The Feb. 1999 issue of Popular Photography contains an interesting article/comparative test, "The Great 50/1.4 Shootout" (p. 66), in which seven 35mm SLR 50/1.4 lenses are pretty comprehensively tested against their peers. The contestants were current lenses from Canon, Contax, Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, and Schneider. Details of the tripartite testing procedure are given. The results were that the Contax Carl Zeiss Planar T* lens "delivered the best overall image quality of any of the seven 50/1.4 SLR lenses in our test group." (The runners up were the Canon EF and the Leica Summilux-R.) Any comments?

-- Dave Kemp (Kempda@worldnet.att.net), January 22, 1999

Answers

the only comment i have is more about pop photo lens tests then this particular test itself.

the text makes a point of saying the overall ratings aren't because of one test or another (they did many besides the standard SQF chart) but all of them together. so any "wierd" looking tests aren't wrong, they were just made up for by different results in the other tests.

i noticed that their overall rankings seeme to have NOTHING to do with the SQF charts. and the SQF charts didn't seem to match up with the images they printed either. (what looked better ot me was worse in teh SQF charts) but sadly, the SQF charts are all we get in the "normal" tests anymore.

to me, that says "pop photo SQF charts are pretty useless at judging lens quality"

-- Sean Hester (seanh@nchweb.net), January 22, 1999.

Sean, I agree with your view of Pop Photo SQF charts. I first looked at those results (those colored boxes do attract attention), and thought the Nikkor did really well (yes, I'm one of those Nikon users ;) ), then I read the article which said that the Contax was the winner followed by the rest in coincedentally alphabetical order (Canon, Leica, Minolta, Nikon, ...) or something like that (i didn't buy the mag). Heck the way I figure, my choices are non-AI Nikkor 50 1.4, AI Nikkor 50 1.4, AIS Nikkor 50 1.4, AF Nikkor 50 1.4 .... And right now my 50 1.8 does the job, and if I REALLY need a 1.4 it'll more likely be the 35 or the 85.

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), January 22, 1999.

There does seem to be a discrepancy between their SQF, resolution and actual prints. Case in point. The pictures for the Canon 1.4 and the Nikkor 1.4 seem to be the same yet their SQF and resolution would favor the Canon. I know the Canon is a very well made lens and not to short the Nikon you have to remember that Nikon's efforts are not focused on making a better 50 1.4 lens. The lens still delivers good pictures. Ive shot with both lenses. I would probably give the edge to Canon even though I shoot with Nikon now. You pay about 50% more for the Canon lens anyway.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), January 22, 1999.

Looks like another victory for Contax. They are having a good day in the equipment forum.

-- stan Mcman (stanshooter@yahoo.com), January 22, 1999.

The problem with the tests (and they admit it right in the mag) is that N=1, and you cannot decide anything on N=1 of each lens when the spread of the data is unknown. They must know the actual spread (or at least its approximation) since they admit there is no clear winner given what they expect the spread (or standard deviation, or etc.) to be. Then they go ahead and ignore their own warnings about not scientifically accepting this data and declare a winner?! This has been hashed and rehashed in many a forum and thread. I wish just once those guys (from there or ANY other magazine) would actually test 10 of the same lens and let all us in on what the spread of the SQF or lp/mm really is for a given lens (or maybe even lenses).

-- Les Gyug (Les_Gyug@bc.sympatico.ca), January 23, 1999.

I'd be happy to see the results they would get if they tested the same lens several times, perhaps twice on the same day and maybe 6 months later.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), January 23, 1999.

I just looked back to the 1996 lens issue, and this is the second time they've tested the Canon 50/1.4. At 20X24, Wide open is a huge discrepancy, but the rest of the numbers are within about 1 point. I would guess that either their testing is plus/minus one point, or the lens variation is plus/minus one point. But wide open it is plus minus 20 points. I would guess that is lens variation. Is it normal for lenses to have such huge variation in quality wide open? (Lower quality, yes, but also higher variability lens to lens?). Being a biologist and not a lens designer, I don't have any answer to that one.

-- Les Gyug (Les_Gyug@bc.sympatico.ca), January 24, 1999.

I'd guess Pop Photog screwed up in some way. The illustration in the "review" shows very good performance wide open. The data (SQF) shows very poor performance. Wouldn't be the first time they've made an error (nor will it be the last).

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), January 25, 1999.

I also read this test. The SQF ratings, the descriptive ratings (i.e., picture quality wide open) and the sample photographs are *completely* inconsistent. In addition, there isn't a hint of a reasonable test result analysis, which will ultimately assign the rank of each lens.

