Battle of the Fifties



2 Friends and I made a comparison between 10 50mm-ish lenses.
We haven't done a scientific comparison and we only used 1 sample of every lens, so be gentle...
These are the results of the tests


--------------------The Lenses--------------------

Canon 50mm f/1.0 L USM



Canon 50mm f/1.2 L USM



Canon 50mm f/1.4



Canon 50mm f/1.8



Sigma 50mm f/1.4



Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2



Minolta Rokkor 45mm f/2.0



Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T*



Carl Zeiss Makro Planar 50mm f/2

Thanks to Denoir for providing the picture


Voigtländer 40 mm f/2.0 SLII




--------------------Vignetting--------------------

f/1.0


f/1.2


f/1.4


f/1.8


f/2.0


f/2.8


f/4.0




--------------------Sharpness--------------------

Centre

f/1.0


f/1.2


f/1.4


f/1.8


f/2.0


f/2.8


f/4.0



Border

f/1.0


f/1.2


f/1.4


f/1.8


f/2.0


f/2.8


f/4.0



Corner

f/1.0


f/1.2


f/1.4


f/1.8


f/2.0


f/2.8


f/4.0




--------------------Colors--------------------

Canon 50/1.0L


Canon 50/1.2L


Canon 50/1.4


Canon 50/1.8


Sigma 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/2.0


Minolta 58/1.2


Minolta 45/2


Voigtländer 40/2




--------------------Bokeh--------------------

Wide-open

Canon 50/1.0L


Canon 50/1.2L


Canon 50/1,4


Canon 50/1.8


Sigma 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/2.0


Minolta 58/1.2


Minolta 45/2.0


Voigtländer 40/2.0



f/2.8

Canon 50/1.0L


Canon 50/1.2L


Canon 50/1.4


Canon 50/1.8


Sigma 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/2.0


Minolta 58/1.2


Minolta 45/2.0


Voigtländer 40/2.0




--------------------Highlight Bokeh--------------------

f/1.0


f/1.2


f/1.4


f/1.8


f/2.0


f/2.8




--------------------Flares--------------------

Canon 50/1.0L


Canon 50/1.2L


Canon 50/1.4


Canon 50/1.8


Sigma 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/2.0


Minolta 58/1.2


Minolta 45/2.0


Voigtländer 40/2.0




--------------------Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations--------------------

Canon 50/1.0L


Canon 50/1.2L


Canon 50/1.4


Canon 50/1.8


Sigma 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/1.4


Zeiss 50/2.0


Minolta 58/1.2


Minolta 45/2.0


Voigtländer 40/2.0

That is fantastic comparison U.C.! Thanks to you and your friend.
You really, REALLY showed that there are many aspects of lens performance.
It would be interesting to see if there are focus shifts too (I'm taking cover now).
What are your preferences?

Wow, great work guys! Very interesting and an excellent form of presentation.

Great work, thanks for doing the comparison!
It might have been nice to equalize the field of view (rather than shooting at constant distance) for the resolution tests; it's sometimes hard to see whether resolution differences with the Minolta 58 or CV 40 are real or just due to the scaled up/down segment of wall being viewed.
Also, are the "corner" crops from at the very corners of the frame? If so, it might also be nice to show near-corner crops, since in my experience many lenses have an extremely fast resolution falloff right at the extreme corners (in the area that would often be covered by the rounded corners of a slide holder).

that's a lot of work. thanks! i thought the rokkor 45/2 would do a bit better.

Thanks!
Some conclusions I made after the tests:
-don't buy a 50/1.0L, it's a one trick pony.
-the 50/1.2L is sharper than my Sigma 50/1.4.
-I like the colors of my Rokkor 58/1.2 the most.
-the Rokkor 45/2 does have some field curvature.

Thanks for posting! It was a lot of work I'm sure but, you've pretty much covered the bases. No method of testing will ever be perfect. I'd say there are some pretty interesting results here.

Dan

I will always love my Sigma 50. This is one of the best 50 tests, I've seen. Good work.

