Lens Sharpness for 50mm primes

AchimT

AchimT

Suspended / Banned
Messages
340
Edit My Images
No
There are breathtakingly sharp 85mm and 35mm lenses these days. Basing it on DXOmarks ratings (however unrealistic they may be) lenses reach 22 or 22 Mpix, even a zoom reaches ratings above 21 (even if only in the image center and at the most favourable settings).

But the most widely used standard focus length type, the 50mm, is missing in this list of top performers. The sharpest ones reach 16/17 Mpix.

How come? Are there technical reasons?
 
Cost. The 50mm is a "generic starter lens" and it's very inexpensive. No-one buys (or should) a lens just because it's "normal;" who wants normal?

Eventually people buy other lenses to do specific things and the demands are higher, as are the costs.
 
Most of the 50mm lenses I know have been around a while. Have you also checked the benchmarks for the Canon 50mm F1.4 and F1.2L too? or just the basic 50mm F1.8?
 
I've checked the entire list at DXOmark. None of the 50mm lenses has more than 16Mpix in that list.

Please understand me right, I'm not nagging or anything. I'm just surprised that the lens type which is or at least was with a huge margin the 'standard' lens type falls behind in terms of sharpness. I would have expected that there indeed are 'cheap' 50mm lenses, but also high quality ones, if this lens type is used more than any other?
 
AchimT said:
I've checked the entire list at DXOmark. None of the 50mm lenses has more than 16Mpix in that list.

Please understand me right, I'm not nagging or anything. I'm just surprised that the lens type which is or at least was with a huge margin the 'standard' lens type falls behind in terms of sharpness. I would have expected that there indeed are 'cheap' 50mm lenses, but also high quality ones, if this lens type is used more than any other?
Click to expand...

There was a time when standard lenses were always the best you could get.
Today their minority appeal means they are somewhat left behind in the scheme of things.
 
I THINk 50mm is pretty bleh length on crop sensor, and most 50mm lenses do actually have a long history, but the new sigma and zeiss ones should be pretty decent?
 
50mm on a crop is close to 85mm on a FF sensor and those are definitely popular!

I'm not sure what the newest 50mm lens is out of the list of current ones. According to a quick wiki search, the newest Canon 50mm is the F1.2L and that's 2006. The Sigma is 2008 but it only seems that the very latest Sigma stuff is of very good quality.

I'm pretty sure that when the next 50mm lens comes out, it'll be pretty sharp!
 
Phal said:
50mm on a crop is close to 85mm on a FF sensor and those are definitely popular!

I'm not sure what the newest 50mm lens is out of the list of current ones. According to a quick wiki search, the newest Canon 50mm is the F1.2L and that's 2006. The Sigma is 2008 but it only seems that the very latest Sigma stuff is of very good quality.

I'm pretty sure that when the next 50mm lens comes out, it'll be pretty sharp!
Click to expand...

I'd say those two show you the main issue, if people spend a lot on a 50mm its generally for an ultra fast aperture rather than stopped down and/or border performance.
 
Moreorless said:
I'd say those two show you the main issue, if people spend a lot on a 50mm its generally for an ultra fast aperture rather than stopped down and/or border performance.
Click to expand...

I think that's a design choice.

If you look at the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and what DPR say about it...

"This new lens essentially redefines its class, and for once the results really live up to the marketing hype; compared to previous designs, we see significantly improved sharpness at large apertures (presumably due to a reduction in aberrations through the use of an aspherical element), and substantially lower vignetting due to that that oversized lens barrel. Chromatic aberration (both axial and lateral) has been impressively minimized, and distortion is low - in optical terms there's simply little to fault.

In short, Sigma appears to have taken a fresh look at how photographers now tend to use 50mm primes as a complement to zooms for low-light and portrait shooting, and optimised the lens to match, paying attention predominantly to high central performance at wide apertures over corner-to-corner evenness stopped down. The designers have also recognised the dominance of DX/APS-C as the current de facto standard sensor size, and ensured good performance across the frame even on this resolution-hungry format. The rendition of out-of-focus backgrounds is pleasantly smooth, again suggesting that Sigma considered portrait shooting to be an important application when designing this lens. The result is a 50mm F1.4 which is a far better portrait lens on APS-C than legacy primes designed for 35mm film, as well as an extremely competent standard on 35mm full-frame."

All is not perfect, of course; the 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM still can't achieve anything approaching genuine corner-to-corner sharpness on full frame at wide apertures, however it does much, much better than the other 50mm F1.4 lenses we've tested so far,..."

So, if we believe what they're saying the makers have designed the lens with specific uses and results in mind.
 
I understand that the discussion is about the technical side, but in real world usage though, would you notice the difference in sharpness? There's no real discernable difference in sharpness between my Nikon 50mm F1.4, Nikon 85mm 1.8, or Sigma 35mm F1.4, all of which I'm sure have different dxo ratings.
 
50mm is 75mm on a 1.5 crop camera, like my sony, think pentax and nikon are the same, prefer 60mm of my holga for framing.
the irony is i have 4-5 50mm lens :x
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
There was a time when standard lenses were always the best you could get.
Today their minority appeal means they are somewhat left behind in the scheme of things.
Click to expand...

I think that's about right. 50mm is kinda no-man's land these days.

I don't have much time for DxO, and you certainly can't quantify lens performance in a single number. The test regime I use for magazine reviews is quite different in several key aspects.

