You are arguing minutia here. I own all three and I know that they are all sharp. The real difference is how they feel and the actual images. Having said that, I think I like them all. What impresses me is that they all three of them, have the character that we love so much in vintage lenses. If ultimate sharpness is all you are worried about , then get a modern lens for your Nikon Z. They are probably all sharper than the vintage lenses, especially wide open. Sharpness is not the defining characteristic of vintage lenses. Thanks for the comparison. You always give it your best and we will appreciate that and keep on coming back for more. Cheers.

Nigel Instead of buying a new Pentax 17 film camera I decided to recondition my Pentax Spotamatic it needed new light Seals and a mirror bumper. My favorite 50mm lens is the Takumar 50mm1.4 radioactive lens and agree the Pentax 1.7 is no slouch either

I have this lens from my grandfather. Great hearing you have good things to say about it, as I have search KZfaq before without finding proper reviews. I use it with my X-t3 and have taken maybe my favorite picture with it. Love your show. Keep up the good work 🙂

For a split second, I thought Ozzy started a photography channel! As always, just love the content and your knowledgeable postulations Zen. Keep up the good work!

If you want sharpness, I'd recommend a Pentax 50mm f1.7 SMC lens. It came as a kit lens with the Pentax ME Super. It is amazingly sharp, tiny, but more importantly in my view, gives a very 3D image. It's overlooked by vintage collectors / users and so it's still cheap and often comes with a camera attached. I've used one since 1981. The Pentax f4 50mm Macro is another very sharp lens if you don't mind shooting at f4 max.

Well... the "sharpest" is the Leitz Summicron. But... if you go back about a year, you'll find that I mentioned that the 50mm f1.7 is extraordinary. I'm looking at one on my desk right now that I found about a week ago on a TC. Couldn't leave it in the thrift shop, even though I have a bunch of 50's. Like new -- both lens & body! :)

Nigel, thanks for the video. I have a Konica 45mm 1.8 that someone removed from a rangefinder camera, manufactured a back for it on a 3D printer and added an adapter. I thought that was pretty cool and had to buy it (on Etsy). Have not spent much time with it yet. See you next week.

👍Thanks for video. I recently tried an Olympus MIJ 50mm f1.8 on my Sony A7 and was very impressed with the results. Only gripe is that minumum focus is only 0.45m. I ordered some extentions tubes and will give them a try soon.

I got my Konica AR hexanon 50mm 1.7 complete with camera for £20 inc post The bargains are out there. Excellent channel keep up the good work

Something to consider with vintage is when you use an adapter what the furthest distance is it will focus. It might only be 15 feet.

Really, there's no way to judge "sharpness" in the sort of "singular" way you're doing it! :) Nor does it matter, of course -- all the lenses you discuss are extremely sharp! I.e. can make a tack sharp photo. That said, I've never shot a sharper lens than this one on an SLR. Pancolar & Zuiko both great too -- of course! :)

You can not compare lenses if you make different pictures with the lenses. But I understand, it is not fun to change them all for the same shot.

It would be nice to have some proper sharpness tests done on many samples. I know my Konica is sharper than both my Pancolar and my Oly. Whether that's the norm, I don't know, but the results are different to yours. Also, all of these lenses have variants, which might have some variations in coating quality and perhaps even optical formula updates.

As to the lenses and their sharpness - you are forgetting very important thing - some older series vary in terms of quality, some issues might have happened also in the production of a certain line of lenses. It is a well known fact that even if you have the same type of lens from the same manufacturer, it might happen that each of them may give you slightly different results. And let's not forget that it may also depend on how the lens was used, if it was dropped, kept in good condition, if it doesn't have a fungus etc. But of course, even if everything is fine, it still can vary. This is just how it is. It may not be different by far, but even slight differences sometimes decide whether it will deliver the image you want, or not. Btw - great videos.👍 You made me want to try the Helios 44m (got two - 44m and 44m4). I used it with m42-FD adapter on Canon A-1. And as a matter of fact 44m is sharper - at least the one that I got😉

