The 50mm. Considered the "normal" focal length on 35mm film cameras, it has been called with all sort of names, from the most natural, closest focal length to the human eye, to the most boring lens in the bag; it went from being Cartier-Bresson's favourite lens, to being the one lens a lot of photographers would never get; it ranges from being the easiest, cheapest lens to produce, the one you find in every manufacturer's lineup, to having the honour of being the fastest, most exotic and expensive lens in existence if you only look at another manufacturer's stable, such as, i.e., Leica's Noctilux.
Ponte dei Sospiri (Sigma DP2 Merrill, 45mm equivalent)
So what is happening lately with the 50mm? Is it really the Ugly Duckling of focal lengths, or is it their King?
During the film era, a lens would be designed and produced for decades without any need for it to be replaced or to become obsolete. Since the advent of digital, with increasing pixel-count sensors coming out every couple of years or so, lens design started to obsolesce real quick: a great lens on a 12 Mp sensor is suddenly considered to be a dud on a 36 Mp sensor; a lens hailed as "the best" in its focal length on the older generation cameras is suddenly considered not much better than a paper holder when mounted on the new, super-resolving cameras of today.
Zabriskie at Dawn, II (Nikon D800E and Nikkor 50mm F/1.4 AF-S)
That said, this is truer the more you move towards extreme focal lenses, such as wide angles or ultra-wides, or to zooms; the 50mm, on the other hand, has always been a pretty safe bet, the cheapest and sharpest lens one could always count on - every manufacturer had generally at least two of those in their lineup, a slower, cheaper one (f/1.8 - f/2) and a faster, more expensive alternative (f/1.4 - f/1). As such, most manufacturers kind of neglected the 50mm, reiterating old lens formulas with some minor updates such as adding ultrasonic motors or changing the lens coating, while being busy with developing new formulas for other focal lengths with more appeal or in more need of a revamp.
Impression Nr. 33, Skye (Sigma SD1 Merrill and Sigma 35mm f/ 1.4 "A" - 52mm equivalent)
Until now, that is. Lately we have seen a real surge of exotic offerings in the 50mm and thereabouts, all of them for different reasons very interesting and all of them worth a look.
Nikon recently came out with their Nikon 58mm f/1.4G AF-S NIKKOR, a lens in the Noct tradition of yore: gentle and beautiful for portraits, no coma, great for night shooting since light sources stay round, no vignetting, beautiful out-of-focus areas; not the sharpest normal lens ever,especially in the sides and corners, but one with a great look to it. The price? Around $1.700 US at B&H (January 2014).
Windmill and sea salt pond (Nikon D3X and Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S)
Zeiss replied pushing the technical envelope with their Otus 1.4/55: they set out to produce the best normal lens ever designed. As a result, the Otus is certainly one of the sharper if not the sharpest normal lenses all over the frame, it has no color fringing, no distortion and no chromatic aberrations. The price? Around $4.000 US at B&H (January 2014).
Segesta (Nikon D3X and Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S)
Leica, always the proud flag-bearer of the impossible, impossibly good and impossibly expensive optics, not only refreshed their long-running Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux-M with a new, faster version (the Leica 50mm f/0.95 ASPH), but they also set out to produce the best 50mm ever with the Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH. A lens with no chromatic aberrations, as the Apochromatic label testifies, extremely sharp all over the frame, practically no distortion and showing just a little vignetting as its only fault. Leica's prices? Well, "only" about $11.000 US for the last Noctilux, and $7.350 US for their last APO-Summicron (again B&H prices, January 2014).
Standing Stones (Menhir) (Leica M9 and Leica Noctilux f/1)
Today, last to enter the fight, Sigma announced their contestant, soon to be thrown in the crowded arena of the "Best Of The Best 50mm": the 50mm F1.4 DG HSM 'A'. While nothing much is known yet about this lens, by looking at its optical scheme and if Sigma's recent history means anything I am pretty sure it will be a very interesting lens, probably one of the best 50mm out there. The price? TBD.
So, why so much sudden attention to this, such a neglected focal length so far in the "super-exotic, super-amazing, super-expensive" optics club?
Well, despite all the haters, it is undeniable that 50mm is one of the focal lengths that made the history of photography; its normal perspective, with the pleasant and flexible compositions it allows, appealed to many great photographers in the past and still does today. With the changes in camera technology, many of us where asking for a 50mm that stood up to the demands of today's and - especially - of tomorrow's high resolution sensors. Finally, manufacturers listened: they saw a market and a need there and went to work.
