Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,928   Posts: 1,585,182   Online: 689
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923
    50 f 2.8 recomputed Tessar on late Zeiss Contaflex
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    695
    Images
    3
    Helios 103 53mm f1.8 for my Kiev 4a.

    But only because it's sitting right next to me and goes with me everywhere.

    Might I suggest an answer of "Whatever 50 is on the camera you have with you right now."

    Or as Charlie Papazian one said, "The best beer in the world is the one you have in your hand."

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Leica 50 Summilux M pre ASPH. Phenominal bokeh at f1.4 - f2 and as sharp as they come at f8. A really great all around lens. Besides, it fits on a nice quiet rangefinder.

  4. #34
    craigclu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NW Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    778
    Back in the mid-80's, a group of us ran Leitz, Canon, Minolta, Konica and Nikon glass through a routine for resolution using the Modern Photography lens testing kit. The best 50 proved to be the lowly Konica 50/1.7 of a friend which was a price point lens in those days. While there are many other factors to consider beyond simple resolution, this was an interesting result. The Minolta 1.4 was softer than expected and the rest of them sort of ended up muddled in the middle. A repeat with other examples of the same lenses could probably reverse the results, too!

    Why is that the most finicky people (regarding their optics) tend to shoot 95% of the time handheld and have an affinity to Tri-X? It's nice to have confidence in your glass, so that's worth something, I suppose.
    Craig Schroeder

  5. #35
    skahde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    426
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick Fagan View Post
    In Nikon land I have used the 50 F1.2 and found it to be really hard to get sharp focus anywhere, when used wide open.
    Mick,
    I had the same problem with mine. But then I started to use it on a F100 with its electronic focussing-aid: I get razor-sharp eyelashes since that day! To me getting quality pictures wide open is purely a problem of getting the focus on the right spot.

    Btw: I agree with your comment about the 2,8/55 Ais. A real keeper.

  6. #36
    kunihiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    242
    Images
    17
    Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for highest CP.
    kunihiko kario

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    905
    hmmmm... tough question, I use (in order of preference):

    Nikon 55 1.2

    Pentax 50 SMC 1.7

    Nikon 50 1.8 series E

    Nikon 50 1.4


    while the 55 1.2 is far from the sharpest, it does have a wonderfull oof look (bokeh) that works well with my shooting style. The sharpest lens I've ever used was a Nikon Micro Nikkor ( think it was the 2.8 verson). One lens that will never make it on this list is the Canon 50 .95, a true dog below about f11, and best left on the shelf for collectors.

    erie

  8. #38
    rfshootist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Old Europe
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    387
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by craigclu View Post
    Why is that the most finicky people (regarding their optics) tend to shoot 95% of the time handheld and have an affinity to Tri-X? It's nice to have confidence in your glass, so that's worth something, I suppose.
    From one of this sort I once read he needs this (theoretical) performance "to have his mind free". Thinking about these words for a while you must find them simply unmasking.

    There is a simple reason for all that. These folks have no real clue of what they are doing. Otherwise they would see what the limitations of film, photopaper and human visual perception means for the real world, and the would judge soley based on prints. But that isn't what they are interested in, the real world.
    This fuss can reach the intellectual level of lunatic asylums, when they try to get their irrational world and the real world together:
    Once one of those told me that tho one cannot see the max resolution capacity of the 400lpmm of the XX lens on a film, which is limited to 120lpmm, one nonetheless could "perceive IT somehow" (the superior resolution capacity) on the prints (SIC!!!) !

    bertram
    A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by rfshootist View Post
    From one of this sort I once read he needs this (theoretical) performance "to have his mind free". Thinking about these words for a while you must find them simply unmasking.

    There is a simple reason for all that. These folks have no real clue of what they are doing. Otherwise they would see what the limitations of film, photopaper and human visual perception means for the real world, and the would judge soley based on prints. But that isn't what they are interested in, the real world.
    This fuss can reach the intellectual level of lunatic asylums, when they try to get their irrational world and the real world together:
    Once one of those told me that tho one cannot see the max resolution capacity of the 400lpmm of the XX lens on a film, which is limited to 120lpmm, one nonetheless could "perceive IT somehow" (the superior resolution capacity) on the prints (SIC!!!) !

    bertram
    I'd love someone to translate this into English for me...

  10. #40
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    First define "Best"

    Then define "Normal"

    Because if you look at the MTF's on photodo then the clear winner is the Contax-G 45mm f/2. Kicks sorry Summicron butt at 1/6 the price

    (Some Pentax lenses with "4's" in the number do well too)

    For SLR lenes, I have a 15-year-old Zeiss (SLR) 50 f/1.4, and a 1-month-old Canon 50 f/1.4. The Zeiss seems a little snappier picture-wise, but the lack of Auto-aperture when mounted on my Canon makes it a chore to use (works great on the RTS, of course). Does that make it less "best"?

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin