lot more forgiving for harsh bokeh, I've found.

Exceptions include the Pentax SMC-Takumar 50/1.4, the Zeiss Ikon 50/1.4 Planar T* and Zeiss 50/2 Planar T*, Rokkor MC 58/1.2 and of course the Leica 50 summicrons/summiluxes.

Of these, the SMC-Tak and the Rokkor are going to be the most affordable, but I have yet to find a fast prime that doesn't bloom wide open on a MFT camera. I usually stop down my SMC-Tak to f/2, at which point it disappears altogether and sharpens up a lot.

SMC-Tak at f/2:

I'm currently looking for an hexanon 50mm f/1.4. They're pretty much similar. I've seen lots of pics from different 50mm and unless they're really old and in bad shape, 50mm is not a lens where I'd spend a lot of money.

I'd just get one and then try others while you have at least one.

Not really much for giving advice but I can show you what can be done with a Pentax 50mm 1.4 Ken

Try C-mount computar 50mm 1.3, sharp enough to scratch your eyes out wide open, creamy bokeh... stopped down specular high lights should be avoided as it has a triangular aperture; sell for $50± on e~pay. C- mount fujinon 50mm 1.4 a sweet lens; sells $100 on e~pay (needs slight modification to fit adapter).

Voldenuit said:

The problem with using 50mm legacy primes for portraits is that most 50mm primes were not designed for pleasant bokeh. Film is a lot more forgiving for harsh bokeh, I've found.

Exceptions include the Pentax SMC-Takumar 50/1.4, the Zeiss Ikon 50/1.4 Planar T* and Zeiss 50/2 Planar T*, Rokkor MC 58/1.2 and of course the Leica 50 summicrons/summiluxes.

Click to expand...

Here we would need a definition of "harsh bokeh". In my experience some of the lenses mentioned above produces bright ring around background OOF highlights. Maybe the Planar 50/2 Macro is different (I haven't tried it) but from samples the bokeh can be really busy. The Zeiss Ikon 50/1.4 is unknown to me.

The one lens differing a bit is the Summicron-R 50/2 which shows the least of this. Real bad for bokeh is are the Takumar and Pentax 50/1.4 lenses which all show worse background bokeh than foreground bokeh.

Voldenuit said:

Of these, the SMC-Tak and the Rokkor are going to be the most affordable, but I have yet to find a fast prime that doesn't bloom wide open on a MFT camera. I usually stop down my SMC-Tak to f/2, at which point it disappears altogether and sharpens up a lot.

Click to expand...

The Rokkor 58/1.2 is pretty much OK (with regards toblooming) showing medium contrast and resolution wide open. The Takumars (with their wonderful feel to them) are probably the worst.

(And don't make me start on LoCA problems with these lenses.)

Jonas

Ari Mallare said:

I'm looking at getting a manual focus, fast (1.2 or 1.4) ~ 50mm lens for portraits and low-DOF work. There's a bewildering array of choices out there so I'd like to get some comments/suggestions.

I'm looking to spend $200 max and I'd like to get good sharpness and minimal ghosting/CA wide open. It would be great if it were really compact as well. I'll be using it with a GF1.

Click to expand...

So, you want a small, sharp, super fast high contrast 50mm lens with good bokeh for portraits with low CA and it shouldn't cost more than USD 200. Hmm.

I don't think al that is possible. If somebody corrects me I'm in the market as well.

Jonas

Jonas B said:

Here we would need a definition of "harsh bokeh". In my experience some of the lenses mentioned above produces bright ring around background OOF highlights. Maybe the Planar 50/2 Macro is different (I haven't tried it) but from samples the bokeh can be really busy. The Zeiss Ikon 50/1.4 is unknown to me.

The one lens differing a bit is the Summicron-R 50/2 which shows the least of this. Real bad for bokeh is are the Takumar and Pentax 50/1.4 lenses which all show worse background bokeh than foreground bokeh.

Click to expand...

Well, the SMC-Tak still produces rings on highlights (see my sample pic), but that doesn't stop it from producing a very smooth background in the pic I posted, even with vegetation (which is a challenge for any lens). It also has a very smooth transition of focus into blur. Compared to, say, the CV 40/1.4 (another lens often suggested as a fast portrait prime hereabouts), it's a totally different experience.

As for LoCA, isn't that more a macro distance worry? My SMC-Tak doesn't focus closer than 1.5 ft, and I've never seen any LoCA at minimum distance with it. I've been shopping for macro lenses on Canon EF of late, so I've seen plenty of bad LoCA on macro lenses.

Here's a very interesting shoot-out of normal primes (with bokeh tests):

http://www.pbase.com/carpents/nls

My own lens, a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar (apparently it is slightly different from the SMCs, my bad) came up 4th.

