Sorry, ML, I missed your post in 4/24. For what I do in general, it's the best option. Fred's reviews and images tell the story. I had hoped for a similar rendering with elevated CA protection (the Heliar needs a little clean up at times on water) and the same IQ as the 50/2 APO in most respects, better in some.
But keeping that ultra high 'see through' transparency and colour intensity the Heliar 50/3.5 has as it main features. And they did it, and added high IQ close focus, more settled bokeh, kept the weight the same (T2 black, the T1 also).
I can't help but wonder what is responsible for the 'digital look' that has many here using film and looking for remedies in profiles. Designers just love aspherics, but that 'too perfect' look that high asph lenses have might be a two-edged sword, if they are not handled carefully in the relentless urge to perfect images. The Nikon forum has a very interesting thread about the 40/2 and the 50/1.8 lenses:
Is popular taste also changing in the wake of phone image market saturation, acting as an unconscious influence? Image rendering must serve public tastes so we might see a reversion to what used to be mainstream values in photos.
The 50/1.8 S has as many asph elements as it does ED elements. I can't find a bad word about aspherics in the literature and that makes me suspicious. I see asph as a kind of optical rocket fuel, needed for the very fast and APO lenses; and zooms of course, the major beneficiaries.
50mm is close the centre focal length of my landscapes. The longer walk/travel opportunities are dramatically taken care of by the very light VM 75/1.5. I also just bought an Ultron 28/2. I forgive them each for their one asph element, placed at the rear, just like the Otuses. So I am finally 'there' for the long walks where very low weight is a necessity.
In the new 50/3.5 APOs (and 50/2.2), Cosina has aimed these lenses squarely at the traditional photographer demographic - people who look past the odd shapes and ring designs. It's too high a bar for most people, they would not be seen outdoors with such lenses.
You would even have trouble marketing an 'f2.2' lens, lol, let alone a one ring 50/3.5. So they feel they can really let rip on these old design lines. The people they want to reach will really like the direction they are taking optically.
I now see their move back into home territory (M-mount) as an expression of disappointment at how modern photography is going. Maybe that is why they made the mirrorless mounts 75/1.5 and 50/1 lenses large and heavy. 'If this is what you want, here it is'.
Even their images of the Z/RF/E versions of the 75/1.5 are so dark you can barely see them, it's same in Dustin Abbott's review. But the VM lenses are well lit!
The Nikon page banner has a frosty snow scene, cold and unfriendly. The sad women in the RF/E pages look like they are asking: 'why?' But the VM page is a warm toned wall, and the woman is walking towards the light. It all gets chosen carefully.