i really like this 50mm f1.7 lens, There are 2 versions , I have nice copies of both. 1 is said to be sharper ( the LATER version supposedly ) I haven't tested this to see the difference. The older version 1973-76' is heavier with longer focus throw and closer minimum focus distance of just under the marking of .45 meters the newer focussess down to just under the mark of .55 meters and has a slimer barrel. The lens in your video looks like the one that is preferred by the afficinatos. aside from the close focus distance markings without the other lens to compare size and weight with you van tell witch version you have from how many clicks you have on the aperture ring, The early lens has half stop clicks 13 in total counting from f16 to f1,7 excluding the A setting Whereas the newer version only has 7 counting f16 through to f1.7 , There are a few Konica lenses I appreciate quite a bit, their glass, coatings and quality are fantastic. in the 50 f1.7 range I also very much like the newer plastic Minolta 50mm f1.7 its a bit of a surprise too for a kit lens. Maybe not quite as sharp, maybe just as, hard to say, again I have never tested I just really enjoy it when I shoot it, fantastic colours too. outstanding to be honest, compared to Nikon's 50mm f1.8 "Pancake" e series which I know people really like. You can really see the difference it sharpness and clarity when zooming for critical focus on mirrorless cameras like the a7, which I have come to learn you also shoot. While the a7 pales in comparison to all the newest tech available from Sony it is the most versatile and efficient Camera in my vintage collection for mounting everything, It is my lens test mule, but still make great images, but I digress... I also have lots of love for Pentax Glass 50 f1.4 both 7 and 8 ellement versions, 55mm f1.8 the stellar *50mm f1.7 A lens as well as the f2 as well lots of others both M42 and PK mount. I do enjoy the 50mm f1.4 Konica but might prefer the 57mm f1.4. In that range I also really love the Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4 , and have some love as well for the 55mm f1.7. You mentioned the the 40mm f1.8 I have to agree that is a fantastic lens as well I find the focal falloff remains clean and colours and contrast are really good, it is a really nice walk around focal length for the street. I have yet to acquire a CZJ it has been on my mental list. Curious if you have any love for wide zooms, I recently picked up an 18-28mm f4-f4.5 Pheonix/Samyang zoom on a Pentax PK mount. I really love the perspective haven't decided yet if it is sharp enough but I love to look through it.

It's frustrating to me - there are so many excellent choices, and while they differ, the differences are often quite subtle. Upon realizing that I had about a dozen choices in the 40-58mm range, I decided to just use the darn things, rather than buying more! The truth is I love just about every one of them. When I put a lens on the camera, I want to play to its strength, whatever that is, and doing so is extremely pleasing. In the end, I think I'm going to concentrate on my M42 and FD lenses - mostly because I adapt M42 to FD, and can use any of them on my Canon SLR bodies as well as my mirrorless. There is always something just a bit extra-nice about getting a truly lovely image out of a lens that's 40-60 years old. I just have to stop lusting after ALL of them!

I think they were saying that about the 40mm 1.8. That one at f2.8 and lower is really sharp

The Takumar 55mm F2 has beautiful colors. It's supposed to be the same as the 1.8, which I have, but I find the F2 is a bit more magical. Could be sample variation.

I've got the Hexanon 50 1.7 and having a ball with it. But, I'm also unable to just plunk $$ down on lenses the way I wish so... I'll use it. I do have a question if you don't mind... ie: I'm leaning into slightly faster shutter speeds because I really like the 'look' and 'drama' of that slightly darker photo. Is that ... 'wrong'? And no it's not after editing which I'm trying to avoid for some silly purism idea I have. I am an ole punk rocker fer f'ck's sake. :) Anyway... I've found your videos and your presentation very much to my liking and am delving into them more and more and want to thank you ... thank you. For your work, your passion, and your experience, you're giving me a lot to munch on and a lot to try to fathom. As usual, I bow in your general direction. ty.

The Pentax lens you held up near the beginning was a Super-Takumar, but thereafter you only referred to it as the Auto-Takumar, a completely different lens. Which one was used to actually take the photos?

I came to the same conclusion as you. I believed the hype and was disappointed when I bought one of my own. It isn't a bad lens at all but it isn't anything special either.

Just an idea for a future video - why don't you showcase some of your own images? I'd love to see them.

Maybe I was a bit hasty. You do talk about the color and the saturation and all the things that makes these lenses different from each other and different from a modern lens.

I hope if it Will be possible considering making an episode about helios 81h another Russian 52mm f2 said by some to be a hidden gem I would like to see and hear your opinion, thank you

Have you tried the Meyer Primoplan 58mm f1.9 before? Out of 50+ Vintage 50mm lenes that I´ve tested, it got the best blur and glow in my opinion. Sharpness and Abberation wise i think the (Rodenstock) Edixagon 50mm f2.0 is my sharpest Vintage lens (close to the center), but sadly very rare, dark and soft corners.

I think the Helios is very sharp too

If the sharpness is the priority, I go with modern (and, usually AF) lenses. Hexanon is great lens but somehow boring, name one characteristic and you'll find other lens doing it (somehow) better, except the price, at the moment you cannot beat that (excluding the 3rd party ones) :)

You should buy and sell lenses. Maybe

Is this Radioactive Thorium?

Hi Nigel the Japanese do not have a Navy or any military force their constitution forbids it instead they have the Japan Self-Defence Forces (JSDF) a small maritime force is retained within that. I agree the CZJ is king and you don't look like Ozzy

💯

You look a bit like Ozzy, with your hair down.

Is this video supposed to be called Untitled?

According to my tests, Zuiko 50 1.8 is the sharpest in the category, a bit sharper even than the Contax Zeiss 50 1.7! Konica is average in the category. Pancolar is sharper too.