alwang wrote:
The other option if you're budget constrained is the Canon 50 1.5 ltm: it's an old lens at this point, but mechanically much more sound then the Jupiter-3. Be careful of its contemporary rival the Nikkor 50 1.4 in Nikkor-S mount, even though it's excellent and much easier to find: it can't focus on mirrorless without an expensive helicoid adapter.
there actually is an ltm version of the nikkor as well, but it's quite a bit more expensive than the canon. it basically performs like the jupiter-3, but with more "character".
if you want a cheap tiny 50 that performs well, the non-sonnar canon 50/1.4 ltm is great and cheap, but i like both the c-sonnar and the cv 50/1.5 better for portraits and character...
robgo2 wrote:
Well, FWIW, ever since I saw Fred's post about onion rings, I have been traipsing around my house and backyard trying to produce them deliberately with my Nokton. I've been shooting at f1.5 looking for sparkly background highlights. So far, no such luck. There are ringed highlights that are mostly round, but definitely no onion rings. If anyone has examples of them with the Nokton 50/1.5 Aspherical, I would like to see them. And I should think that if they do sometimes occur, they must be pretty rare and, hence, not a cause for concern.
Rob
Rob,
I've never tried the Nokton 50/1.5 but it has an aspherical element and therefore onion ring patterns may be present depending on lighting and aperture used.
I quickly browsed Flickr and found a few samples images showing onion ring patterns in bokeh balls. (I posted crops below)
It's not as bad as some other lenses (Like the FE 55/1.8 or FE 35/1.4) but it's there. The Sonnar 50C will be free of these artifacts.
It's just some information for those deciding between both lenses. Another lens will zero onion ring pattern is the Loxia 50/2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Rob,
I've never tried the Nokton 50/1.5 but it has an aspherical element and therefore onion ring patterns may be present depending on lighting and aperture used.
I quickly browsed Flickr and found a few samples images showing onion ring patterns in bokeh balls. (I posted crops below)
It's not as bad as some other lenses (Like the FE 55/1.8 or FE 35/1.4) but it's there. The Sonnar 50C will be free of these artifacts.
It's just some information for those deciding between both lenses. Another lens will zero onion ring pattern is the Loxia 50/2.
Fred, thanks for finding those examples. I was not aware that onion rings are caused by aspherical elements. For me, the rings aren't severe or frequent enough to cause me any worry, given how well the Nokton performs otherwise. There is no perfect lens. They all involve compromises.
The LTM m39 version of the Nokton 50mm f1.5 goes for around $400 used, in case anyone wants to save a little bit over the optically identical M mount version
trogdon wrote:
The LTM m39 version of the Nokton 50mm f1.5 goes for around $400 used, in case anyone wants to save a little bit over the optically identical M mount version
I was wondering about this myself. I thought it was but nice to know it is
trogdon wrote:
The LTM m39 version of the Nokton 50mm f1.5 goes for around $400 used, in case anyone wants to save a little bit over the optically identical M mount version
Are the coatings the same on the two versions of the Nokton? I'm pretty sure that in the case of the 35/1.7 Ultron, the M version has new coatings that supposedly make it less prone to flare. It's worth checking out.
I just got back from a family trip in Hawaii but didn't have time to go over all the images yet.
Here is one from the Sonnar 50/1.5C. I believe, it was at f/1.7.
I have to stay away from this kind of thread..... Even before Fred's post, I ended up buying the C-Sonnar 50mm f/1.5. I am bad, bad, bad.... . I blame it partly to the TAP as well, the main reason of my buying a 2 more MF lenses.
Your bad. Have to find one in the 700 dollar range which won't be easy. Better polish my baseball helmet I know what's coming. Lol
Just need to knit a new ski mask. My gear budget is running red a dark red. Lol AGeoJO wrote:
I have to stay away from this kind of thread..... Even before Fred's post, I ended up buying the C-Sonnar 50mm f/1.5. I am bad, bad, bad.... . I blame it partly to the TAP as well, the main reason of my buying a 2 more MF lenses.
GMPhotography wrote:
Your bad. Have to find one in the 700 dollar range which won't be easy. Better polish my baseball helmet I know what's coming. Lol
I bought a mint one in the $800 range but it came with an original vented lens hood. I know the vents do not mean anything but it looks cool though . This will be strictly a people/portrait lens....That's my plan anyway.
Wonderful portraits Fred. You really make this lens shine.
I am building up a zm line of lenses now, have recently ordered both the 35/1.4 distagon and the 85/4 tele-tessar, in addition to the c sonnar (and a longer Leica lens I already possess). Will be a nice little trio that is excellent for travel and hiking. And will be great for mixing when I invest in an old m6 or m7
Did I mention that my wife is slowly starting to loose her patience?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is another close-up. I focused with TAP and no added lighting.
You know there really is something about that bokeh which is amazing. I think the slight jitteriness from the aberrations in the bokeh somehow makes the subject stand out more than if it were a flat, smooth almost Gaussian OOF look.
Even when I had my M9 the look the C-Sonnar renders appealed to me but back then there was the focus shift issue when stopped down and the two different calibration setups, for digital and for film. The whole "unknown" factor kind of turned me off and I didn't bother getting that lens but chose something else. The TAP and this thread reminded me of that and I am just a mere mortal, just like Guy. Right, Guy? We can only resist up to a certain degree and that degree is.... very, very low, I guess .
Don't forget focus distance which was greatly improved with TAP or any other close focus adapter. The main complaints with this lens are no longer issues and on top of that we get AF when needed.
AGeoJO wrote:
Even when I had my M9 the look the C-Sonnar renders appealed to me but back then there was the focus shift issue when stopped down and the two different calibration setups, for digital and for film. The whole "unknown" factor kind of turned me off and I didn't bother getting that lens but chose something else. The TAP and this thread reminded me of that and I am just a mere mortal, just like Guy. Right, Guy? We can only resist up to a certain degree and that degree is.... very, very low, I guess.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Don't forget focus distance which was greatly improved with TAP or any other close focus adapter. The main complaints with this lens are no longer issues and on top of that we get AF when needed.
Alright, Fred, that's exactly what I meant! I am looking forward to it.
. I blame it partly to the TAP as well, the main reason of my buying a 2 more MF lenses. 
Alright, Fred, that's exactly what I meant! I am looking forward to it.