50mm lens with large aperture suggestion?

[kl122002]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, hansvons said:

TLDR: only modern ASPH designs are able to deliver acceptable sharpness at f/1.4 and offer a real gain of 1 stop over less extreme lens designs provided their vignetting is well-controlled (which often is not the case). All of that is a matter of taste, of course.

 

I mostly prefer large aperture lens during sunset time or night photography, especially doing with slower film like push FP4 to around ISO 200. While in daytime I never needed any large aperture for general photography. The summicron 50/2 is nice while in some situations I wish to have a slightly faster lens to do the job. 

After eliminating few options, like TT or 7artisans I believe I would go into a Summilux or LLL.  Still I would like to wait and see how LLL's 1966 perform. That lens makes me wonder how far (the glass teach) could Chinese goes.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jürgen]

If, like me, you can't decide on a 50mm with f/1.4, an Apo-Summicron-M 2/50 is an excellent universal lens, which is naturally better than all variants with f/1.4. I am very happy with the Apo 50, especially as it is very compact.

I bought a second-hand Noctilux-M 1/50 almost thirty years ago, which has such wonderful optical errors at f/1.0, which I really like. Stopped down to f/5.6, it still has an amazingly good imaging performance.

I'm sorry that I couldn't provide any help for a 50mm with an aperture of f/1.4. 😀

[kl122002]

20 hours ago, _tc said:

Zeiss had better coatings than almost everyone for a long time.

The honest truth though is that it almost always comes down to money. If we put aside the current state of Leica, who charge more because they can, in general the more money you spend the more you get when it comes to optical design for a given size of lens. Zeiss made double gauss lenses whose primary audience was professional photographers (e.g. 80mm f2.8 Hasselblad system lenses) or in the 35mm world for a large portion of the "glory days" of 35mm work it was for wealthy consumers (Contax). Nikon made them for people who wanted an entry level 50mm f1.8 or f2.0 lens and had to squeeze it into a new price of like 100 dollars. It should not surprise that it took 40 years for lower cost makers to get their cheaper 50mm lenses to the level that Leica/Zeiss were at in the early 80s.

Of course we have an interesting test case which is Schneider in Rolleiflex. It's very, very difficult to distinguish between equivalent designs even with the very best film stocks when comparing planar/xenotar or tessar/xenar

That could be like the coating war between Rollei HFT vs Zeiss T . HFT fits me more than T.  T is great while HFT seems more "natural" IMO? I am still keeping my SL35 series with HFT lenses. 

I have contacted Zeiss about the current ZM C-Sonnar. They replied the focus shift still  exists because of spherical aberration, " slight front focus at f/1.5, spot-on focusing at f/2, and a slight backfocus at f/2.8." . 🤔

[TomB_tx]

14 minutes ago, kl122002 said:

I have contacted Zeiss about the current ZM C-Sonnar. They replied the focus shift still  exists because of spherical aberration, " slight front focus at f/1.5, spot-on focusing at f/2, and a slight backfocus at f/2.8."

The focus shift isn't as much an issue on film as it is on digital Leica - partly because the film emulsion has some penetrable thickness instead of a solid sensor surface, and partly because people tend to pixel-peep with digital enlarging detail much more than with film.

I have a Sonnar 1.5 post-war in Contax mount that I've tried on my Digital Ms with adapter, and the focus shift is obvious there (but lovely images when nailed). That's why I bought the Voigtlander Nokton 1.5 II instead of a Sonnar ZM. Very similar size, great performance, and solid construction.

[kl122002]

1 hour ago, TomB_tx said:

The focus shift isn't as much an issue on film as it is on digital Leica - partly because the film emulsion has some penetrable thickness instead of a solid sensor surface, and partly because people tend to pixel-peep with digital enlarging detail much more than with film.

I have a Sonnar 1.5 post-war in Contax mount that I've tried on my Digital Ms with adapter, and the focus shift is obvious there (but lovely images when nailed). That's why I bought the Voigtlander Nokton 1.5 II instead of a Sonnar ZM. Very similar size, great performance, and solid construction.

Good to know , thanks ! 

I have seen many replies mentioned the Consina Voigtlander as well. I roughly checked into their products and surprisingly there are plenty 1.5 or 1.2 lenses.  😃  Some shop keepers also introduced and let me tried a few on Sony camera.  I have never expected they could do it so well, or perhaps there is a better coating some lenses could even perform much better.  The shop keeper also let me tried a TT 50/1.5 and its looks ok on camera screen , but somehow there is an odd feeling that making me not to buy. 

Here are some f/1.5or 1.4 options : Heliar 50/1.5, Nokton 50/1.5 and Nokton 40/1.4 as well.  The 40/1.4 is the cheapest large aperture lens other than Chinese, and the used price is even much lower. What happened?   The Nokton seems like a new design , while the Heliar seems to be the other lens that still based on classic design .  Any thoughts? 

 

Edited January 10 by kl122002

[jaapv]

The Nokton is my favourite. It is the main lens on my M9M.

