50mm f/1.4 legacy lenses – Shootout Wide Open
What makes such posts ridiculous, is that usually just few of the posters, support their opinion by sample images. You can read all kind of excuses – I sold the lens x, I am not on my main computer, I erased my professionally made tests, my cat eats my memory card…
From time to time, someone post the ISO resolution chart, to support his claim, no matter that his chart was printed on an ink-jet printer on office paper, and the paper gets folded and stays uneven on the wall. Aligning to the target? Who cares, done by eye, let’s now judge the extreme corner performance wide open on a pixel level. You got the idea, right?
My favorite post from the last week, claim one lens to be incredibly sharp and include two photos taken from behind the thick glass window of the moving bus.
That’s why I decided to make this article, where I will show you ISO 12333 professional chart, shot wide open by 15 – kind of popular 50mm f/1.4 lenses.
So, I can say something, while you can judge my opinion by looking at the test images.
But, I will certainly not tell you, which lens is the best. I might tell you, what I have learned testing and using those lenses. I did a short review of some lenses here, so in those cases, I will only add the link to the article. I hope to add more and more reviews in the future…
For this shootout, I choose 50mm f1.4 only (With exception of Carl Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm f1.5 ZM T*, that is close enough), because, if I include also f/1.2 and f/1.8-f/2, 50mm lenses, I wouldn’t be able to make single comparison images, and some lenses will be stopped down by several stops to match slower ones, which is probably not fair.
This test is only about resolution wide open. You can visually compare the crops, or open original size files.
However, I would never suggest to think of one lens being “better” than the other, just because it has weaker resolution or behave less sharp wide open.
Some lenses are designed to behave so.
That’s why I included Carl Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm f1.5 ZM T*.
From the crops below, you might say, that the lens is terrible, as it is clearly softest from all those legacy lenses wide open. But that’s on purpose. Sonnar does not have corrected spherical aberrations, because they define lens unique rendering wide open and are perfect for street photography i.e.
Stop the lens down to f/5.6 or f/8, and it become as sharp as it gets across the frame.
Please note that my tests are not perfect. Most complicated is to get the chart (it is a pro chart – made on a film paper by direct negative copy) completely flat. I am struggling to achieve this, and there are still some deformations, most in tolerance of 1mm (but that is still huge).
Second problem is to align the camera 100% with a target. I have several lasers and rulers to do so, but changing the lenses, change everything and to align perfectly for every lens, would require over 1 hour set-up per lens. That is too much.
Third problem is lighting. It has to be as evenly spread as possible.
I am trying to do my best, but I certainly can’t guarantee 100% accuracy, but this test, preparation, shooting and post processing, took me a full day…
All shots were taken with NEX 7, from the heavy tripod, using self timer (I lost my remote controller) in RAW. ISO 100, A mode, EV compensation of +0.7, AWB. I choose AWB because few lenses gets yellowed. I took at least 10 shots with each lens with a manual focus at maximum magnification.
The sharpness and noise selector in LR 4.4 were set down to 0.
For the crops I equalize WB and exported files in Photoshop CS5, where the crops were made and put together. No other correction were made.
Original files were directly exported from LR 4.4 to JPEG with 100% quality settings.
So, here we go… (you have to click on the image and open it in a full size)
Center Crop:
(Top Left) Corner Crop:
That’s it.
Sharpest in the center is Canon FDn 50mm f/1.4.
Sharpest in the corner is Contax Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 T*
Other sharp lenses at f/1.4 are Canon FD 50mm f1.4 S.S.C and Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f1.4
Other lenses are sharp in the center, but less so in the edges. Many lenses suffer from a different diseases, mainly all kind of aberrations. Age and conditions does influence performance too, but as most of my lenses were chosen from 2-8 copies, I don’t think the general behavior of the new lens will be significantly different.
Bellow are lenses on NEX 7 and original size files. For the lenses that I briefly reviewed, I will include a link to the article.
Auto-Chinon 50 f/1.4 Multi Coated.
You can read my short review of this lens here.
Yashica Auto Yashinon 50mm f/1.4 DX
I reviewed its slower brother Yashinon 50mm f1.7 some time ago. This Yashica is rather average performer in terms of sharpness wide open, but it might have nice bokeh and I believe it would be sharp enough from f/2.8. It is certainly beautifully built and looking lens.
