I'm looking for a 50mm lens with high microcontrast for shooting stopped down f/4-11, at distance. (to complement my Siggy 50)

What lens would be best in this situations? I've read that ZE 50 and EF 50/1.4 are pretty good.

thanks,

--trajan

I would try zf 50/2 macro or zuiko macro 50/2

50/4 Macro-Takumar

Zeiss Ultron 50/1.8 or Leica Summicron 50/2

This fellow is selling his Contax 50 1.7 over on photography-on-the.net, and he has this demo up at f/5.6, with no PP:

That at close-up distance. Many normal lenses have performance that drops at infinity.

By normal, you mean 50mm, right (as opposed to normal vs alt)? I didn't realize the 50mm focal length was more prone to that than others.

My ZE absolutely killed the Canon 50 f:1.4 which I had when I bought the Zeiss. It is now my walkabout lens on my 5D MkII.
Here is an example, on the 40D which I owned then. Very sharp and contrasty, yet a very smooth rendition. Use the magnifying glass to get a larger size.
Carl Zeiss ZE 50mm f:1.4

philber wrote:
My ZE absolutely killed the Canon 50 f:1.4 which I had when I bought the Zeiss. It is now my walkabout lens on my 5D MkII.
Here is an example, on the 40D which I owned then. Very sharp and contrasty, yet a very smooth rendition. Use the magnifying glass to get a larger size.
Carl Zeiss ZE 50mm f:1.4

Thanks. This is very useful to know.

--trajan

erichard wrote:
This fellow is selling his Contax 50 1.7 over on photography-on-the.net, and he has this demo up at f/5.6, with no PP:

This is one of the cheapest 50's you can get, the C/Y, but a lot of people swear by it.

It surely produced a stunning result!

My C/Y 50mm 1.7 is simply stunning in all areas except wide open bokeh. This becomes very nice at 2.8 but it could be argued that this is too stopped down for real bokeh fanatics. When stopped down to F8-F11 it realy shows what a 5D sensor can do and you are left with the distinct impression that the route to better detail in images is not more MP's but better glass. It's such a cheap lens as well so there is no excuse for not trying one out. Possibly there is some sample variation ( what lens does not have this?) from what others have said but my sample is in a class of it's own and a yardstick against which all other lenses are judged for resolution. Some can match or come close to it in the center but none can hold the same resolution in the corners under critical inspection.

Zeiss ZF 50 makro.

Micro contrast is incredible, even at distance.

There are other fine 50's, but I can't imagine a better compliment to the Siggy.

The CY 50/1.4 is also a fine lens, and available for a lot less, but it simply is not as sharp nor contrasty as the makro. (and my 1.4 was cherry-picked from 4 nice examples) It is close, though, (esp at F/8 + ) and certainly a good choice for the money.

I have example pics, but no way to give you access to high-res versions. A low-res FM post probably wouldn't show the differences well.

I like the 50/2 Summicron

Here's an example stopped down

Philber,
your Picasa-shot reminded me of a very similar one I have put on the Picasa too and you have to use the loupe too to see what's going on there,
http://picasaweb.google.com/beogeo/Stadt2#5197025821075274242

Macrocontrast does not have anything to do with macro distance photography.

Landscape photography OTOH does not have anything to do with micro contrast IMO. I should clarify that I understand the landscape genre to be in the 1-100KM range, so for me it all boils down to macro contrast and the best flare resistance possible.

Conclusion for me like for so many others here is the Contax Planar 1.7/50.

Best, Georg

Wow, tough call for me. Out of my 3 50mm's I'd say the C/Y 50/1.4 is the best bet. But in certain situations the dirt cheap Pentax 50/1.4 can beat it and render wonderful "3D" shots. I consider my Leica 50/2 to be stronger in terms of tonal quality not contrast.

Krosavcheg wrote:
Is this Contax N or Contax/Yashica?

The 50/1.7 is a CY lens. The only 50mm lens available as N-mount is the 50/1.4, and from what I have read, is virtually identical to its CY-mount cousin.

philber wrote:
My ZE absolutely killed the Canon 50 f:1.4 which I had when I bought the Zeiss. It is now my walkabout lens on my 5D MkII.
Here is an example, on the 40D which I owned then. Very sharp and contrasty, yet a very smooth rendition. Use the magnifying glass to get a larger size.
Carl Zeiss ZE 50mm f:1.4


Yes, if you're looking for high micro-contrast from f4 to f11, really look no further than the Zeiss ZE/ZF 50/1.4 Planars. To save a bit of cash, you could try Zeiss Contax 50/1.4, or to save even more the Zeiss Contax 50/1.7.

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db.html

Pebbleplace has links to zeiss (c/y) lens data pdf's that include mtf charts ... you can compare the mtf characteristics of their different lenses i.e. 50 1.7 vs. 50 1.4, etc.

For instance, I shoot on a 1D MKII, so with a crop factor of 1.25x my dimensions are:


1D MK II Width Height Diagonal
Sensor Size 28.70 19.10 34.47
From center 14.35 9.55 17.24

Accordingly, I like to see at what distance from center the lens mtf tangential & sagittal lines start to separate. For me, those lenses that hold tight for at least 10mm suggests that I'll get very good results. Your shooting style & sensor size may vary your interpretation.

For my uses ... the 50mm 1.7 holds tight out to 20mm (trailing a bit @ 15mm). It is a tiny bit lower MTF than the 1.4 which starts to separate around 10mm. For me, the tradeoff of keeping the tangential & sagittal tight longer, vs. a small difference in in MTF resolution suggests a better performance to my style.

Also, I'm not inclined to shoot razor thin DOF or low light, so the 1.4 doesn't mean much to me, 1.7 is fine. I'm shooting with the 35-70 Macro right now, so I don't have the 50mm 1.7 ... but that is the direction I'll be headed when I feel the need. It's character is close to the same as the 35-70 @ 50mm, albeit a little better resolution ... but just a little.

For comparison ... check out the 21mm ... it has smoking hot high mtf and it holds tight ... no wonder it is a $2K lens ... in my dreams, but it shows me what I should be striving for ... also the 100mm Planar & the 85mm Planar show simliar patterns (albeit not quite as high MTF). Given the 100mm & 21mm are lenses that speak for themselves ... I like the fact that the 1.7 looks more like they do than the 1.4 (on paper)

The MTF's are usually shown for both wide open (specific to that lens) and at 5.6 for a benchmark comparison. Zoom lenses usually show 3 ranges (wide, middle, long). It is really nice info to know ... props to PebblePlace.