Rate your 50mm lenses

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wondered if those of you who might be lucky enough to own more than one 50, would be so kind as to rate them against one another.

 

This list is not exhaustive, but these are the 50 lenses I would be most interested in hearing back about how each compares to others from your knowledge and usage.

 

Overall:10=best down to 0=worst/not worthy of a comment.

 

Then the important part, why/what caused you to rate the lens with its overall rating number? How do you prefer to use the lens and with what M body. Kindly comment on digital bodies only, please. Does the lens perform better in B&W or in color. How does it draw? Etc. Comment as you like.

 

Here's the list in no particular order (your model may differ due to color and other variations of a specific lens):

 

1. 50/2.0 non-ASPH E39 #11826 current model

 

2. 50/1.4 ASPH E46 #11891 current model

 

3. 50/0.95 Noctilux E60 #11602 current model

 

4. 50/2.0 APO ASPH E39 #11141 current model

 

5. 50/1.4 pre ASPH V2 E43 #11114

 

6. 50/2.0 V2 E39 #11819

 

7. 50/1.0 E60 Noctilux #11822

 

8. 50/2.8 Elmar-M collapsable E39 #11831

 

9. 50/1.4 pre ASPH V3 E46 #11868

 

10. MATE @ 50mm ASPH E49 #11625

 

and just for fun

 

11. 40/2.0 C #11831

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[algrove]

OK, I'll kick it off with a few observations by lens and my rating

 

#1=7 Renders images nicely for landscapes.

 

#2=8 Very crisp.

 

#3=7 Took lots of patience for me until I got the M240 w/EVF. Better now.

 

#4=9 About my favorite. It carves. Like the big package in a small size.

 

#7=8 My favorite for close in work on my MM.

 

#11=8 Lovely images on my MM and the size is almost too small.

 

#12-Add any lens you want to make comment on and just keep the numbers going upward.

[Carduelis]

What about the 50 mm Summarit f2.5?

[algrove]

What about the 50 mm Summarit f2.5?

 

I mentioned that the list was what interested me, but by all means add whatever lens(es) you would like to comment on.

[helged]

#1=7. Fine, small, light-weight lens, nice color rendering, but prone to flare.

 

#2=8.5 Lots of character, somewhat soft at f1.4, some light fall-off at large apertures, sharp stopped down, may flare, a little big (relatively speaking).

 

#4=9.5. Small, brilliant sharpness, high micro-detail (without being too clinical), smooth and delicate out of focus and 3d rendering, beautiful colors. Expensive, but a winner.

 

#10=5. Somewhat bulky (as a 50mm lens, but you of course get 3-in-1), good but not top sharpness, somewhat prone to flare/reduced central contrast. An all-rounder, but not at the level of the primes.

 

=6. Pentax Super-Takumar 50/1.4 (7 element, M42 mount). A fascinating mix of soft and sharp rendering, lovely bokeh wide open and sharp stopped down, nice colors if exposed to uv light to eliminate the yellowing thorium glass (the 8 element version of the lens is claimed to be even sharper). Inexpensive.

[01af]

Ugh! This is soo pointless ...

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps, but there are many of us who want to learn what and how others perceive how their lenses render for them.

[01af]

... but there are many of us who want to learn ...

No-one will learn anything useful from this. To the contrary—it's just hollow and deceiving. Hence pointless.

[IkarusJohn]

I have two off your list.

 

I prefer the rendition of the Noctilux on both the M9 and the MM at all apertures (yes, you can use the aperture ring), but it is big and heavy (if that matters to you).

 

I really like the current 50 Summilux ASPH. Mine's silver chrome, so it is heavier than the black one, but it looks nice on my cameras (silver chrome). It does tend to be crisper than the Noctilux.

 

I'm not really sure that helps you.

[Jeff S]

Too bad the forum didn't exist when HC-B was around; if only he had a ranking of 50's to expand his knowledge.

 

Sorry, I agree with 01af. This may be a gear forum, but sometimes it just seems to get silly. Especially so when the person who already owns a boatload of gear, including multiple copies of some, is now asking the question.

 

Jeff

[thighslapper]

50/0.95 - my lens of choice and never lets me down.

50/1.4 - soul-less and boring - stays in the safe.

50/2.8 collapsible - fantastic little lens .... I have 3 (no... don't ask why....)