[3D-Kraft.com]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 15 Minuten schrieb kl122002:

Here are some f/1.5or 1.4 options : Heliar 50/1.5, Norton 50/1.5 and Norton 40/1.4 as well.  The 40/1.4 is the cheapest large aperture lens other than Chinese, and the used price is even much lower. What happened?   The Norton seems a new design , while the Heliar seems to be the other lens that still based on classic design .  Any thoughts? 

 

Nokton is not really a "design", it's primarily a name used for marketing of their wide aperture lenses. Of course, the Nokton Classic 40/1.4 is the cheapest and pretty tiny, but when used wide open, it is not really on par with the other modern (and more expensive) Noktons. It has lots of aberrations, soft edges, strong vignetting and a "dreamy" look - you either like or hate it. We have a thread here named "40mm shots" where you find many examples shot with that lens. It is a very universal focal length but unfortunately without frame lines on the M-series.

Edited January 10 by 3D-Kraft.com

[TomB_tx]

I got a Nokton 40 1.4 to try on my Leitz/Minolta CL, which is one of the few cameras really designed for a 40mm lens. Just in casual shooting it seems pretty good for that use. I suspect its "weaknesses" primarily show up on Digital sensors.

The 40 Nokton is an older design, similar to the original 35 Nokton 1.4 that was about the same price when they were both introduced. No telling if it is still in production, or just selling off old stock. The basic physical design was inspired by the original 35 Summilux.

[didier]

On 1/6/2025 at 10:36 PM, 3D-Kraft.com said:

Definitely a good lens but the TO asked for f/1.4 to f/1.5 and uses an M3.
Would you recommend it also for the M3 without live view or even an option to check the shot right after it has been taken?

The M3 is the best M in my View to focus very fast lenses with its .91 * Viewfinder

I use it with my 75/1.4, 90/2 AA and 50/.95 

[JMF]

Why not a clean Canon 50 1.5 LTM ?

[pippy]

4 hours ago, kl122002 said:

...Here are some f/1.5or 1.4 options : ...Nokton 40/1.4 as well.  The 40/1.4 is the cheapest large aperture lens other than Chinese, and the used price is even much lower. What happened?   The Nokton seems like a new design...

The 40mm f1.4 Nokton has many devotees in this forum. For a very long while it was my #1 Go-To by a long way. I still love the way it renders and use it frequently. Quite often, in fact, I'll have the Nokton on my 'colour' body and a Rollei 40mm f2.8 Sonnar HFT on the Monochrom.

In terms of optical design, however, it can hardly be described as a 'new design'; far from it. In essence it uses a very similar optical design (modified double-gauss) to the classic 35mm Summilux and, unsurprisingly, it shares a great deal of that lens' optical 'flaws'. The rendering of both is incredibly similar.

Here is a comparison of the Nokton and Summilux lens-element layouts. The Nokton is at the top;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

FWIW there was one odd thing which I only noticed about the Nokton after I bought the M-D Typ-262...

As mentioned earlier the Nokton was by far and away my most used lens on the M9-P which I had before the M-D came home.  After using the lens at Max. Ap. on the M-D, however, there seemed to be much heavier vignetting than I had experienced with the other body. This struck me as odd but then the penny dropped.

Previously, from the 'Lens' menu on the M9, I had been coding it (manually) as the good old 35mm Summilux which was the closest I could get from the options available in the menu. With the MD - it not having a menu at all - this isn't possible. As such the 'body' wasn't applying any software-controlled lens-adjustments which, clearly, had been happening with the M9 hence the inherent vignetting was being left un-corrected.

The funny thing is that for the sort of shots I was taking at f1.4 (which is quite a rare occurrence for me) I found that I actually preferred the vignetting exactly as it came SOOC.

A small point, perhaps, but I just thought it worth a mention!

Philip.

Edited January 10 by pippy

[JNK100]

I would suggest a Summilux Asph.

This will last decades and retain a larger chunk of their value as well as having superb image quality.

[TomB_tx]

9 minutes ago, JNK100 said:

This will last decades and retain a larger chunk of their value

Using lenses of different makes for over 50 years, I've never had one not last - just may need clean & lube. Value is not just resale - I've never sold a lens so for me resale is irrelevant. Initial purchase price is more of a concern: is it worth it compared to other choices? These days I look at Leica lenses and... no.

[kl122002]

14 hours ago, JMF said:

Why not a clean Canon 50 1.5 LTM ?

You mean the older model , full silver body Canon 50/1.5? I don't have much luck on this lens either.🙄 

I have a later model Canon 50/1.4, but still I want to have a good M mount  lens on my M3

[kl122002]

9 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

Using lenses of different makes for over 50 years, I've never had one not last - just may need clean & lube. Value is not just resale - I've never sold a lens so for me resale is irrelevant. Initial purchase price is more of a concern: is it worth it compared to other choices? These days I look at Leica lenses and... no.

This is why I am much preferred to older Leica products. In fact I believe today's tech can handle the design and simulation by computer, which is much easier than older days.

The old lenses have flaws, and it becomes a signature on film, that is the most unique effect that can't be done by computer.