đ€ Secret of LENSES: 50mm vs. the 55mm & 58mm PRIMES
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 9. 04. 2018
- đ€ Secret of LENSES: 50mm vs. the 55mm & 58mm PRIMES
IF YOU LIKE THESE VIDEOS, YOU CAN MAKE A SMALL DONATION VIA PAYPAL LINK HERE: www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
(paypal email: kenw111@insightbb.com)
PATREON: / angryphotographer
Join me on INSTAGRAM at: / officialangryphotographer
Very simple reason why 55 and 58mm produce better bokeh: Because of the higher light loss on the higher focal length the lens has to capture more light to produce the same aperture, more light means bigger elements and thus nicer bokeh. Also, because 58 is only slightly above 50 one can still design them using very simple formulae which make normal lenses great lenses optically.
Thank u so much for sharing lil bits from your truly expansive knowledge about lenses and camera gear, etc. I am very grateful. It is hard to find other videos that share so much interesting, unique, and infrequently spoken of topics, details, tips and/or "secrets." Its obvious the information you provide could only be given by someone who's had many years of hands on experience, a very large ( obsessively hunted out) collection of lenses from all makes, models, sizes, types, etc.
Not to mention you deliver it all with a straight forward, no nonsense approach, with smile inducing dark humor and sarcasm, which make your shows not only of extreme value educationally, but a joy to watch.
Cheers love
Youre awesome
Seriously
Love it
And
So glad to have people like u on CZcams! ;)
Well, i have the Voigtlander 58mm f1/4 Nikon mount but i find the chromatic aberration a bit too much, mounted on Fuji or Nikon. Also, it needs to be stopped down a bit to prevent overexposure.
A favourite Lens back in the 70's was the Nikon 55mm we loved it.
interesting. thank you, kenny. thanks for the effort and the sharing. thumbs up.
Good stuff. I hope you donât get too hot with that fireplace so close. I have a research associate who does the same thing- but he doesnât have a channel.. great job on all those subscribers!
How would you rate the Sony Zeiss 55 mm f/1.8 lens? Any similar alternatives?
I remember when I made a mistake and bought a Sony A7II years ago (returned it after 3 weeks). The camera sucked, but man oh man I did enjoy the Zeiss 55mm lens I had for it. Better than any Canon 50mm I had ever used and many others.
Ken, would you make a video on proper long term storage of lenses?
I was looking at a '71 nikkor 55mm 1.2 last week at a thrift store but it was marked $249 and I couldn't really swing that price on addition to what I was already buying that day, but the lady was like "how about 50 bucks?" So.... Now I have it *shrug* my nikon to fuji adapter arrives today.
$249? thats cheaaaaap :) ,,,,,ohhh shyt .... $50 !!! ahahahahahah....... got 2 of those, great lens man!
Theoria Apophasis I know! It's in absolutely pristine condition as well, and came with the original hood. Had a Nikon brand filter on it, so best guess is that's never been off
Hi Ken, Just wanted to thank you. I picked up a used Nikon d7100 and a 18-200 3.5 that were simply mint. With just over 6000 clicks there's not a scratch on it anywhere. All for $535.00 Id been saving up for a d500 but after listening to you decided to hunt the more affordable option and glad I did. Now looks like ill be looking for a 55mm prime.
awesome on the cheaps :) 55 or 58mm :P
I have the Takumar 55mm f1.8 SMC. Cheap and great but one of my favourite lenses is the 55mm f2 Auto Takumar. I also have an all silver coloured 55mm f1.8 Yashinon which I haven't used much yet. As for 50mm, the coolest I have is the little Yashinon 50mm f2 with the aperture knob. Bokeh magic from that one and tank build. The Yashinons require a flangeless adapter though. The screaming radioactive thorium Zeiss Pancolar is a great lens if you can find the earlier serial number thorium version. Magical for sharp black and white images. I want a Nikon 50mm at the moment. Looking at ones with multicoat just before the AI change or are the 55mm better?
How does this apply to lenses that are native designs for less than full frame formats?
