If you want to try a cheap 50, $10-20, that does have a little character you could try the Industar 50-2 (50mm F3.5) in M42. Being M42 you can probably use it on a camera that you already have with a suitable adapter. It's a tiny lens.
It's a pain to use as the aperture is on the front of the lens and it's almost impossible to change aperture without accidentally changing focus at the same time. That's assuming you would ever stop down of course being plenty sharp wide open.
I've been curious about this lens for a while, having acquired some screwmount bodies.
Jj, I don't even buy garbage bags to throw away. I hardly even have garbage!
Plus I don't smoke.
It sound like you think highly of it. Can you show some examples?
No, it's not a 'great' lens, but it's not completely sterile and character less like some more 'perfect' lenses. So I think it's interesting. I haven't used it for a while now but there are a few examples in the link below (which was also in the post above):
All of the 50/1.7 Minolta lenses are very good. My favorite is the MC Rokkor-X. It isn't any sharper than the later MD models but is more solidly made. Did Konica make its own 35mm SLR lenses? Yes it did. In the early 1980s Tokina started to make lenses for the Konica cameras. Some, like the 28-135, 80-200/4 (one touch) and 80-200/4.5 were made under both names. Some of the Tokina made lenses are quite good. My favorites are the 21/2.8, 24/2.8 and 40/1.8. The second version of the 50/1.4 has lens elements made by Konica but a barrel made by Tokina. It also has a different aperture mechanism and stops down to f/22. Whether the f/22 feature is worthwhile depends on how much diffraction you can live with. There are many good standard lenses floating around and at this point condition is more important than brand. With the exception of macro lenses, the standard lenses were typically a manufacturer's best models. Earlier this year I got a 50/1.4 Canon New FD for $20 in very nice condition. If I had paid $100 for it the performance would have been the same. I just wouldn't have been a bargain. I already had two others like it as well as four earlier breech lock models. The second version of the 50/1.4 Canon FL is also excellent. Later FD models have better coating but are not otherwise sharper.
I love the 50 and 55mm lenses I have for my Pentax SLRs. The 50mm 1.4 and 55mm f/2 both render beautifully, and I prefer them equally to my Leica Summitar and better than the Voigtlander Nokton.
All are stellar performers, however, and any shortcomings in my pictures should be attributed to me and not the lenses.
I go in spurts where I sometimes prefer 50mm, and other times I'm using 35mm lenses almost exclusively. The 35mm f/2 Pentax is heavenly, and while the 35mm f1.4 Voigtlander Nokton is great, I wish I had a better 35 for the Leica. It has really soft corners even at f5.6 or f8, but for close-up portraits it's amazing.
The Pentax 28mm f3.5 is also killer, and gets a fair amount of use.
Then sometimes I use longer lenses too, but quickly stop.
The 50mm lenses get about 70% of the use, and I almost always take just one lens when I travel or head out to photograph.
I've had experience with Canon lenses too, but not enough to make a statement. I do know this, though, that most Leica lenses are hugely overrated picture quality wise. Using Leica enlargers and Leica enlarging lens, I see nothing from Summicron, Summitar, or Summarit lenses that improve quality over Pentax. Both are much better than Voigtlander, however. By no small margin either.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
My experience with Leica lenses tells me that I can use them wide open with confidence. Even the pedestrian ones. Their lates ASPH and APO variants are in another league (out of mine for sure) and therefore out of my reach.