S. Giorgio Maggiore at dusk (Sony NEX7 and Sigma 30mm f/2.8 - 45mm equivalent)
Personally, I use 50mm a lot in my work, and I am certainly happy to see such a surge of interest in this focal. I print very large, and I can use every ounce of sharpness and of image quality I can get. However, not everyone needs that, so generally speaking my biggest qualms about these new lenses concern their prices and (even if cash weren't to be a problem) the effects of the law of diminishing returns. Let's see.
Nikon and Zeiss seem to have taken two very different roads with their recent releases. To simplify, Nikon went for a more "artistic" approach, while Zeiss went for "technical perfection".
Mantua, VII (Sigma SD1 Merrill and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "A" - 52mm equivalent)
For most photographers out there, I think Nikon's approach makes more sense. The Nikon 58mm draws in a very different way from other 50mm lenses, and you can see such differences pretty much at any image size: this has been a smart move on Nikon's part in my opinion. The lens is less expensive than the Zeiss or the Leicas (however, Leica goes for a different market altogether), draws in a very personal way that is beautiful and immediately discernible, and while very expensive in regular 50mm terms it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. You can take different, better looking pictures of your customers, your wife and kids, your family and so on, with it; they will immediately notice. Last, money-wise you can get the Nikon 58mm, another technical 50mm (such as the Zeiss Makro-Planar T * 2/50mm ZF.2) for about $1.000 US less than the Otus alone and have both the "artistic" and "technical" side well covered.
Sea salt fields and levees (Nikon D3X and Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S)
The Otus, on the other hand, is a very specialised lens: while I am not certainly saying that it doesn't draw beautifully, I think that most people out of the photography business or people that do not care as much about the technical aspects of photography, such as most customers, general public, family and so on will not see the difference between a picture taken with the Otus and one taken i.e. with the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S ($439 US at B&H) at the sizes they normally look at their images. If we put price into the equation, while it is true that the Otus definitely creates much better images than the old Nikon 50mm f/1.4G, the question is are they really 9-10 times better? And even if they are, an even more important question is, what do people end up doing with their pictures? If people just show them online, or never prints bigger than - say - 11"x17" or even 17"x22" (A3 or A2 in european terms), then they doesn't actually need such a high-Mp camera anyway; on a lesser-Mp camera, one wouldn't be able to see much of the technical differences that these new, ultra-technical lenses make. However, if you are one of those who really need the Otus' image quality, then you already know it; you are probably been partying no-stop from the day Zeiss announced it and you'll not be happy with anything else. Of course, no price consideration will change this: the Otus is the lens you'll have to get.
Hull (Nikon D800E and Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S)
Leica is the oddball here: the majority of its customer's base is completely different from all of the above in that they will pretty much have the cash to buy anything that Leica offers at any price, and probably will do so regardless of most of the considerations above. I know, I shoot Leica as well, but I for one didn't get the 50mm Summicron-APO nor the Leica 50mm f/0.95 ASPH since neither does make sense for me and the work I do with my Leicas.
Grand Canyon at sunset (Panasonic GF1 and Panasonic 20mm - 40mm equivalent)
Now, Sigma with today's announcement also came into the exotic 50mm game. This can actually be very interesting: long considered the "cheaper off-brand" lens producer, Sigma has been working for some time now to completely reverse that image. Their recently released high-quality lenses are pretty amazing - and not just "amazing for being a Sigma", they are amazing, period; they are not as cheap as they used to be, but they are Made in Japan and nevertheless they aren't as expensive as the likes of Nikon and Canon either. My feeling is that their new 50mm will be following in the Otus' footsteps rather than the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G's; it will go for sharp and technically outstanding, while keeping at a much lower price than the Zeiss. I think it will be something like the recent Sigma 35mm F1.4 "A" or Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 "A", and I am looking forward to see what it will be capable to do once Sigma releases it.
So, in about one year we got quite a few new releases in the classic 50mm focal length: once more, the 50mm went from Ugly Duckling to King in a very short time. All the better for us, of course!
DID YOU ENJOY THE BLOG AND ITS CONTENTS? HELP ME TO PROVIDE YOU WITH EVEN BETTER ARTICLES WITH A $4.99 USD MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION VIA PAYPAL: IT'S LESS IN A MONTH THAN WHAT YOU SPEND FOR COFFEE IN A DAY, AND YOU DON'T GET ANY GEAR REVIEWS WITH YOUR CUPPA!
0 comments:
Post a Comment