Are these lenses are scaled down? For instance in the Fuji line up: does the excellence you are describing apply to the 35mm lenses (which are the 52mm equiv) or the actual 50mm and 58mm? Do the designs scale, so that the designer of a X lens at 35 can use the same formula as a FF designer at 50mm?
The reason why the "bokeh" is better on the 55 and 58mm vs 50mm lenses is simple..same aperture+longer focal length always means shallower depth of field. There is nothing to argue about. It's plain physics. How the out of focus areas renders from what I can tell is due to two factors, the optical quality of the lenses (how much color fringing on edges of slightly out of focus objects) and the aperture blades (how many and how rounded they can stay).
thatchinaboi you hit the nail into the coffin.
I think depth of field stays the same, but background is more compressed?
Thoughts on the NIKKOR HâąC 55mm F/1.2 Ai modified?
Man, nobody is giving the kind of information and knowledge you are. Hey, what about wide angle vintage 24 and 28?
old wides suck dead bunnies.....about 98% that is.......a few good 28mm M42
thx, man.
What about 35s?
Ken, please, I would like to help a friend who has an old D5200 and she is using the 55-300 (not good DX lens) for shooting portraits. I told her to buy a prime lens for portraits. She does not shoot manual mode yet but she is willing to learn. Do you recommend the Nikon 58 f/1.4G. I know that lens is much more expensive than camera, but she can't afford to change camera right now. She is an absolute beginner.
I am considering purchasing the Canon Fd 55/ 1.2 s.s.c...200.00 good deal?
Try the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 adapted on the metabone speedbooster for mouthwatering bokeh and portraits.
I have a question actually for you as well. I recall you're not so fond of Sony. However I'm excited to of bought a used a7iii and ive been under the impression that I can use any lens on it, really just need the right adapter. After a long and continued bout of researching the best lenses ever made, I've come back to my top two being 2 of your top 3, and I was still hunting out a fast wide angle zoom. The 2 are nikkor 105 DC 2 & the voightlander 58 1.4. But(!) after my excitement about those lenses and my hours of research and slowly spun decision process,ive read that the adspters for nikon on Sony can break your camera, or used to(?) they perhaps only (previously?) can shoot as manual no auto focus? :(
Soooo... Any thoughts or knowledge on this stuff? I guess the voightlander isn't nikkor (right?) so perhaps I can still use that either way? But the DC sounds so amazing! Plus u called it your number 1! Of all those lenses it's got to b a must have!
I love dreamy, deep, moody images, capturing true depth of one's soul with in there eyes and anything beautiful and/or artistic and unique. I want to produce images that grab you, perhaps even shake u a bit if possible! Lol
Boudoir primarily however, along w couples and could even include artistic, B&W artisticly created erotica shoots for couples etc.
So anyways I can blab on and on. Im a hobbyist and back burner photographer of 20yrs always planning to have a biz but have only done 1-2 jobs a yr from referrals while never truly starting up the biz. I started out in darkroom and shot an f100 film cam until about 8yrs ago. So I've shot both manual and auto from the start. I want to have some magical n secret vintage weapons in my bag along w ones equipped well enough to make use of the many prized abilities of my cam esp the eye auto focus if I desire.
Not sure if that info is helpful to know, I guess I'm sharing in case you think to steer me another direction. Also I'm still looking for a nice budget wide angle zoom I can use too.
Hi! Does this apply to medium format as well?
What about the SMC Pentax Super Takumar 55mm 1.8 with M42 Mount ?
TheVegas2100 I have that. The last version with rubber focus ring. It's a great lens, especially great considering what will you pay which is peanuts because everyone buys the 50mm. It's one I would recommend for anyone who had no vintage lenses. You get that lens cheap then you're screwed because the buying will never stop. I also have the 55mm f2 auto from 1959 which is one of my favourite lenses.
