Comparing 4 vintage manual focus 50mm 1.4 lenses from Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax.

Comparing 4 50mm 1.4 vintage manual focus lenses from Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax. Canon 50mm 1.4 New FD, Minolta MC Rokkor X 50mm 1.4, Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1.4 AIS and the Pentax 50mm 1.4 Super Muiti Coated Takumar. Which one is best?
Email me at [e-mail]
Watch my 3 favorite vintage lens video • 3 Of My Favorite Vinta...
My Nikon F2 video • Controls, features and...

[@motherlam2544]

These lens borned in different era, from sixties to late seventies, when the coating and lens design were evolving vigorously. So anyone comparing them should notice that this is not a battle between brands, but a comparison of technology development between different timing.

[@manichaean1888]

Exactly, the Takumar is the oldest, followed by Minolta and than Canon and Nikon. Minolta MD series II or III would be comparable to this Canon and Pentax M or A series.

[@dannygo4230]

Nice. I take the Rokkor for the low contrast. People pay money today to get the low contrast profile, the log profiles, for videos. Plus in Photoshop, so easy to capture contrast with blending modes of layers, and the low contrast will add some flexibility of highlights not blowing up as easy.

[@peteralbert9805]

+1. The MC-III (aka MC-X) series was the best because of the low contrast and the build quality. By the way, I also have the same Rokkor PG and the Canon FD, and the Rokkor is extremely sharp at all apertures. It had a great reputation for sharpness. So I guess the copy in this video has some issues.

[@dannygo4230]

I just got a copy of the MC Rokkor (no X, Rokkor printed in white) PG. Unfortunately, the focusing is broken, and somehow the outer barrel came off from the lens assembly. But I am able to really see how well they are made. All metal gears. I was able to get a good photo on my EOS R, and it was noticeably sharper than my Rikenon 55mm f1.4 wide open. Do you know if the very early MD Rokkor X with the 55mm filter are made as well? I hoping that it would optically be the same, plus the benefit of better lens coating. Plus it seems to be more of those out there. @@peteralbert9805

[@anihilistsweetpotato9535]

I love my set of Minoltas. They have a great old school look, and they're built very well.

[@mnragnar]

On the opening of this video at 0:15 there's clearly a serious patch of "haze" fogging this particular Minolta lens of which I heard no mention of within this lens review as was mentioned about the yellowing of this particular copy of the Pentax lens. The references of "softness" and "low-contrast" may be more the end-results of this specific lens' history than the actual lens design. To give credit where credit is due, we should discount the performance shortcomings of THIS particular Minolta lens and get a clean copy of this lens and give this exercise another run. Otherwise, a nice review. Glenn

[@Station9.75]

Minolta gets a bad rap because it’s not considered one of the big brands. Ironic considering how influential Sony is now. But that’s fine with me because it keeps the old Minolta gear cheap.

[@tridinh1011]

but also his particular lens has a really big fog in the middle so that affected the IQ majorly, my minolta is actually pretty sharp, if not really sharp, though i dont have any other 50f1,4 vintage so i cant really compare. But its sharper than my 50mmf1.8 mii that's for sure

[@Narsuitus]

Thank you for your lens comparison video. Over the decades, I have used the following 50mm f/1.4 lenses: Asahi Pentax 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar (8-element) (49mm filter) Asahi Pentax 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar (7-element) (49mm filter) Fuji Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 EBC (49mm filter) Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI (52mm filter) Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D (52mm filter) All were excellent lenses that produced excellent images. The Nikkor AF-D was the only autofocus. The rest were manual focus. The 7-element Takumar yellowed due to radioactive lens elements. The 8-element Takumar was my personal favorite because it had the best image contrast. The Nikkors were bayonet mount. The Takumar and the Fujinon were M42 screw-mount.

[@dougmacmillan1712]

This is a very nicely done lens comparison. The only lens of the bunch that I have is the Canon. I also have a Canon FL 50mm which is lovely. I bought it at a thrift sale for $10.00. I also have the Canon FL 58mm f1.2 and a Leitz Summicron Dual Range 50mm f2.0. I do have a 100mm Minolta and a Nikon rangefinder 135mm. It's a lot of fun to use these on my Fuji X cameras.

[@xblastx1956]

Very detailed and well composed video, thank you. I am relatively new to photography, but have taken a huge interest in vintage lenses. I have seen so many times in videos camparing how great a certian lens can preform, only to realize while watching your video, they are all pretty great. I'm gonna quit seaching for certain lenses by make and model, and concentrate on price and condition. I have gotten some absolutely great photos from a used $20 point and shoot kodak. So thanks again for making this post. Also, you should have way more subscribers for the level of content you provide.

