View Full Version : 50/1.4 or 50/2 for Nikon rangefinder?
Which 50mm do you recommend for general photography? Both seem to cost the same and are about the same size. Thanks in advance.
Both are considered excellent. I have the 50/2 in LTM mount and it is a great lens. The 1.4 lens is optimized for wide open close range photography. Perhaps that makes the 2.0 a better general purpose lens.
Good time to pick up S-Mount lenses!
Both are sharp. I favor the F1.4 lens. VERY sharp, and I have never been dissappointed with distance shots, stopped down. The F2 is a fine lens.
But, prices being the same, weight is "about" the same, contrast/sharpness about the same, the faster lens gives an extra stop which is a definite advantage in low light.
If the prices are the same, you might as well get the extra stop with the 1.4. I don't yet have an f/2 version, but Dante Stella's article says the 1.4 and the 2 have nearly identical performance when the 1.4 is stopped down to f/2.
If "bokeh" is important to you, the f/2 version is reportedly smoother. The 1.4 can get very harsh in some situations.
Thanks for the replies. I'll go for the 50/1.4. By the way I see "Olympic" 50's selling on fleabay for over $2000. Are these things that great?!? :eek:
No: They are more collectible. For that price, buy a chrome S3-2000 with its 50mm/1.4 lens. That is essentially the multi-coated version of the Olympic lens.
The older lens is a Sonnar formula, is smaller, and is very sharp. It goes for about 1/10th the price that you mention.
Stopped-down to F4.
See this thread to compare with a Canon 50mm/1.4, lens number 1, which is a "planar" formula.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.