Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

well that's one comment she won't saying , when she see's your spare tire
:!: :!: :thumbdown:

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

ah, here we go again with the 50 mm lenses. the f1:1.8 will deliver better results across the board. less comma and chromatic aberration. as lenses move up in aperture and become "faster", they give up certain properties. the f1:1.8 will provide better edge to edge results. the only high speed 50mm (or thereabouts) lenses really worth owning and using are the nikkor nocto and the leitz noctilux. these are made specifically for making images in low light and are optically corrected accordingly. they are also very, very expensive.

amehta Loc: Boston

Why must the answer start like this? There is no reason to insult the OP who is asking a valid question. :-(

marblclear Loc: Sacramento CA

I totally agree with the other reply. Why is it necessary that you come across as so freaking arrogant! And besides it's COMA, not comma, that's punctuation.

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

Do you own either the Nikkor or the Leitz?. Does a good friend of yours have one or both? If so, did ya'll run extensive test? How do you know they're any better than a $129.00 on sale lens at "Acme Wholesale photography and bar and grill"? Have you ever owned *anything*Leica? I have. I have tested most all my lenses, and for the most part, they were so close in resolution that you wouldn't see any difference in a print 11x14 inches, but you would see some difference at around 16x20 inches. What I have noticed is lens flair in the cheaper lenses. Enlarger lenses are pretty easy to test,as anyone who has an enlarger knows. If he/she has more than one enlarger lens of the same focal length can tell you.
Well, It's time for this old photographer to go to bed.
seeya
David

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

let's see,
leica m6, m4 and mp with 50mm summilux and 50mm noctilux and 35mm summilux.

in nikon it's the f, f2 and f6 along with 50mm 2.0, 1.8, 1.4, 1:1.2 and nocto lenses.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Your a good man! :) :thumbup:

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

OK. I'm almost impressed. I'm guessing you ran test on all your lenses also. Most of my old buddy's from years ago (mostly gone to a better place) who bought VERY expensive lenses like you mention, but later learned they weren't any sharper than the lens they were replacing, would never admit they were duped into believing all the photography magazine's hoopla about the new *wonder* lens. No. They just decided it must be the cameras fault, so they bought the newest wonder camera that all their lenses would work with. I'll ask again, What big Lens maker such as Leica, Nikon, Pentax, Tokena (spelling) and many other big named lens makers ever have a bad test report? We both could go on and on with this boring subject without a winner. Ok I give. You won. Do you feel better now? I'm gonna keep on looking for a bad test report on ANY major lens, camera, photo software co. (like Adobe photoshop) or any big name (in the camera world) anything, but I wont hold my breath until I find one.
Go Ahead and live your life with your head in the sand. I
prefer to rely on my ears, eyes and mind to decide what is a good product and what is just the same old song and dance. Seeya,
David

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

hi David,

there's no winning or losing either with you and me or with these 50mm lenses. for instance i'd never use either noct lenses for anything but night photography, as that's what they're designed for. the summilux lenses, 50mm and 35mm are excellent all around lenses. however, again, the aperture exacts a price. neither is as sharp at 1.4 as the 50mm and 35mm summicrons at f2.0. so again, a trade off for the extra f stop.
in the nikons, the pokey f2.0 lens is the best of the lot. great edge to edge definition. the 1.8 is also a real winner. the 1.4 is what i'd call a "good" lens and that's okay too. the ultra fast f1:1.2 lenses were just acceptable, as far as i was concerned. we just got them to impress girls, back in my hartford ct days - and for me, it still didn't work!

i've never run tests, beyond my print results. but sometimes something appears so evident that it can't be ignored. what immediately comes to what passes for my mind is the nikon 16mm f2.8 and the minolta rokkor lens of same. the rokkor just eats the nikon alive. me, i couldn't believe it at first, but the negatives even showed remarkable difference. so, sold the nikon and have the rokkor on my old dependable minolta sr-7 body.

so, there you go. i remember the old days of popular and modern photography and the tests they ran. i could never figure out how these would apply to my work, and pretty much ignored them - had no time to take pictures of brick walls and targets. in my youth, we had great photographers in hartford and they shared their experiences and knowledge of photography with us. equipment, development formulae and everything in between.
and, as far as tests are concerned, the english film "blow up" did more to sell the ass off nikon Fs and the 105mm f2.5 lens than any test anyone could run - we all wanted to be david bailey!
sorry, for the long reply - i just don't like the feeling of competition that goes on oftentimes in the hog. it's not about stuff, to me; but about the final print. i think that's where the magic happens. anyway, hope you are having fun making images and wish you all the best.
kindest regards,
cody

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

David, I'm gonna put your waiting out off it's misery, but first, my 2cents.
David, you're correct that too many base a system decision on pure conjecture or tradition. Both are a lousy way to pick anything. BUT, let's face it, for many, other than personal self-glory, it will never make one iota of difference, so no harm done.
Unfortunately, most of us are not qualified to do the jobs of a good tester. Yes, we must use our own eyes and ears, but we must temper them with the expertise of someone we feel we can trust. And, we all have what is important to us. For me personally, how sharp a lens is is just a bonus, since most pro lenses(and even kit lenses)are sharp enough in the real world. So I really could care less JUST how sharp a lens tests out at. I'm more concerned with focus accuracy and speed, as well as sealing and weight. For me, those are far more critical factors, but maybe not to the next guy.
So, on to your burning inquiry. My tester of choice is the guy that runs " The Digital Picture". I trust his reviews to be accurate and real world, since it's where we all shoot. It took me many years to pick him. And once I knew his style, his reviews were very consistent. I'm wary, of ANY lens, where he has to test more than one sample, to bear out deviations in copies.
Read his test on two lenses, and see what you think?!
Lens #1, Zeiss, 85mm f1.4 Planer T ZE
Lens #2, Sigma 50mm f1.4, and lesser so, the new ART lens.
I'm sure there are many others, just a few I have read about since they are thrown around as some of Eos'(the goddess) gift to photographers.
I'm sure the loyal legions will continue to sing their songs.

I suggest you find a tester you can trust, and use their info to your advantage. A good tester that has tested a 1000 lenses, using the same methodology, will quickly start to find the patterns, strengths and short-comings in lens performance.
David, sorry, but I can't help you with Adobe.
Good luck and keep bucking the system. :lol:
SS

marblclear Loc: Sacramento CA

At this point I feel very sorry for ArtP, you have taken the conversation completely away from his fairly simple question. You have turned it into what I see as a pissing match about who knows the most about lenses. Shame on you.

Dun1 Loc: Atlanta, GA

The 50 mm f 1.4 will probably suit your needs in most instances unless your camera lens budget is deep
If you tried to get an opinion from a clerk at Best Buy in regards to which one of these lens to purchase, you wasted your time. The only thing you might have found out is whether or not the lens was in stock there, and it was probably not.
These comments are so true and written with some wit and sarcasm > the sales people at Best Buy in particular the camera department might or might not be able to find out if any of the lenses you want to purchase are in stock. That is if they don't a set of earphones, or a head set, if you can syncopate your questions during breaks in the music. That sales person who is taking up space near the camera department may not have a key to the cabinet where the lenses are stored, and finding a person who actually has a key may be fruitless, and you could probably harvest a crop before the cabinet is unlocked.
Don't waste you time trying to get solutions to your question at Best Buy
When you make your decision about which lens to purchase use Adorama, B&H, or Amazon to make your purchase you will probably find they have the lens you want in stock, they won't be clueless about an answer should have one.

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

Hi Wj. Thank you for your time on this subject. I did feel
I was keeping you from doing something besides posting back to me. Gotta go now. God bless.
David

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i'm sorry about that. i am more often than not probably, acerbic. it's just that the "testing" thing has always bothered the hell out of me. i used, in my youth, to speak with more experienced photographers whose work i enjoyed. invariably the most important things i learned was light, shadow, available dark and development formulae. i have always been indebted to Misha Langer, for instance, for sharing with me his variation on the leitz developer formula. pretty much turned my world upside down. he used leica, and i used nikon Fs; we'd run across each other sometimes working with the same ballet and modern dance companys.
so, anyway, talk with the folks whose work you enjoy and admire. most will always be happy to provide assistance to questions you may have.
now, go make images!
cody

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

Thanks sharpshooter, you made several really good points.
Again thanks.
seeya David