Four Legendary Takumars to come… They are all same – 50mm f/1.4, but all different, with different construction and/or coatings.
The cheapest version – later Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4
I reviewed this particular lens here.
Super-Multicoated-Takumar 50mm f/1.4
This version is less common than Super-Takumar or SMC Takumar. It behave very much like SMC Takumar, being slightly sharper than Super-Takumar later version. All three Takumars are getting yellow by time, due to the use of rare earth radioactive element. I just started to treat them with an UV lamp. Yellowing itself might be nice addition for BW photography, but from certain point it does reduce the amount of light passing to the sensor. That’s why shots with radioactive Takumars are taken at 1/500s, while all other are at 1/640s.
SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4
This is probably best value for money among four Takumar Fifties f/1.4. Simply because it is the newest and thus, there is higher probability to find a good sample. While it seem to have similar center resolution to Super-Multi-Coated version, corner performance is slightly better.
Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 Early, 8 elements version.
If you are serious about 50 f/1.4Takumars, you must have this one 🙂 This is an early version of Takumar that has 8 elements in 6 groups (the others only 7) and cemented triplet with curved surfaces, that was very expensive to produce and it is believed that Asahi lost money on every sample they sold. It is impossible to recognize this version from the image above. Visual difference can be seen from a side – infrared focus mark is to the right of the number 4 on the DOF scale, unlike on the later 7 element versions that has the mark on the left side of number 4.
But even that, doesn’t must to be 100% true. I have seen the version with a mark on the right, but it was 7 element one. To be sure, you have to see the last element, that slightly protrudes on this version.
This Takumar didn’t use rare earth radioactive element, and thus doesn’t get yellowed by time.
Its optical performance is slightly different than of its siblings, with center sharpness being better, while corners suffers from spherical aberration and blooming more. It’s main problem is its rare availability, that pumped prices above optimal. I had to pay for my sample much more than I normally would, but I was looking for a sample in a very good- great condition.
Pentax-M SMC 50mm f/1.4
I reviewed this lens here.
Pentax-A SMC 50mm f/1.4
This lens is supposed to have same optical formula as the M version above. However, this version is sharper at the edges, but that might be due to the sample variation. For manual users (no aperture coupling), I would say, that M version is a better deal though. Their performance is very similar, and both are very good options for 50mm f1.4.
Minolta MD 50mm f/1.4 Rokkor
I reviewed this lens here.
Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 AR
I reviewed this great lens here.
Olympus OM-System 50mm f/1.4 G.Zuiko Auto-S
I wasn’t impressed by this lens when I got it, but today I realized one thing. My version is single coated, and Oly is actually very sharp, just lacking the contrast a bit. I am not really familiar with Olympus lenses (even if I have quite a few), but I know that it is hard to differentiate single from multi coated versions. If I manage to find MC (in a good condition) I will certainly test it again. It might be one of those lenses that I just miss judged badly.
I like very much its size, build and overall feeling. It simply feels special in its own way.
Canon FD 50mm F1.4 S.S.C
Being a native Canon shooter, it’s strange that I didn’t review any Canon FD 50mm lens yet. Maybe just because they are so good, and I get used to it.
S.S.C silver ring version is very good. Not so good as FDn but very close. Where the difference gets more apparent is at the edges. But it is much better built than smaller and lighter FDn. This is one hell of the fifty f one four.
King is coming – Canon FDn 50mm f1.4
At least – the King of center resolution at f1.4, from my 1.4 fifties. It has been written lot about wide open sharpness of this lens, but it is probably enough to know, that Canon used this lens as a reference lens for the entire line, in its time.
I am not a big fan of it. It has somewhat weaker contrast wide open, ugly bokeh and lack of character. But it is the sharpest lens in the center, and second sharpest on the edges from this group. By some margin…
If you are looking for the sharpest eye of your portrayed subject, this is the lens to buy, especially because it is one of the cheapest from those listed here.
Contax – Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 T*
It might be slightly less sharp than Canon FDn in the center, but it is clear champion on the borders wide open. Add to that Zeiss micro contrast and colors as well as build quality and it is the win-win combination. But the price is set accordingly. You will get what you paid for. It is still cheaper and as far as I experienced – better, than modern Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 from the Z series.