Sigma 50/1.4 is the sharpest 50mm I've tested, and that's damn sharp around 5.6-8 across the frame. But then most others come pretty close and it's really performance at lower f/numbers and towards the edges that separates them. Nikon 50/1.8 G is impressive overall, and great value.

I've not tried a Canon 50/1.2, or the Zeiss 50/2 that Bob mentions, or anything from Leica (not recently). I'd expect them all to be something special, but in different ways.
 
Apologies for wisecracking ;) but with the D800, on which I based my comparisons, the Zeiss on DXOmark has 17Mpix, which puts it in the good company of the Nikon 50/f1.8 D. The Nikon 50/f1.8 G is listed with 16.

I own the Nikon 50/f1.8 G and the Nikon 50/f1.8 D, and especially the G is a beautiful lens, particularly for this price. I see very little difference to the Nikon 85/f1.8 or the Sigma 35mm which I also own. AAMOF I like the Nikons better than the Sigma because the Sigma has some focussing oddities.

Still, I was wondering why the development seems to have made steps of in excess of 30% forward for some lens types, but not for the 50mm. 50mm and 35mm are my most used focus widths. I'm surprised I'm in a minority with this :)
 
freefall said:
I love my sigma 50 1.4. It's a lens I would love to shoot a full wedding with, if I could get the go ahead!
Click to expand...

I tested my Sigma against my Canon 50mm f2.5 and the Sigma probably bettered and at least matched the Canon at every aperture the Canon could match.

Those are the only modern 50mm lenses I've tried but to be honest my legacy 50mm lenses are no slouches either. I think we worry too much about sharpness these days. Look at these 80-100% crops from MF lenses over 30 years old. They're via photobucket so will not be as sharp here but on my screen they're very sharp.

(post 6737)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=262800&page=225

(post 6770)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=262800&page=226
 
The 50mm indeed looks very sharp. I'm also not crazy about sharpness, I'm just wondering why 50mm lenses seem to remain where they are, while other focus lengths move on to higher specs.

That said, DXOmark isn't as bad as they look at first sight. If you go to the Measurements tab, they have a wealth of detail there. They're far from being 'just one number'.
 
AchimT said:
Apologies for wisecracking ;) but with the D800, on which I based my comparisons, the Zeiss on DXOmark has 17Mpix,
Click to expand...

Ah, sorry, I took the figure from the ZE (Canon mount version) on a 5DMkIII

Bob
 
you might find http://www.luminous-landscape.com/e...rmance_design_and_mechanical_excellence.shtml worth a read as some of the arguments are probably valid from that.

Sony has a new 50/1.4 ZA but it's £1200, Zeiss has a new 55 coming but it's probably going to be £2k+. A new top end Canon or Nikon aren't going to be cheap 50s either due to current R&D costs (which were recovered years ago if not decades on older designs).
 
woof woof said:
I think that's a design choice.

If you look at the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and what DPR say about it...

"This new lens essentially redefines its class, and for once the results really live up to the marketing hype; compared to previous designs, we see significantly improved sharpness at large apertures (presumably due to a reduction in aberrations through the use of an aspherical element), and substantially lower vignetting due to that that oversized lens barrel. Chromatic aberration (both axial and lateral) has been impressively minimized, and distortion is low - in optical terms there's simply little to fault.

In short, Sigma appears to have taken a fresh look at how photographers now tend to use 50mm primes as a complement to zooms for low-light and portrait shooting, and optimised the lens to match, paying attention predominantly to high central performance at wide apertures over corner-to-corner evenness stopped down. The designers have also recognised the dominance of DX/APS-C as the current de facto standard sensor size, and ensured good performance across the frame even on this resolution-hungry format. The rendition of out-of-focus backgrounds is pleasantly smooth, again suggesting that Sigma considered portrait shooting to be an important application when designing this lens. The result is a 50mm F1.4 which is a far better portrait lens on APS-C than legacy primes designed for 35mm film, as well as an extremely competent standard on 35mm full-frame."

All is not perfect, of course; the 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM still can't achieve anything approaching genuine corner-to-corner sharpness on full frame at wide apertures, however it does much, much better than the other 50mm F1.4 lenses we've tested so far,..."

So, if we believe what they're saying the makers have designed the lens with specific uses and results in mind.
Click to expand...

That was my point, there probably isn't a market for say a £400 50mm f/2 lens that's sharp across the frame at all apertures, at least not a mainstream one so we don't see that kind of lens made.

If there is a market for a premium 50mm that's not especially fast I'd say it would need to be jack of all trades with IS/VR and macro ability.
 
I'm looking for a prime portrait lens for my Nikon D5200 and was blindly heading for a 50mm. However a friend pointed out with the crop factor I should be looking at a 35mm instead. I've road tested a standard 50mm and found the results good, but I'm not sure what improvements a 35mm would give. Anyone got any thoughts?
 
35mm v 50mm.

For the same framing you'll be further away with the 50mm.

If you have a zoom covering 30/50mm why not set it at each focal length and see which you like best?
 
The right portrait lens is about distance first and foremost - not too close as you'll get perspective distortion and it's uncomfortable/invasive.

I like about 5-6ft for solo portraits, a bit further for couples and further still for small groups. So do what Alan/WW suggests and give it a try. On crop-format, you'll probably end up with something like 85mm for solo, 50mm for couples, and maybe 35mm for groups. 50mm is a good all-rounder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top