What's your take on the Nikkor-S 55mm 1.2 granpa of a lens? It seems to be a bit "special" wide open but all the light it gathers is impressive. Anyone?
i own this lens. its fantastic, i have the older version with simple coatings so there are weird and unique light leaks/flares. bokeh is more soapy than the 50mm 1.4. its soft wide open but not horrible. great bargain for a 1.2 lens
I purchased a Sears 55mm F1.4 on your recommendation for my X-T2. Wow I am shooting more with that lens than my Fujifilm lenses I love it. Thanks for your videos Ken I have learnt so much by them. Next on the wishlist will be an old 135mm lens
the "SEARS" lens hehehehhehe a Rokinon
Lol no that David Attenborough has film crews :)
Whats your opinion about the voigtlÀnder 40mm - serveral mounts already available... but in special the 40mm 1.2 Nokton for emount. Is it as good as a nifty fifty or 55 nor 58?
as good yes, its amazing, and small... Leica M mount
Been shopping for a Noct Nikkor 58 f/1.2 ... More expensive than most of my fast Leica glass WTF!
Hi Ken, can you share your thoughts on the Yashica ML 55mm 1.2. I've got my eyes on one. They're rare but don't know if they're necessarily good. Thx
radioactive !!! haahhahahahaha great stuff on output, but no better than the SEARS 55mm 1.4 to me
Do you have the minolta 58mm f1.2? It is supposed to be beautiful
Ken. Thanks. Quick question. With manual focus not a concern. Which would you go with for portraiture ... Fuji 56 f1.2 or adapted Voigtlander 58mm ? Thanks, Martin. www.thevividland.com
money no concern the 56 1.2 Phuji
lots of affordable canon 55mm and 58mm lenses. good or no?
In both 645 and 67 mamiya film cameras, the approximately 60 mm equivalent has become a favorite for me for a walk about lens. Short enough for most shots, long enough for great oof backgrounds. Of course the voigtlander 58 produces gorgeous rendition in 35 mm.
I think some of sharpness issues have to do with tradition. 50mm lenses were the original kit lenses, and there was always pressure to make them cheaply. They are also a sweet spot for simple construction. When it came time to add more elements to correct aberrations the manufacturers increased the focal length slightly to differentiate them from the inexpensive designs. To their credit, Nikon started the shooting wide open trend with their changes in lens design. The phrase "even wide open" became a cliché with Nikkor reviews.
I currently shoot with a D500 and lately Iâve been doing a lot of portrait work and my images arenât as sharp as Iâd like them to be. I use the tamron 45 1.8 sp and I love it but itâs just not as sharp doing portrait work. Should I upgrade to full frame or am I doing something wrong?
Colton Davis I donât know if it is applicable here but turning off the image stabilisation may help if you are using higher shutter speeds. I havenât experienced this issue with the Tamron 35mm lens but I know some have had this issue with the 85mm Version.
Christopher Grundy Thanks. Iâll give that a try :)
yes, at higher shutters turn off OIS
I think my helios 44-m4 58mm f2 is great đ, soft but still great for the price. but i bought a pentacon 50 1.8 off your reccomendation, my lawd the bokeh!
bokehslut
One of the best lenses out there, given its price point. I own both the m5 as well as the 44-2 version with the smooth aperture ring. As Ken would say, it's a sin not owning one of these.
Can you do a video on Lightroom Classic CC
Do you own Minolta lenses? The old mc-Rokkor 58mm 1.4 is very, very nice.
theyre too rare and hard to find in good condition
Really? They are way cheaper than the other brands older lenses like Nikon or Canon FDs at least in Europe.
What about an 85mm on crop sensors? Better than
Any love for konica AR lenses?
I wonder if you own the sigma 50m ex dg f1.4.
What's the Omega symbol behind you about?
I'm not finding a lot of information on the Nikkor 55mm f1.2 AI lens, the main one I find is from Ken Rockwell, he says it's sharp, but lacks contrast. He also says it has a lot of coma, any thoughts on this?
rockwell is a fool
Theoria Apophasis Canât disagree, I see a lot of copy and paste from what I can tell, however, what is your opinion of the Nikkor 55mm f1.2 AI?