I didn’t review this lens yet, but you might take a look at my brief comparison against Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L here.
So, which one is my favorite, you might ask?
Carl Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 T* ZM
That’s the one. It is by far softest in this comparison at short distance wide open. But in a real life, it deliver amazing subject isolation and unique way of rendering OOF areas. Unless I am about to copy books or maps, this 50mm lens, among all my fifties (including some great f/1.2 ones) is my ultimate choice.
But, that’s me…
At f/1.4 it is soft, soft, soft. But beautifully soft.
Stop it down to f/5.6 or more (to improve corners even more) and be careful not to cut your eyes.
Whatever 50mm lens you have or use, I am sure, you enjoy it. Unless there is haze, fungus or some mechanical problem, they are all great, and you should not see significant differences in a real life at comparable apertures.
Because, most of them are old lenses, my advise therefore would be, instead of looking to the certain model, try to find the one in a best possible condition, don’t pay over 100 USD, and learn what your lens likes and how to get best out of it.
But please, consider not to shout around, that lens a blows out lens b, unless you can proof so.
Or, do whatever you like. It’s a free space:-) and thanks for reading.
To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.
Hm, seems my Contax 50/1.4 has some issue cause its nowhere close to this. 🙁 It seems ok inside, but there is strange crystal-like structure somewhere in back element, only visible under direct light (used LED flashlight). Maybe element separation (is that even possible?). Sight I thought it should be better and your test proves it indeed should, I have much less contrast (and neither resolution seems same). Btw. have you ever tried Zeiss service center in Germany? (Oberkochen)
Otherwise Sonnar seems to have exceptional CA correction, or am I seeing it wrong?
I am sorry to hear about your Contax. Unfortunately, I don’t have experience with Zeiss service at all. I am using small local shops or skilled individuals for all my legacy lens repairs.
Hi Viktor, it’s the takumar (later version) yellow from radiocative decay? Try this cheap deyellowing procedure:
http://www.ucsdphotoclub.com/showthread.php?3072-Super-Takumar-50mm-1.4-De-Yellowing&s=2d6806fafcc8962ceeb91c4103239c8e
Cheers
Thanks mate, they are taking UV bath few days already. I haven’t used silver foil but white glossy photopaper.
Thanks for review, it was excellent and very informative.
as a first time visitor to your blog I am very impressed.
thank you 🙂
Thank you for your kind words. I am glad if you found some useful info here.
I’m looking for a replacement for my Helios 50/2 on the NEX-6
(soon to be a6000, hopefully)
thanks for this great summary, now I’ll know what to look for : )
Hi,
You are amazing ! Thanks for all this reviews. I am very very happy for find this reviews.
very grateful excellent review.
but I like that incorporates the Canon FL 50mm f / 1.4 II model of the 60s
Thanks emiliano,
for some reason I never get across nice copies of those FL gems. I should try harder I guess 🙂
Cheers,
Viktor
Between Takumar 50mm F1.4 (8 elements) vs Canon FD SSC, which would be your pick?
Hi,
The first thing I would try to figure out is a condition of particular lens that you are considering. Different forms of aging, could influence optical performance much more than the original design itself.
If both lenses wouldbe in perfect condition and stage (decentering etc.) I would go with Takumar because of its warmer colors and smoother bokeh. Canon is sharper lens if that is your priority.
Cheers,
Viktor
Thanks very much for your response! I currently own the Minolta Rokkor X MD and found that at Wide Open F1.4, the edges of my subjects are quite soft. Assuming that the lens is in great condition, does the Canon FDn 50mm F1.4 produce sharper edges? Thanks in advance!
Hi MTeee,
I moved your question and my answer to the forum section – http://www.verybiglobo.com/forums/topic/minolta-md-vs-canon-fd/
If you have additional questions, please keep them on the forum. Space for comments here is limited and it wasn’t intended to host longer discussions.
Thank you for understanding and best regards,
Viktor
Thank you very much for the info. I have a question: I have the Blackmagic pocket camera and I want to buy Contax Zeiss lenses (for Y/C mount). Are radioactive or dangerous for the health? (For example Contax Zeiss Planar 50 F1.8/ Contax Zeiss Sonnar 135 F 2.8/ Contax Zeiss 28-70 F3.5-4.5/ Contax Zeiss Vario Sonnar 80-200 F4). Thanks again!