Voldenuit said:

Jonas B said:

Here we would need a definition of "harsh bokeh". In my experience some of the lenses mentioned above produces bright ring around background OOF highlights. Maybe the Planar 50/2 Macro is different (I haven't tried it) but from samples the bokeh can be really busy. The Zeiss Ikon 50/1.4 is unknown to me.

The one lens differing a bit is the Summicron-R 50/2 which shows the least of this. Real bad for bokeh is are the Takumar and Pentax 50/1.4 lenses which all show worse background bokeh than foreground bokeh.

Click to expand...

Well, the SMC-Tak still produces rings on highlights (see my sample pic), but that doesn't stop it from producing a very smooth background in the pic I posted, even with vegetation (which is a challenge for any lens). It also has a very smooth transition of focus into blur. Compared to, say, the CV 40/1.4 (another lens often suggested as a fast portrait prime hereabouts), it's a totally different experience.

Click to expand...

Oh, the CV40/1.4 can surely be used, as long as you are thinking about the background. So can the Pentax lenses. One sample is not enough. There is so much coming to play with all relative shooting distances.

Voldenuit said:

As for LoCA, isn't that more a macro distance worry? My SMC-Tak doesn't focus closer than 1.5 ft, and I've never seen any LoCA at minimum distance with it. I've been shopping for macro lenses on Canon EF of late, so I've seen plenty of bad LoCA on macro lenses.

Click to expand...

LoCA.. the Pentax lenses has problems with this, no doubt. It doesn't show up, by natural reasons, that much when shooting greenary. Check high contrast areas in distant backgrounds. To be fair this is a problem with many 50mm lenses.

Voldenuit further said:

Here's a very interesting shoot-out of normal primes (with bokeh tests):

http://www.pbase.com/carpents/nls

My own lens, a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar (apparently it is slightly different from the SMCs, my bad) came up 4th.

Click to expand...

I know Carpents since my Pentax days. Back when he made that shoot-out he was a Pentax fan (and later switched to Nikon FF). As you can see there were 11 Pentax lenses in the start field (out of 16). The competition was not that hard as several well known names are missing totally.

But everything depends on what you are looking for. Sometimes very smooth bokeh can be less desirable, sometimes it doesn't matter and the few times I have managed to get myself a keeper nobody has commented on rendering subtles.

regards,

Jonas

Jonas B said:

Voldenuit said:

Jonas B said:

Here we would need a definition of "harsh bokeh". In my experience some of the lenses mentioned above produces bright ring around background OOF highlights. Maybe the Planar 50/2 Macro is different (I haven't tried it) but from samples the bokeh can be really busy. The Zeiss Ikon 50/1.4 is unknown to me.

The one lens differing a bit is the Summicron-R 50/2 which shows the least of this. Real bad for bokeh is are the Takumar and Pentax 50/1.4 lenses which all show worse background bokeh than foreground bokeh.

Click to expand...

Well, the SMC-Tak still produces rings on highlights (see my sample pic), but that doesn't stop it from producing a very smooth background in the pic I posted, even with vegetation (which is a challenge for any lens). It also has a very smooth transition of focus into blur. Compared to, say, the CV 40/1.4 (another lens often suggested as a fast portrait prime hereabouts), it's a totally different experience.

Click to expand...

Oh, the CV40/1.4 can surely be used, as long as you are thinking about the background. So can the Pentax lenses. One sample is not enough. There is so much coming to play with all relative shooting distances.

Click to expand...

I guess what I was trying to say was that ringing in highlights doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the bokeh characteristics will be bad. For instance, the 20/1.7 has less ringing than the S-M-C-Takumar in highlights, but no one will deny that the 20 has far busier bokeh. Similarly, my PL45/2.8 has almost no ringing on highlights even up to f/5.6, but I'd place its overall bokeyness next to the Takumar's (which I happen to like).

Jonas B said:

LoCA.. the Pentax lenses has problems with this, no doubt. It doesn't show up, by natural reasons, that much when shooting greenary. Check high contrast areas in distant backgrounds. To be fair this is a problem with many 50mm lenses.

Click to expand...

Hm... I've seen lots of CA in high contrast scenes, I thought that was a separate issue from LoCA (which I thought is dependent on distance from focal plane?). But yeah, high contrast scenes are definitely something I'm careful about shooting with the SMC-Tak.

Jonas B said:

I know Carpents since my Pentax days. Back when he made that shoot-out he was a Pentax fan (and later switched to Nikon FF). As you can see there were 11 Pentax lenses in the start field (out of 16). The competition was not that hard as several well known names are missing totally.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to pass off Carpenter's test as a recommendation or objective assessment of the Pentax lenses, just to present some comparable examples of what the OP might be looking for in a fast prime.

