The Panasonic 50mm f1.4 was, at the time, the best "standard" or "normal" lens I had ever used. When one put it on a tripod and paid attention to technique the lens delivered an amazing performance. But in less than a year I sold it and never looked back. Mostly because I came to realize that the price/performance/handling equation was fatally flawed for most users. Myself included.
When I tried to use the Pana 50 monster for street photography it was perhaps the least discreet prime lens I had ever used. Less subtle than an 85mm f1.4. Less visually unassuming, almost, than a typical 70-200mm f4.0 zoom. And it dwarfed even the full size SL bodies and Panasonic S1R bodies on which I tried to use it. Made those cameras part of a package that was on the outside of the curve of happy use.
So even though it was the most amazing optical performer I'd ever come across it pushed me to look for much, much smaller options. And it helped me realize that once I stopped down just about any 50mm lens to f4.0 or f5.6 any visual differences were truly masked by expediency of actual use and/or the fact that great 50mm lenses aren't always just about micro contrast or edge performance. In fact, the first lens I bought after selling the Panasonic was a Voigtlander 50mm APO for around half the new price of the former. It is about 1/5th the size of the Panasonic. But even wide open, at least in handheld camera photography, it is competitive. Stopped down to f2.8 or f4.0 there's no discernible difference for most users. Myself included.
And I bought the Voigtlander 50mm to use on a Leica SL type camera even though that lens is made for native use on an M series rangefinder camera. The reason? Because it delivered high quality images while making the SL2 camera seem almost agile. It lowered the weight of the whole package by a lot. The camera and lens didn't strain at the strap. It was a nice package. It's still a nice package.
Since those experiences with the Panasonic 50mm f1.4 I've shied away from buying "ultimate" performance lenses or lenses that are tweaked without compromise for optical performance over handling. I own Panasonic's wonderfully cheap and lightweight 50mm f1.8 and I find it to be a great lens. Especially so since it's nearly always available new in the US for under $400. It's a delight because it's mostly made of high quality plastics so it weighs next to nothing (comparatively speaking). It's the handling that makes it worthwhile but it's no slouch at making great images...
I also picked up a Carl Zeiss 50mm f2.0 Planar for the M mount and I use it occasionally on the bigger cameras for the same reasons as the VM Voigtlander. Small, light but effective. The Zeiss and the Voigtlander lenses each have their own looks. Both are delightfully uncomplicated and robust. I bought the Zeiss used for around $500 and if it gets damaged from accidents or overwhelming user error I would be less sad than if a similar fate fell to a $2200 Panasonic 50mm f1.4. So much needless cost.
There has been a trend among companies that make lenses to build no hold barred, optical masterpieces without regard really for price, size or weight. The trend might have started with the original Zeiss 50mm Otus f1.4 from Zeiss. It was huge, dense, massive and priced outrageously. Then came the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens. Slow to focus but super sharp and contrasty and equipped with a complex optical formula that perhaps goaded other brands to start responding in kind. I owned the original Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art series lens for the L mount system and while its optical performance was something to write home about it's focusing performance was horrible and, again, it weighed down a camera bag like an anchor.
Now it seems that everyone's high speed 50mm lenses are endurance tests in a lens mount for photographers who have to carry gear all day. Is the trade off of high performance enough to justify high prices and possible hernias? That's something every photographer must decide for themselves but if I was about to walk through a large city to take photos for 10-12 hours a day, weeks at a time, I know I'd rather have a most humble, old Canon 50mm f1.8 FD manual focusing lens on an adapter than an Otus or an Art. But only if those were the only choices.
My first grab for a lens on the mirrorless SL cameras is the Voigtlander APO, followed by the 50mm M Zeiss, followed by a 50mm Zeiss Planar f1.4 ZF (manual Nikon F version) on an adapter, or the Canon 50mm f1.4 FD also on an adapter, or the smaller, cheaper, lighter Panasonic 50mm f1.8. You can keep the big ones. I don't see enough difference to put up with the overkill lens design philosophy. It just doesn't work for me.
Yes. A lens can be too big. And too big will slow you down, tire you out and make for a miserable shooting experience. Unless you can relegate it to tripod use but.....really....a fast 50mm stuck on a tripod? Just doesn't make much sense.
Nikon NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.4 Lens - Nikon is bucking the trend. 422 grams 62mm filter.
ReplyDeleteThat’s because the 50mm 1.2 is the boat anchor.
DeleteI couldn't agree more, Kirk. I have felt this way for several years. Wretched excess, especially for carrying around. I guess some people want the "best" and are willing to suffer the burden. For me, when I travel these days I use the Nikon Zfc or Z50ii with their small and lightweight lenses. Image quality doesn't suffer and I'm much happier.
ReplyDeleteKirk, I recall when Olympus boasted that they would design and build prototypes of the best possible lens for a given focal length, then go back and design and manufacture a more-compact and better lens for their OM SLR system. In those days Olympus made sharp and truly petite lenses — perhaps too petite at times.
ReplyDeleteBut the newer lenses from many manufacturers over the last ten to twenty years have been rather bloated by comparison. I recently picked up a 40mm f/2 “muffin” lens for the Nikon Z mirrorless system rather than one of bigger (and supposedly “much better”) 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 lenses. I wanted a relatively small and discreet walk around lens. This “inferior” 40mm lens has proven to be nice and sharp, and produces smooth out-of-focus backgrounds. A very good purchase in my books. This compact “muffin” lens is about the same size as an old Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI-S lens from the 1970s and 1980s, which shows how big lenses have become.
And it seems, based on posts in various online fora, that others are looking for smaller and lighter lenses too. I hope that the lens manufacturers are taking notice.
I recently traded into a SL2 body with the intent of using it with my M mount and Sigma Contemporary L mount lenses, but somehow I ended up going down a rabbit hole with Sigma Art lenses. I ended up with two - a 40mm f/1.4 that is the size and weight of a Yugo and a 105mm f/1.4 that could pass for an early 1970s station wagon. (I refer to them as my “Sumo Sigmas.”) But oh, the results!
ReplyDeleteThey’re only used when I know I won’t be walking around, that’s where the M and Contemporary lenses shine.
Ken, both those Sigma lenses are superb. I totally agree. But for walking around all day it's hard to beat the M lenses...
ReplyDeleteKirk
ReplyDeleteI have had or still have many of the lenses that you mention, and yes a 50mm lens can be too big and heavy. The Zeiss Milvus 50mm f1.4 EF mounted on the Sigma EF to L mount adapter immediately jumps to mind. With the Lumix 50mm f1.4 running a fairly close second; I will carry this lens as an only lens when I think AF is needed.
Though, in my experience with an SL2, when it comes to focus speed and precision, I have reached the opposite conclusion from yours. With good subject lighting and contrast, focus is reasonably quick. But when the light and contrast levels fall, the camera will let your lenses down. Focus can be painfully slow or nonexistent.
PaulB