MATE - good for a sunny day hike when I want only one lens.

50/2 non asph - sold it as I had too many 50's .......

50/2 asph ..... pending .... will I never learn ???

[thighslapper]

This may be a gear forum, but sometimes it just seems to get silly.

Jeff

 

Whats wrong with 'silly' now and again ?

 

Most of the other threads are dull as dishwater or recycling the same old moans ....

[Jeff S]

50/1.4 - soul-less and boring - stays in the safe.

 

I don't know what's funnier...that a lens can be 'soul-less and boring' or that one still keeps it, protected even.

 

I hope this is tongue in cheek; otherwise I really do have to get away from the forum for a while.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Whats wrong with 'silly' now and again ?

 

Except he didn't intend it to be silly; rather he considers it a learning experience (post #7).

 

Jeff

[algrove]

Jeff, you have your opinions and that's OK.

 

Maybe I own a shit load of lenses, but that does not mean I know everything about them all. To the contrary. I am hoping to pick up some information that might help me select a certain lens for this day or that or this body/lens combo for this day or that.

[Jeff S]

Now that's even funnier.

 

Jeff

[lct]

I may try to explain why i like or dislike a lens or where it shines or not for me, but i'm unable to rate them sorry. Just to take a couple examples, the latest Elmar is my all time favorite but i would not use it in low light. Or the Summilux asph is my favorite in low light but not for portrait. Or the Summilux pre-asph is my favorite for portrait but not for landscape. And so on...

[rramesh]

This kind of comparison is difficult as there are multiple considerations one needs to apply.

 

• Price. For some this is not an issue but for others price is and Leica may not even be a consideration, when there are good lenses from Zeiss and Voigtlander.
  
• Performance. e.g. sharpness, low lights etc.
  
• Use. e.g. portrait, landscape, low light, all day light weight carry around etc.
  

Each lens has its pros and cons.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dikaiosune01]

I think the way the lens renders isn't that important. Two same images that were taken with different 50mm lenses will share the same content. The subject matter will be the same and the star of the image. The analogy I like to use is changing the lens and describing the render is like changing the back up dancers in a concert. No one is really there to see the back-up dancers, in no way does it take the spotlight from the main subject matter.

 

I also use this excuse, because I don't really understand when people and reviewers say they like how lens X 'renders'? It reminds me of the sterotypes at new york art galleries about art collecters trying to describe a piece of art they don't understand.

 

What is far more important to me is how a lens 'feels' the tactility of a lens. The way it feels as you adjust the focus and aperture. How it effects teh weight on your camera. To that end, here are my top...

 

#1: Zeiss planar zm F/2.0: (the good) little nub that functions as a tab. It isn't as large and intrusive and can be all together ignored if wanted. It can also be pushed forward and backward easily. (the bad) the third stop increments makes it difficult to count; thus requiring you to remove your eye from the viewfinder to check your aperture. It can effect accurate metering.

#2: Summicron: (the good) i like half stops more. (unless i'm on a tripod with a spot meter). The current version has the built in hood. There are so many versions, you can get the one you want, with a tab, without a tab, with a built-in-hood, etc. and 6 bit coding.

#3: Voigtlander 50mm F/1.1: (the good) the speed. (The bad): the weight. the softness wide open, blocking the viewfinder. My inexperience with basic photographic principles when I used it.

#4: Elmar 50mm F/2.8 (not the M version): (the good) the aperture blades are perfectly round at every point giving a wonderful roundness to the bokeh. <-- is this what they are talking about when they talk about 'rendering'??? --> (the bad): can't see your aperture value from looking straight down. The camera must be rotated. The focus lever, on my copy at lease, is very lose and can easily wain due to a breeze or gravity or by the most gentle inadvertent touch.

 

That's all the 50mm i've used.

I never used a summilux, notilux.

 

note: my rant above is not meant to be directed at any person; nor intended as judgement. It is my voice of my misunderstanding of 'what' rendering is. And how I'm trying to come to terms with how it is being described.

[lct]

Not sure if i get what you mean. Why would we use different lenses if they rendered the same? An Elmar does not render the same as a Summilux for instance, suffice it to take pics with them to view it. The easier way to check this is to use an early and a modern lens at full aperture. Can be night and day.