I would expect that performance at f/1.4 should be the most important factor and I would also expect that differences at f/1.4 would be more important than differences at f/8 or f/11, which are considered "sweet-spots". Having said that, it was unsurprisingly obvious that all 50/1.4 primes are very good (this is also mentioned in the POP PHOTO report). The only thing that should prevent somebody from buying such a lens is its performance at f/1.4 (I guess till f/2.8, where the macro lenses and a constant f/2.8 midrange zoom can also compete if a faster lens is not needed).

-- Costas Dimitropoulos (costas@udel.edu), January 25, 1999.

Can you go wrong with any recent name brand fast 50? I think not. Differences are so slight only a bunch of Leica cult members with 500X loupes are going to be able to see much of a difference. If your that concerned about extreme quality, step up to medium format. Regards

RT

-- R Taylor (taylorr@mornet.com), January 27, 1999.

Having a Pentax 50/1.4 (MF version, but same optics) that placed near the bottom of the rankings doesn't bother me. I've seen reviews of the optics of this lens reviewed several times over the years, and sometimes it test out better than others. The pictures are very sharp, but just not wide open. It is, however, very resistant to flare (Pentax lenses tend to be).

-- Bruce Rubenstein (b_rubenstein@yahoo.com), January 27, 1999.

I think the article is a gibberish but the data looks reasonable. As a Nikon user, I'm rather pleased with the SQF results (no D's and F's for Nikon).

The reason I purchased the 50/1.4D was to shoot at 1.4, and Nikon is the best 1.4 performer according to the SQF charts (easy MTF's?). I definitely won't be able to distinguish pictures shot with any brands at mid-apertures, but I think I might be able to actually pick pictures shot with Nikon out of all the 1.4 pictures (theoretically, of course...).

PS: I strongly recommend Schneider to stop manufacturing their lenses in Korea. It's totally different from Zeiss' having their lenses made in Japan. (degradation vs. cost curtailment)

-- Stanley Chung (XB505@aol.com), January 28, 1999.

Stanley, I don't think you'll be able to talk Samsung (who owns Schneider) into making lenses for their cheap SLRs in Germanny. I think their LF and MF lenses are still being made in Germany.

BTW I don't think it's a Korean issue. Last I heard, Nikon was having the FM2n (which some consider to be the last great all mechanical 35mm SLR) assembled in their Korean factory.

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), January 28, 1999.

The ranking of Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 is consistant with POP's previous test of fifty standard lenses published in the 80s. This time the tests done are more extensive. They seem have tested several samples of each brand of lens. Planar 50/1.4 is indeed very good.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 04, 1999.

The biggest surprise is the poor performance of Nikkor D-AF 50mm/1.4, it has the worse resolution. The only two lenses which scored over 90 lpmm are Planar and Summilux (95 lpmm) All others are in the 80 range, Nikkor top only 72.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), February 04, 1999.

Who cares about these test results???

I use the Ansel Adams approach to lens testing. I buy the lens and use it. If I like the pictures I keep it. If not I get rid of it. The one difference from AA is that I take advantage of the 10-14 day return policy that most reputable dealers offer on new lenses. :)

-- Stanley Mcmanus (STanshooter@yahoo.com), February 04, 1999.

The 'best' 50/1.4 is the one that fits on your camera. What good does it do a Canon or Nikon owner if Zeiss is rated the 'best' if there is no possible way that they can use it short of scrapping their entire system and buying everything again? These days, 50mm lenses are so good that the differences are more technical and statistical than practical. They say that the Zeiss 50mm Planar design is the most plagarized in the world and it does do a good job so there may not be much real difference.

-- Meryl Arbing (marbing@sympatico.ca), September 26, 2001.

Everyone, I should hope by now, knows that at 1.4 , any lens, you name the manufacturer, is no where near as good as it, they are at 5.6 or f8. A 1.4s advantage is that you get a brighter viewfinder image in which the focus can be more precise. Stop all of this nonsense and go burn some film!!!

-- Brian Edward Harvey (BHarvey423@yahoo.com), September 27, 2001.

Everyone, I should hope by now, knows that at 1.4 , any lens, you name the manufacturer, is no where near as good as it, they are at 5.6 or f8. A 1.4s advantage is that you get a brighter viewfinder image in which the focus can be more precise. Stop all of this nonsense and go burn some film!!!!

-- Brian Edward Harvey (BHarvey423@yahoo.com), September 27, 2001.