Dear Walter,
I am not an expert in the radioactivity, but I do have many “radioactive lenses”, some of them are with me in my sleeping room. BTW I have dog and children.
There are many risks that we are taking every day, and considering that even recent lenses such as Zhongyi Mitakon 50/0.95 seems to be radioactive (supposedly 4 Lanthanum optical elements in the version I and 1 of those elements in version II), I don’t think that radioactive lenses are as dangerous as it might seem, after reading some of Internet debates.
Most importantly though, Contax Zeiss lenses are not among those most prominent for radioactivity.
Their sister company from Eastern Germany – Carl Zeiss Jena, has many lenses on the radioactive list, but Contax Zeiss from Oberkochen (C/Y) mount, are usually not listed (not sure about 85/1.2 though).
You are mentioning Contax Zeiss Planar 50 f/1.8, but I am not aware of such a lens. There is Rollei Planar 50/1.8 but it’s not in C/Y mount and there is Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50/1.8 which in its first “Zebra” incarnation is supposed to be radioactive (but this lens is usually in M42 mount, certainly not in C/Y).
I think you are safe with Contax Zeiss lenses, but you will find much more information here – http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses
Cheers,
Viktor
lol at radioactivity issue. That level of radioactivity is too low for any human to be harmful.
Great test Although it would love to see it on a full frame camera. Is this something that you are considering? Also maybe in other focal lengths as well, maybe a 35 mm since that one is common with many lens producers.
Hi Stalthy,
we are trying to build funds to proceed with such a testing, however I really can’t predict if we will succeed. Thanks for visiting us.
Cheers,
Viktor
Hey there. Informative review and intellectually done. Just wondered were the Nikkors were and would they place near or better than the Canon Fd or the Taks, (probably). Any way thanks
Hi Michael,
Good question mate 🙂 I think that at time of writing this review, I didn’t have any Nikkors 50/1.4. I have two now, S-Ai and Ai-S, so I should include them too. We are working to put new comparative review, but guys who are supposed to build comparison tool for the web are asking too much money 🙁 We are looking for other possibilities though…
Cheers,
Viktor
Hi there, Very nice review. I was wondering which lens you would choose. The Yashinon f1.7 or Chino F1.4. Both at the same price on a Fuji X-E1?
Cheers
Hi Mark,
I would simply choose the one that is in better condition. Yashinon 50/1.7 might have radioactive elements and thus it can yellow in time (Yashinon-DS-M 50mm f/1.7, Yashinon-ML 50mm f/1.7 e.g.)
My Chinon 50/1.4 has rather strong hallo wide open, but it could be result of damaged coatings, I didn’t really look at it thoroughly.
If you can afford C/Y Zeiss Planar 50/1.7, Topcon Topcor RE 58/1.8 or even CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 MC, I would suggest them instead.
Best regards,
Viktor
for low budget, is the canon FD 50mm the best value? or can you recommend something cheaper ? For usage in low-light conditions
Hi nick,
I wrote this many time here – for those old. 50/1.4 lenses, the condition of the particular sample will have greater share on image quality than original lens design. Pick any of those Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, Konica, Canon FD, Nikon and similar, just make sure that it is in a great condition and you should have nice, low budget – low light lens.
Cheers,
Viktor
Hi, Viktor
Nice comparison
the most informing from the whole internet as far as my research
hei
can you please do a speed comparison
which one is the fastest
they all f1.4 but, maybe there is faster or slower of them
thank you
High Beta Level 2,
What you are asking for is called light transmission and it is often expressed in T-stops (usually for cinematic lenses). Light transmission can be affected with lot of things, but mainly with coatings and quality of the glass. Problem with testing legacy lenses for light transmission is that they are of a different age and glass, but mainly coatings are permanently eroding, changing the original parameters. For that reason, measuring light transmission in my case, will only refer to how my particular samples are transmitting light and it will not have any value above that. It is actually same for resolution, but that is somewhat lesser affected. Therefore, when you see any comparison of the legacy lenses (or unfortunately many comparisons made by amateurs of the recent lenses), take it always with a big grain of salt, may I advise.