Without any side-by-side sample shots itâs hard to say whether this holds any water or not. As a general rule, I wish heâd provide us with sample shots backing up all his claims....missed opportunity.
Thanks!
well thank you dear sir
Bokeh is subjective and I generally avoid it. If I must bokeh, I'd like something like Nikon 105/135 DC. Generally I like f/4-f/8. A Zeiss 50 or Voigt 58 provide much subject separation at any aperture, no need to make the background like the atmosphere of Jupiter. *But it's not the length Ken, it's the design.* The Voigt 58 draws differently than the Nikon 58. The Zeiss 28 draws much differently than the Nikon 28, etc. etc.
Very true!
underrated comment.
I have both sigma art and nikon vintage 40mm and 50mm lenses. And one 85mm zeiss with awesome bokeh.
Some examples would be nice. I bet most people, even amongst photographers, wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
check the flickr pages for them
How is supposed to believe this is a good advice without showing photographs...
Why do all these lenses sound like Transformers? It's like the Decepticons started a lens factory. They've been waiting. They have eyes everywhere. You only think they don't have chips...
Itâs not called a secret if you make videoâs about it, now does it!?
Looking at picking up a 50ish prime. Looking at at the Tamron 45 1.8 vs the Nikon 50 1.4G, 1.8G. Any suggestions?
i have all those, teh tammy 45mm is wonderful :P
So... which one is better? 55 or 58? I already understood that 50 is, design wise, inferior than those two, but, what about comparing just those two? Thanks! :D
both are awesome
Why doesn't the 56 1.2 Fuji fit into this review?
it does
Well done 55. 58 just priced rise on eBay đ
Wahahahhahaha!!!!!!
Damn i just bought a canon fd 55mm f1.2
Xpensive rare lens ! :P
Theoria Apophasis hehe the aspherical its the expesive one i bought the cheaper s.s.c. version for $200. Btw the aspherical one its radioactive.
I have the aspherical fd 55 1.2 and it's heavy and radioactive
want my voigtlander 58 1.4 ?
what? you dont want it?
I can't calibrate it on my 5200 ...so it's simply more trouble than I have time for ...I can tell it's sharp just not on what I'm focused on
true, but why not keep it till you get another nikon or mirrorless with peaking? :)
right now I need what I own to be work horses ...I can't keep a lens for future or sentimental reasons ...that sucks for me...but I'm close to putting mine on e-bay so dm If you want it for a good price or know someone who will
we're both in Florida I live in Ormond
Never know that fact about the 55mm and 58mm lenses. What about Minolta lenses? Have you try them. Thanks.
only the old ones.....many of which are radioactive
In eastern Europe where I live, the market is flooded with cheap a** (like 10-30$) soviet Helios 58/2 lenses. And 98% of them are unfortunately total crap. The soviet factories had such shitty quality control that it's a lottery. 1% of the time you win. 99% - waste money.
But apart from that crap, I agree. Always liked the look od 55-58mm more than 50s
yes, tons of that russian crap :)
Did you get a Nikon Zf yet?
fuji 56mm f1.2 then?
if you can afford it hell yes
You talk like Trump: Nobody owns more 50mm lenses than me.
I put this thought together a few months ago:
Trump ALWAYS needs to control the narrative. He said the only way he could lose the 2016 election to Clinton is by fraud. He's always told people what they should think of him, not figure it out for themselves. He's got a "better body " than Joe. He's rich and doesn' need your money. He's smarter than his generals, "I'm really smart." He "knows" more about subs than the experts. He was "at" 9/11 and lost piles of friends. (a huge lie) When the towers fell, he was on the phone saying he now had the tallest building in Manhattan. Still not true. He "should" be on Mt. Rushmore, he's done more for the Middle East than any other human living or dead, he hires only the "best" people, He's the best golfer... he should get the Nobel Prize...and in these legal cases, he continues to push more narrative. It's all the same. Which explains why he kept those documents in Mar-A-Lago. Not just for cache; he needs to control the data. It's the same reason he took his health records. It's evidence of his inferiority.