June 15th, 2012, 10:20 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattia
Sharpness isn't the only criterion, rendering has a lot to do with it.
I own a fair number of 50's; the Canon 50/1.8 mk 1 is incredibly sharp, already wide open and more so stopped down a tiny amount. It's also my least favorite 50 - rendering isn't interesting, bokeh's not that great. My favorite autofocus 50 is the Sigma 50/1.4 which tends slightly towards warmth and has beautiful contrast and bokeh. It's also huge and heavy.
Probably my favorite lens if I don't need autofocus is my Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4 - it's not that sharp wide open, but has wonderful rendering - that Zeiss micro contrast. Not the smoothest bokeh perhaps, but I still really, really like the overall results I get with it. I've only played around with the two Pentax 50s (1.7 and 2.0) a tiny bit so far, so can't really comment, ditto for the Leica R 50/2. I find the handling on the latter a little stiff, may have it serviced and cleaned as it's a lens that has been sitting unused for about 20 years. The Zeiss is the nicest handling out of them all.
|
My own experience agrees with his. On m4/3 I've tried out a modern Canon 50 1.8, FD 1.8; CZ Jena 50 1.8(I think it was); CZ Tessar 50 1.4; Hexanon 50 1.7; Oly OM 50 1.8.
I liked the modern Canon's rendering the least, but it was quite sharp. My favorites are the Zeiss Tessar (C/Y mount), followed by the OM, followed by the Hexanon.
The Zeiss is almost as sharp as the Canon EOS, but has much smoother bokeh and better contrast. I find it seems to "lock in" on what I have in focus with beautiful contrast and sharpness while it drops the contrast and saturation of what's not in focus. Just what I want. It would take forever to do that PP, and this old lens does it automagically.
And, C/Y mount and OM mount lenses can easily be adapted to my (mostly unused) EOS body!
|
8Thanks
