Which 50mm to keep?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by WT21, Apr 22, 2010.

  1. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I've now collected four 50mm lenses. Rokkor MC 58 1.4, SuperTak 50mm 1.4, OM 50mm 3.5 macro, OM 50mm 2.0 macro. Clearly some overlap (I'll save you the history on how I got here).

    The SuperTak has a warm (radioactive :) tone to it, and has great focus ring action, but at 1.4 it's REALLY soft, but sharpens one click down, and even better two clicks down. I'm not a fan of the "auto" switch though, which is so easy to bump, and sets the lens to 1.4. Also, the lens is soft to the corners. This was my first MF lens on my EP1, and I looked next for a macro.

    OM 3.5 is a nice lens, but at 3.5 on m43, really is only a macro. It's not fast enough for portraits, IMO. Nice lens in general, though.

    Found the old Rokkor (metal knuckle focus ring) at a show for cheap, and decided to see if it would replace my SuperTak. It's not as soft at 1.4 as the SuperTak, but it's still soft. Sharpens at 2.0, but specular highlights starts getting angular. It's also heavier than the two above, and in this copy, the focus ring is really stiff (though the upside is that it holds focus!). It's color is much cooler than the SuperTak, though better to the edges.

    OM 2.0 macro has very nice bokeh and is sharp at 2.0 (stopped down, and the spec. highlights get angular). It's big, and the most expensive of the 4 (at $350 from B&H). There's a little crud in the lens. Don't think it'll show up, though. Sharp and accurate color.

    I'm thinking I should keep the OM 2.0 for macro and portraits and the SuperTak, which has a unique color and feel and is only worth about $30 anyways. None of them are expensive, but it seems silly to have four 50mm lenses. Maybe I should just sell the 3.5 macro (which has clear overlap), because the Rokkor's only a $30 lens itself.

    Don't know why I'm posting this. Just fishing for thoughts/feedback.

    One question, though -- the Rokkor adapter (an RJ MD-m43) leaves a little play between the lens and adapter. Left/Right play, not forward/backward. Is anyone elses MD adapter slightly loose, or should I expect nice and tight? My SuperTak and OM adapters are both tight.
     
  2. mlwebb

    mlwebb Mu-43 Rookie

    17
    Apr 3, 2010
    Monroe, Or
    My nikon adapter is a little loose too, but works fine. Somewhere on mu-43 there is a link to a blog post on tweaking adapters. My Nikon adapter has little slots in it that could be spread a bit with a screwdriver, which should tighten it up, but I haven't tried it yet. I understand them being a little loose, as the manufacturer doesn't know if your putting on a new lens, or a 30 year old one, brand name or not, and the downside of too tight is going to produce more bad feedback than too loose.

    re lenses, I would keep the 2.0 macro (I want one), and the Tak too.
    Michael
     
  3. Brian S

    Brian S Mu-43 Top Veteran Charter Member

    714
    Apr 11, 2009
    I have yet to put my HOT GLASS lenses on the M8. I know it's an Alpha Emitter, and should not be an issue, BUT: If it can fog film, what can it do to a CCD or CMOS sensor...
     
  4. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Hadn't thought of that, but my used EP1 isn't in the same cost class as an M8, so I won't be too worried :) Good question, though.
     
  5. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    ve got a hexanon 50 1.4,hex 58 1.2, a CV 50 1.5, a rollei slr 50 2, a yashica 50 1.9 , a nikkor h 50 2 nikon af 50 1.4, a contax g 45 2, a 45 2 minolta, and one of two others that have similar fovs........all have spent time on my micro four thirds machines

    do i need them all ? nope ... so they are changed occasionally for the sake of novelty and a change of view . theyve become something like a collection
     
  6. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    LOL! Maybe I shouldn't be so sheepish after all :) It is nice to change things up a bit, isn't it? And the old lenses are pretty cheap. There's not a lot of money in them. Maybe I will just keep them (perhaps excepting the 50/3.5 macro. With the 50/2 macro, I don't see much of a need for that one). What I'd really like to find is a 90 macro. Maybe a Vivitar Series 1.

    Thanks for the encouragement :)
     
  7. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    my 50's list

    OM 50/1.8
    OM 50/1.4
    Nikon EM 50/2.8
    Nikkor 50/1.4
    Nikkor 50/1.2
    Takumar 50/1.4
    Contax 50/1.7
    Leica R 50/2

    add to that the girlfriends 50/1 noctilux and an old Nikkor 50/2 and i think i have the 50's covered

    :)
     
  8. Rich M

    Rich M Mu-43 Veteran

    315
    Mar 2, 2010
    And here's mine :redface: :

    Canon FD 50/1.4 (chrome nose)
    Canon RF 50/1.4 LTM
    Super-Takumar 50/1.4
    Minolta MC 58/1.4
    Konica Hexanon 57/1.2
    Contax 50/1.4

    AND (because I use them for portraits)

    PL 45/2.8
    Contax G 45/2.0
    Leica/Leitz 40/2.0

    I feel the same way as you about the Minolta 58/1.4.....plus it is not very saturated when it comes to colors (but it belonged to my father)....so I gotta keep it.

    The Tak 50/1.4 is everything you said.....that's WHY I like it for portraits....it very forgiving....the sharper lenses don't do well with people in my age group. :rolleyes:
     
  9. Jonas B

    Jonas B Guest

    91
    Apr 23, 2010
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    I would keep the Super Takumar and the OM50/2. The Takumar for its own character and the OM50/2 Macro because it is one of the best 50mm lenses ever made; it's very versatile, has a good mechanical feeling, is very "sharp" without rendering the OOF areas ugly in any way... and it will work with many different future cameras.

    regards,

    /Jonas