I'm looking for the best 50 mm manual full frame lens for the A7. It should be fast - f1.2 up to f2.0 (in the worst case), sharp wide open, and with the least aberrations. The cost should be under 200$ with adapter included. Which one do you tested on your A7 and complies with these conditions I mentioned?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I like the pentax smc f1.5. Frequently they've taken on a yellow cast due to the lens coating (these lenses are thoriated). This can be easily cured using a bright light or even sunlight.
Charles B Nash
Member
Nikon 1.4
LouMeluso
Senior Member
The best overall I've used was the Canon FDn 50mm f/1.4. The Contax G 45mm f/2 is fantastic but hampered by a clunky focusing adapter. The Leica Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 is very good and THE best at f/1.4. After that the Canon starts to look better. The standard Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S is a stunner and oh-so-compact. High contrast! It's as good as the Canon but a bit slower and the bokeh was just a hair less creamy but it was clearly better than my copy of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 Ai-S. The Olympus, Minolta and Pentax M42 examples I had were all good too but slightly behind those first four.
The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Ai-S is a real cracker jack, too, and gives you nice close up capabilities if you don't mind a bit slower speed.
If you don't have a number of them to A/B to pull out the best of a group, I doubt many folks would notice much difference brand-to-brand.
You can read more about my normal, wide and short tele manual focus lens selection in my First Impressions of the A7 HERE
--
My photo.net portfolio is here:
http://photo.net/photos/Lou_Meluso
The Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Ai-S is a real cracker jack, too, and gives you nice close up capabilities if you don't mind a bit slower speed.
If you don't have a number of them to A/B to pull out the best of a group, I doubt many folks would notice much difference brand-to-brand.
You can read more about my normal, wide and short tele manual focus lens selection in my First Impressions of the A7 HERE
--
My photo.net portfolio is here:
http://photo.net/photos/Lou_Meluso
Last edited:
Leica 50mm f/2.0 apo Summicron (M Mount). Long wait.. Enormous price..but the finest optics in a compact lens. It is better than any Canon, or Zeiss lens. I really don't understand why you would even ask this question when best is rarely a good value and the FE 55mm is such an unbelievably great lens. I know.. I have many many Zeiss and Leica lenses. Buy the FE.
Nordstjernen
Veteran Member
He says: "The cost should be under 200$ with adapter included." So I think the aps Summicron and many other premium 50 mm lenses are out of question.
blue_skies
Forum Pro
www.sonyalpharumors.com/lensrentals-tests-best-50mm-lenses-sigma-50mm-art-whows-again/
Below $200, consider OM50/1.4.
Also consider CG45/2.0.
N
neil holmes
Guest
What is best for me might not be best for you.
Since the budget is $200, the I would suggest buying as many as you can from whatever brand is available to you.....they are all pretty good.....keep the one you like and resell the others if you don't want to keep them....does mean a few adapters maybe though but they are cheap enough and once you have them gives more choice.
I have a few 50s and near 50s and maybe what I consider the best under $200 is the old Nikon 50 1.8 AF......very sharp small and light weight.
For a few dollars over your budget (or maybe just within if lucky) the Yashica 50 1.7 ML lens might be a great choice ....I don't have one but have only heard great things about them.
Ones I have used include 50 1.7 Ricoh (Pentax K mount), Topcor 55mm 1.7 (K mount), 58mm f2 CZJ Biotar (screwmount m42), Canon FD 50 1.8.
I like the Ricoh and Topcor but they are nothing special, my FD 50 is an autofocus one that I just tried to see what it is like...can only use it wide open or stopped right down but I think is similar to the normal FD 50 1.8 optically...many people think it one of the worst 50s. The Biotar is a fun lens but not for normal use (60 years old, single coated 17 blades, no click stops).
I also have a Minolta 50 f2 but not tried it on the A7....no adapter....on smaller formats it is ok but again, not special.....all 50s are pretty good....even the cheapest ones.
My two favourites are above your budget (50 1.2 Pentax K and FD 50 1.2L.....I would save up and get a FD 50 1.2 L or maybe the new Mitakon 50 f0.95.
Brian Zhou
Well-known member
Some often overlooked 50mm that fits your budget:
* Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 55mm f/1.8
* Minolta MC Rokkor-PG 50mm f/1.4
* Super or S-M-C Takumar 55mm f/1.8
* Super or S-M-C Takumar 50mm f/1.4
* Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4
* Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4
* Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 55mm f/1.8
* Minolta MC Rokkor-PG 50mm f/1.4
* Super or S-M-C Takumar 55mm f/1.8
* Super or S-M-C Takumar 50mm f/1.4
* Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4
* Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4
Older 50s were a fabulous collection of very different lenses with very different drawing styles, uses and characteristics. I often wish many 20-30 something photographers could jump in the wayback machine to experience them firsthand.
All those mentioned thus far are excellent in their own ways - lens aficionados are going crazy with the a7/a7r series as they now have a great digital platform to assess and enjoy these lenses all over again.
Rather than identifying individual lenses - because many makers made not one but 3, 4 or 5 50mm lenses (fast, moderate, and budget, plus macro) - look into Canon FD, Pentax SMC, Minolta, Contax Yashica, then - as you have not said what you are actually looking for - consider the macro lenses, Nikon's 55mm, if you can stretch a little, Leica's 60mm f2.8 will walk away from almost all modern 50s for flatness of field, distant detail and colour.
For those familiar with MTF data charts, see here for the amazing flat lines at middle apertures, no distortion...it would be the envy of many makers today:
And many older manual midzooms are better at 50mm than many 50 primes at the expense of lens speed, but the good ones are more about $500-600.
It's always a good idea to know what lies ahead when money is less tight so it was good to read Gary H's thoughts. Dreams are important. good luck.
All those mentioned thus far are excellent in their own ways - lens aficionados are going crazy with the a7/a7r series as they now have a great digital platform to assess and enjoy these lenses all over again.
Rather than identifying individual lenses - because many makers made not one but 3, 4 or 5 50mm lenses (fast, moderate, and budget, plus macro) - look into Canon FD, Pentax SMC, Minolta, Contax Yashica, then - as you have not said what you are actually looking for - consider the macro lenses, Nikon's 55mm, if you can stretch a little, Leica's 60mm f2.8 will walk away from almost all modern 50s for flatness of field, distant detail and colour.
For those familiar with MTF data charts, see here for the amazing flat lines at middle apertures, no distortion...it would be the envy of many makers today:
Loading…
en.leica-camera.com
And many older manual midzooms are better at 50mm than many 50 primes at the expense of lens speed, but the good ones are more about $500-600.
It's always a good idea to know what lies ahead when money is less tight so it was good to read Gary H's thoughts. Dreams are important. good luck.
LouMeluso
Senior Member
Don't sweat it my friend. The ones I listed are all good. Just get one. The Nikkors and Canon FD's run about $50-60 in the US. The differences were slight and could be based on the examples AND adapters I have. More important to you is to find one in the best condition possible.
captura
Forum Pro
One of the most respected review BLOGS said the OM 50/1.8 was sharper than the FE55 at over f4. And they printed a chart.
sroute
Senior Member
I preferred the 50/1.8 AF-D over the 50/1.4 G. Faster is not always "better".
The Sony/Zeiss FE55/1.8 is miles better than either though.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum