[HoBykoYan]

the clear pick would be either the s-m-c 50/1.4 or SMC 50/1.4. They are the same optically and same coatings. The SMC Tak 55/1.8 would be the distant 2nd.

why all 50/55 choices?

they were all quite cheap and fun to use, i myself have owned i think about 25 of these fl's already and i can't get enough of them just trying them out.
on the list i only tried m50 1.7 and i noticed that all/most suggested tak 50-55 n m50 1.7 which are all pentax line, thus this mean that they are a lot better and that others are all eating dust?

[HoBykoYan]

I wouldn't want to quantify which is 'best', but I like the 8-element the best. What's the advantage of the 44-2? Bokeh. Swirly, swirly Bokeh. It's said to be sharp stopped down, but I only use it for the wide open Bokeh.

out of the non pentax lenses this is the only lens that got a good following. i was also looking for this one but only the other versions are available

[Kozlok]

None of the above, I'd get the Helios 44-2 because it renders like no other. That being said, it's also the ONLY one I have!

And a question, are the Tak 50's any different optically compared to the K Mount variety?

[HoBykoYan]

good question, how is the smc tak 50 1.4 compared to the M50 1.4 in relation to sharpness, rendering, contrast n others?

[Blue]

. . .

And a question, are the Tak 50's any different optically compared to the K Mount variety?

It depends on which Tak 50. The early Super Tak 50/1.4 had 8 elements in 7 groups and later Super Tak 50/1.4 had 7 elements in 6 groups. The later Super Tak 50/1.4 had pre-SMC coatings. The 55's have their own story.

good question, how is the smc tak 50 1.4 compared to the M50 1.4 in relation to sharpness, rendering, contrast n others?

In theory, the SMC 50/1.4 Tak and M 50/1.4 are similar. They both have 7 elements in 6 groups and the SMC coatings.

[HoBykoYan]

It depends on which Tak 50. The early Super Tak 50/1.4 had 8 elements in 7 groups and later Super Tak 50/1.4 had 7 elements in 6 groups. The later Super Tak 50/1.4 had pre-SMC coatings. The 55's have their own story.




In theory, the SMC 50/1.4 Tak and M 50/1.4 are similar. They both have 7 elements in 6 groups and the SMC coatings.

Well i guess since i already own the M50 1.4 then the smc wouldn't be necessary right?

How about the other third party lenses as mentioned on the list? 44-2 is leading the race in the third party category... any other suggestions than i can consider owning?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

+1 for the Tak 50/1.4 and the Helios 44 58/2.

I found the Tak to be sharper wide open than the FA 50/1.4.

Speaking of 50mm lenses, if we can add to the list, the Volna 9 50/2.8 macro is an excellent lens too, so you might want to go for 3 instead of 2.

[vonBaloney]

The Yashinons are good performers -- the DSM has better coatings than the DX series, but has no A-M switch (you have to glue the pin down). The DX 1.4 isn't really usable at 1.4, so the 1.7 DX is actually preferred (the 1.4 goes from 1.4 to 2.0 with no stop in the middle, so the 1.7 is actually faster if you want reasonable sharpness and less aberrations). Both the 1.7 & 1.4 DX have a rear element that sticks out farther than any other m42 when at infinity and will foul the mirror on some cameras. I haven't had any such trouble (K10D, K7, or K5), but have heard complaints from K20D owners. It is just a matter of less than a millimeter -- seems to depend on the particular lens/body combo. (You'll never be able to use the DXs on a full-frame with a mirror.) The DSM has no such problems. There is also a DX 50/2 that is quite fine but again has a protruding rear element although not quite as bad as the other two. The DXs are cool-looking with their chrome (most of them, I think there might be a few non-chrome ones). The DX 50/1.4 is a huge lens (wide) -- biggest 50 I have. There is also a DSM 50/1.4 out there. I used to have one, but sold it. Only had it a short time and can't remember if it was good wide open or not.

Best bet is probably the DSM 50/1.7 as you don't have to worry about the mirror problem, although I do really like the DX as well. Any of them will be cheaper than the Taks (which I also don't find so hot at 1.4).

Let me also put in a good word for the Meyer-Optik 50/1.8 Oreston or the Pentacon 50/1.8 (same lens, factory name change) -- my favorite old 50. (Haven't tried the Helios versions that seem to be preferred, although I do have a later 58/2.)

[reeftool]

I have the 55/1.8 Tak and the 55/1.7 Chinon. Both are good lenses. I haven't used the Chinon much but the little I have used it, the results have been excellent. The Tak is smaller, lighter, and a real sweetheart to use. The Tak 55/2's are dirt cheap and also an excellent lens. I have ended up with a pretty good collection of M42 glass in the past year. Most of it was garage sale purchases of a box with old cameras and lenses. Got some Olympus and Nikon glass too. I don't have a use for it but the owners of the house found it there after buying the house and were going to throw it all away.

[HoBykoYan]

The Yashinons are good performers -- the DSM has better coatings than the DX series, but has no A-M switch (you have to glue the pin down). The DX 1.4 isn't really usable at 1.4, so the 1.7 DX is actually preferred (the 1.4 goes from 1.4 to 2.0 with no stop in the middle, so the 1.7 is actually faster if you want reasonable sharpness and less aberrations). Both the 1.7 & 1.4 DX have a rear element that sticks out farther than any other m42 when at infinity and will foul the mirror on some cameras. I haven't had any such trouble (K10D, K7, or K5), but have heard complaints from K20D owners. It is just a matter of less than a millimeter -- seems to depend on the particular lens/body combo. (You'll never be able to use the DXs on a full-frame with a mirror.) The DSM has no such problems. There is also a DX 50/2 that is quite fine but again has a protruding rear element although not quite as bad as the other two. The DXs are cool-looking with their chrome (most of them, I think there might be a few non-chrome ones). The DX 50/1.4 is a huge lens (wide) -- biggest 50 I have. There is also a DSM 50/1.4 out there. I used to have one, but sold it. Only had it a short time and can't remember if it was good wide open or not.

Best bet is probably the DSM 50/1.7 as you don't have to worry about the mirror problem, although I do really like the DX as well. Any of them will be cheaper than the Taks (which I also don't find so hot at 1.4).

Let me also put in a good word for the Meyer-Optik 50/1.8 Oreston or the Pentacon 50/1.8 (same lens, factory name change) -- my favorite old 50. (Haven't tried the Helios versions that seem to be preferred, although I do have a later 58/2.)

Thanks vonBaloney, well said... with that i am dropping the dx 1.4 from my choices (through i really love the chrome look but IQ, bokeh and rendering are more important)

I had the yashinon 50 1.9 ds before but disposed it because of fungus problem and yes i agree that this too has a very smooth bokeh (without the fungus i should have hang on to it)... do you know which is better? 50 1.7 dsm or 50 1.9 ds?

I often see the pentacon but didn't even tried it... (what are its advantages for these other lenses? i supposed its the bokeh because i heard it's not that sharp wide-open?

[HoBykoYan]

I have the 55/1.8 Tak and the 55/1.7 Chinon. Both are good lenses. I haven't used the Chinon much but the little I have used it, the results have been excellent. The Tak is smaller, lighter, and a real sweetheart to use. The Tak 55/2's are dirt cheap and also an excellent lens. I have ended up with a pretty good collection of M42 glass in the past year. Most of it was garage sale purchases of a box with old cameras and lenses. Got some Olympus and Nikon glass too. I don't have a use for it but the owners of the house found it there after buying the house and were going to throw it all away.

I guess there's not really a bad (as in bad 50-55-58mm lens) out there but what im hoping to buy or should i say collect (just decided to collect m42 at this FL's) is something with lots of character/pixie dust/rendering whatever you call it but simply put with a WOW factor...
I guess i'll do a single lens (dirt cheap) purchase a month...

[HoBykoYan]

Updated the list and here's what i've got for the moment...
smc tak 50 1.4 = 2
s-m-c tak 50 1.4 = 1
smc tak 55 1.8 = 3
fujinon 55 1.8
yashinon 50 1.7 dsm = 1
yashica 50 2
yashica 50 1.4 dx (dropped)
auto chinon 55 1.7 = 1
smc m50 1.7 = 4

Added options
SMC-Pentax (K) 50 1.4
SMC Takumar 55 2.0 (dropped, already own 1)
super tak 50 1.4 (8 element) = 2
SMC-M 50 2.0 (dropped, don't like the bokeh)
SMC - A 50 2.0
Helios 44-2 = 3
K 50 4 (macro) (dropped, prefer f2 and faster, can always use tubes)
Tak 50 4 (macro) (dropped, prefer f2 and faster, can always use tubes)
Volna 9 50 2.8 (macro) (dropped, prefer f2 and faster, can always use tubes)
Meyer-Optik Oreston 50 1.8/Pentacon 50 1.8

[vonBaloney]

Thanks vonBaloney, well said... with that i am dropping the dx 1.4 from my choices (through i really love the chrome look but IQ, bokeh and rendering are more important)

If you don't mind the risk with the mirror (which hasn't ever caused actual damage that I've heard), the DX 1.7 is still a good choice. It is also possible my 1.4 is just bad -- it does have a wobble. But it gets sharp quickly when stopped down -- but at 1.4 yuck.

I had the yashinon 50 1.9 ds before but disposed it because of fungus problem and yes i agree that this too has a very smooth bokeh (without the fungus i should have hang on to it)... do you know which is better?

Never tried any of the DS series. The 1.7 DSM is pretty good. Wish I could remember if the 1.4 DSM was.

I often see the pentacon but didn't even tried it... (what are its advantages for these other lenses? i supposed its the bokeh because i heard it's not that sharp wide-open?

It does have swirly bokeh when wide open, which you may or may not like. And although it is true it is not particularly sharp wide-open, it is practically aberration-free wide-open (or stopped down, for that matter) so it is still useable. It is not horribly soft or anything -- it has a unique look that works for some subjects and styles, but doesn't work for others. I like it. Stop it down and it is quite sharp. One thing I like about the German lenses is the edge-to-edge evenness in sharpness even if they don't always reach the center sharpness of the Japanese lenses. (Judging on an APS-C sensor, so can't speak for the edges you'd get on a full-frame.)

[HoBykoYan]

i am more into painting-like bokeh than the swirly one but there are few instances that i like the swirly bokeh on portraits...

i once had the pancolar 50, very smooth bokeh and sharp lens but grew bored on it, i guess it was soo plain n predictable (good). whats missing? character....

[Lowell Goudge]

Well i guess since i already own the M50 1.4 then the smc wouldn't be necessary right?

How about the other third party lenses as mentioned on the list? 44-2 is leading the race in the third party category... any other suggestions than i can consider owning?

I would tend to agree with the idea that an SMC tak 1.4 in many ways is similar to k and later SmC lenses at 1.4, especially the 50's. That's why I don't have an SMC tak 1.4 but have the 8 element super tak and a K50/1.4.

There are some other third party 50ish lenses including some 1.4 and 1.2 lenses. All 50mm are relatively easy to make and offer good IQ. Look for ones that offer something different, since you have an M already