I'd like to have seen*in the test* some Nikons, C/Y 50 1.7, FL 55, CV 58, Zuiko 50/2, Tak 50 1.4, Leica 50 R, Any of the Pentax 1.7s or 1.4s(not the Super Taks).

If I had the cash, I'd have every desirable 50 ever made. I've shot with around 15 different 50s.

My conclusions(for what they matter, sans pictures) were that the Sigma 50 is the best AF 50 for Canon. The Zuiko 50/2 and Zeiss 50/2 are the best options around if you don't need AF. I love the bokeh out of the rokkor 58, nikon 58, FL 55, c/y 1.7 and 1.4, tak 1.4 and the /2 macros. If I was on Nikon, I'd shoot with a CV 58.

great work. thanks.
I have the 58/1.2 & just got a 50MP and it's great to see how they measure up. Once I get my leitax adapter I hope to see how the 50MP stacks up against my 50'cron, these tests is a good example of what to look for.

I'd love to see Zuiko 50/1.2 too, but FWIW kudos!

Thanks for the great test, this covers lots of ground, except for the lens that focus backwards of course

CV 58 is one great lens, if you can get your hands on one and test it with these that would be great!

Good work, and a great way of showing us the results! Thank you.

As a licensed nitpicker I have to make a negative comment and I agree with mpmendenhall's comment on equalized shooting distances. Make it two comments... the last set of images should have been processed to the same resulting white balance and exposure. The bokeh test doesn't reveal anything about the swirly and busy bokeh often seen in, for example, the Minolta 58/1.2 lens wide open. The focus shift is also not covered.

Sound a bit negative, no? Still your presentation is one of the best I have seen!

Your result matches anything else I have seen and also my own experience from these lenses (except for the shorter 40-45mm ones and the EF50/1.0 which I never seen in real life).

regards,

/Jonas

Thanks for your comments. The white balance and exposure can still be adjusted (I have the raw-files). Maybe if I have some time left a could make some adjustments.

FWIW: If I have my Zeiss MP 100/2, I could do some comparisons with other medium-telephoto-lenses and keep the comments about this comparison in my mind.

Brilliant work.

I've always been interested in owning an ultra fast 50mm for those super bokeh shots.

U.C. wrote:
Some conclusions I made after the tests:
-don't buy a 50/1.0L, it's a one trick pony.


No worries, I won't buy it, I already have

One should own at least 2 different 50's that's for sure.

Great battle execution! Thanks!

great test! looks like a lot of work. i'm guessing you didn't refocus on the corners for the corner crops? another vote for reframing different focal lengths to match field of view.

with regard to the rokkor 45mm, i'm pretty sure that's just edge softness not field curvature. in my test of it on aps-c i saw that same corner softness even though i refocused to get maximum sharpness in the center.

This test confirms that I don't have any desire to get the 1.0L, that 1.2L is all I need till a mkII is announced.

Nicely done! From what I can see the real winners are the 1.0L and the Rokkor, but I knew that already...

(1.0L sharper than all others @ 1.0, 1.2, etc in the center from what I can see - impressive!)

The Rokkor and 1.0L have bokeh in a class of their own it looks like to me.

Great flare shots too! Those show some wildly different and interesting flare. Very cool!

-Ed

Ed Sawyer wrote:
Nicely done! From what I can see the real winners are the 1.0L and the Rokkor, but I knew that already...

(1.0L sharper than all others @ 1.0, 1.2, etc in the center from what I can see - impressive!)

The Rokkor and 1.0L have bokeh in a class of their own it looks like to me.

Great flare shots too! Those show some wildly different and interesting flare. Very cool!

-Ed


The 1.0L is horrendous outside of center and I suspect the 1.2L would sharpen up cleaner than the 1.0.

The Rokkor has the best bokeh, but the highlights....wow, the 1.0L has some bad 'uns.

what i find interesting is that the rokkor seems to beat pretty much all the lenses at f/1.4 (and f/1.2) at the borders, but then falls behind in the corners.