I do agree that expectations of using fast legacy normal primes as a portrait lens have to be realistic. I don't think anyone is expecting a Canon 85/1.2L equivalent here. But there are plenty of lenses which, as you say, can produce acceptable results in the right circumstances (and the ones with wider latitude to said circumstances are definitely appreciated).

Voldenuit said:

Jonas B said:

LoCA.. the Pentax lenses has problems with this, no doubt. It doesn't show up, by natural reasons, that much when shooting greenary. Check high contrast areas in distant backgrounds. To be fair this is a problem with many 50mm lenses.

Click to expand...

Hm... I've seen lots of CA in high contrast scenes, I thought that was a separate issue from LoCA (which I thought is dependent on distance from focal plane?). But yeah, high contrast scenes are definitely something I'm careful about shooting with the SMC-Tak.

Click to expand...

Yes - I should proof read before posting.

I was thinking of situations were you focus onto something in the foreground, let's say a person in the street. Then you'll find a lot of CA in the background and in combination busy background (as we often have when shooting in the streets) the result can be offending (or not a problem, it depends on the beholder).

Unfortunately this is true also for many well known good lenses, like the Olympus ZD 59/2 Macro.

I snipped the rest of the message as I think we agree more or less on those parts.

regards,

Jonas

asking for Sharp wide open with minimal CA and yet only 200 budget and a fsat aperture of f/1.2 or 1.4 and in an old lens is IMHO a bit over expecting values .. In short, you got what you pay for ..

This question, well, had been asked multiple times , so I would ask you to re-read previous threads about the lens, but let me say that any decent old 50mm standard lens ( for film around 50mm ) is reasonably good enough, shape enough. But just do not expect then to be tack sharp at 1.2 or 1.4 and yet deliver CA free or minimal amount of so .. even the mighty Zeiss and Leica shown CA and softness ( yes I had try them both ) Its just a matter of the degree of softness ( or sharpness ) and type and amount of CA ( and might differ a lot depending on shooting situation )

For the mark, I say for the budget, go getting a 50mm of f/2.0 range made a lot more sense and with most nominal shooting , even 2.0 is giving shallow enough DOF

--

• Franka -

As others have said, maybe a bit unrealistic given the budget. Now... excuse me for maybe hijacking the thread just a tad, but how just a legacy manual focus fast (1.2-1.8) 50mm lens on the same budget, caring only about getting the most sharpness, preferably wide open or at least at 2.0? Any takers?

I think I got lost somewhere in the discussion....

I'm not expecting everything in my wishlist to be fulfilled but I'm looking for the best compromise. To that end, I got an 50mm f1.4 SMC Takumar from KEH and we'll see how that goes. I figure it's a cheap enough gamble to take. I do realize that I'm gonna have to stop down to at least f2 but the size, price and (hopefully) the bokeh are enough to offset that.....

Are there any other lenses worth checking out?? I figure that I can collect a few, decide on one, then sell the rest without too much lost..... I'm taking a liking to the 58mm f1.2 Rokkor but they're hard to find and kinda pricey......

This manual focus video review might help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPbqhFt_oY

--
GF1 & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

I've got a Canon FD 50mm 1.4 for 25$ and am really happy with it!

Only a couple lenses faster then f1.4 will meet your budget.

For 1.4's you'll have several, but the only 1.2s I can think of but does well, is the Canon FD SSC F1.2.
There's some aspherical versions out, but they cost more.

There's a 50 and 55mm version, supposedly one had better bokeh and one was a touch sharper. I did weeks of research without definite answers and went with the 55mm.



I don't mind the busy-ish bokeh - it depends heavily on your background to be sure.

It's pretty clear wide open. Soft, but details are captured. from 1.4 to 2.0 it's extremely sharp.

There's the OM lenses - I love the Macro 3.5, and the OM f1.8, but the OM f1.4 left me wanting, and I've read from several locations that the OM f1.2 isn't any clearer.

hexanon and nikon 57/50mm costs ~ $600.

the nikon 50mm f1.4 doesn't get much love - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50f14ai.htm

Ari Mallare said:

I'm looking at getting a manual focus, fast (1.2 or 1.4) ~ 50mm lens for portraits and low-DOF work. There's a bewildering array of choices out there so I'd like to get some comments/suggestions.

I'm looking to spend $200 max and I'd like to get good sharpness and minimal ghosting/CA wide open. It would be great if it were really compact as well. I'll be using it with a GF1.

Click to expand...

As someone mentioned previously, you're expecting too much for too little money. The 50mm SMC Takumar you purchased is a great lens. The Rokkor you mentioned is a little better (and slightly faster, and bigger) but all these lenses will need to be stopped down for better sharpness and contrast. Just enjoy your Takumar - it's a fine lens.