We are working on the comparative tool for the legacy lenses, but I am still looking for investors or/and supporters who would help me with setting the studio on purpose.
Cheers,
Viktor
Great sharpness comparison, and good on you for finding all of these legacy lenses to try out.
I would advise anybody looking at these charts to remember though that sharpness is not the only characteristic, not by a long shot. In fact, in my experience, extreme sharpness in portraits can work against you. Also, color rendition, bokeh, and contrast can be loads better characteristics than overall sharpness.
For example, in my experience, the SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 and Yashinon DSM 50mm f1.7 are far better overall lenses than the FD 50mm f1.4 They both have better color rendition, contrast, and bokeh than the FD 50mm f1.4. The SMC I find works the best for “dreamy” portraits and flowers (color rendition is awesome) and the Yashinon DSM is a better overall walk around lens with much smoother bokeh and much less flaring than the SMC or FD. The Yashinon DX, DS, DSM, ML’s are supposedly Zeiss planar duplicates and are supposed to perform 99% as well as a Zeiss. I got my DSM for $40 including shipping.
Also something to keep in mind, m42 (Yashinon/Pentax/CZJ) lenses can usually be adapted to most camera systems whereas the FD mount cannot be adapted to mirrored systems without corrective optics (which suck). FD for mirrorless, M42 for pretty much everything. I wish I had known this before investing so much in FD glass!
Hi Duane and thanks for the comment. If you shot with mirrored system than you are right about FD, but for those of us who uses mirrorless, FD offers some great lenses. FD 55 1.2 S.S.C aspherical (or blue al), FD 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L, 300/4 L, 20-35/3.5L, 35/2 and many more. Canon did use their FDn 50/1.4 as a reference lens for sharpness for quite some time.
However, I fully agree that sharpness is not all what good lens is about, and one should also take in consideration the actual condition of the tested samples. Later in my experience has bigger impact on sharpness than original optical design…
Cheers,
Viktor
Hi, what would you consider better between Yashica lens ML 50mm 1:1.7 vs Yashinon DS-M 50mm 1:1.7? I already own the ML. Should I bother with DS-M?
nice test but… a better title would be “… shootout wide open on a 1:2 crop sensor camera” it’s important because if i have a Sony A7 this test is not for me. thanks
It’s actually a 1:1.5 crop sensor (APS-C).
@Viktor this was a great comparison test. Thank you so much for taking the time to test all of these lenses. Are you on social media? How can you be reached besides here?
Hi Dean, there is an email link above if you want to contact me. Verybiglobo is on FB and Youtube but not very active. No money to live from it, so I need to work on a profitable things.
Please forgive my hasty question! I should have kept reading 🙁 Thanks for including your favorite!!!
If I may? Being that your favorite is really expensive, going back to my original question, what would be your “economical” choice?
Hi, after many years I concluded that the condition of these old lenses is often more important than their initial optical quality.
That being said, for sharpness and contrast at f/1.4, my favorite would be Contax Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 C/Y and Topcor RE Topcor 58/1.4, Leica Summicron R Canada and later 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8. Good sharpness but weaker contrast has Zeiss Ultron (Icarex) 50/1.8.
If money nor size are issues, I love Canon FDn 50/1.2 L and especially, Canon 55/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical (great lens).
From the mainstream cost friendly brands I would pick Canon FDn 50/1.4 and Olympus 50/1.4 later serial number, with MC. (1.100.000+) Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, Yashica, Cosina, Ricoh, and many others are all very similar if you find a good copy. The newer the lens, the newer coatings should have and thus better micro contrast and sharpness.
My favorite 50mm on a FF are however two other lenses, but not because their sharpness or contrast wide open, rather for their signature subject isolation capabilities (weird bokeh, wignetting etc.) and these are MOG Domiron 50/2 and CZJ Biotar 50/1.4 (vignettes slightly on FF).
Lately I also had a lot of fun with a Lensbaby Twist 60 a Petzval design revival.
For the ultimate sharpness and micro contrast and for the very unique rendering capabilities, I choose Zeiss Otus 55/1.4.
Cheers,
Viktor
u6xish