[@stephenreynolds6414]

Purchased the Canon 50mm f1.4 recently, beautiful sharp images. Certainly going to enjoy using this on my Sony mirrorless cameras.

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Very sharp lens.

[@maggnet4829]

Quite interesting. I'd have loved to see some more bokeh shots with different backgrounds, particularly straight lines. What you forgot was to check for chromatic aberrations, this is where the Takumar with it's radio active elements is supposed to really shine. To check on that I'd suggest green with sky in between, as well as a bokeh highlight from a white light. I tested it recently against the Sony 50mm 1.8 and the Takumar was beating it in this category easily. Would interest me how it fairs against the other 1.4 of that time.

[@cruzdesangre2850]

Thanks a lot for the comparison! It was really helpful

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Thank you. Happy to help.

[@mnragnar]

On the opening of this video at 0:15 there's clearly a serious patch of "haze" fogging this particular Minolta lens of which I heard no mention of within this lens review as was mentioned about the yellowing of this particular copy of the Pentax lens. The references of "softness" and "low-contrast" may be more the end-results of this specific lens' history than the actual lens design. To give credit where credit is due, we should discount the performance shortcomings of THIS particular Minolta lens and get a clean copy of this lens and give this exercise another run. Otherwise, a nice review. Glenn

[@peteralbert9805]

The Minolta 50mm Rokkor PG is an extremely sharp lens. Indeed, this copy has issues. So much for the fair comparison.

[@AntPDC]

Lovely, comprehensive review Jules, thank you. It just goes to show that the real-life differences in image quality between competent lenses are really quite small when judged alone, and so in the end it boils down to subjective preference in terms of colour rendition, contrast and bokeh. However, I personally deprecate the use of plastic in lenses of this vintage and would never dream of buying one. Even Nikon's cheapo Series E lenses (absent the "Nikkor" imprimatur) were made of metal. Best wishes.

[@louismeluso8633]

You are comparing a computer-designed lens, the Canon FD, to lenses designed with manual calculations. Beyond the new optical designs, new, lighter, polycarb materials were a major innovation along with improved assembly processes and coatings that match color with the entire FD line. The Canon FD optic is and should be a clear standout in this comparison.

[@ohjajohh]

Nice collection you got there! I love comparison videos like this

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Thank you. Tune in on Wednesday for another comparison.

[@user-ex1wy8hp6d]

Hi i like rokkor x very good for b&w Photography.

[@paulhancock]

Thanks for the comparisons. Really good tests. I think it highlights that vintage lenses are about feel, mood and character as opposed to sharpness and contrast as with modern lenses. I have the Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.4 and that slightly washed out low contrast look is exactly what I wanted... You can TELL it's an image taken with a vintage lens, which is the point, otherwise you might as well buy a cheap modern 50mm lens which is optically superior and throw on a retro filter!

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Thanks for watching and your comments

[@walterarroyo5220]

It would have been nice to add the Olympus 50mm f/1.4 and a more recent K mount Pentax 50mm f/1.4 but it’s understandable if the person doesn’t not own them. Great video.

[@MichaelRusso]

I have the SMC takumars. I never noticed the yellowing on my copies. However, I put them under a UV lamp anyway. The Canons are sharp. A little low on contrast but nice colors. Sometimes the out of focus areas can be a bit busy too.

[@nwmi23]

The SMC takumars aren't the radioactive versions based on the information I gathered, so they won't show any yellow tint. The Super Multi Coated lens is the 3rd iteration of the 50mm 1.4, and the SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 is the updated and last version of this lens built for the M42 mount.

[@thomasmoje5926]

I'm a Nikon fan but I recently picked up a Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic with a Super Takumar 55mm/f1.7 lens in excellent condition. First couple rolls shot with it the color rendition and sharpness just amazing. Equally as good as the best of my Nikon lenses.

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

I agree. Takumar lenses are excellent.

[@neilpiper9889]

It's a 55mm 1.8 if it's a spotmatic

[@thomasmoje5926]

@@neilpiper9889 Yeah that was a typo. It is indeed an f/1.8. Excellent lens.

[@neilpiper9889]

@@thomasmoje5926 yes I have it on my Pentax Spotmatic. Great lens.

[@AntonBrowne]

Nicely done, thank you.

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Thank you for watching

[@willbaren]

Thanks for an interesting comparison. At 5:46 you mention that the Nikkor and Pentax lenses turn in the opposite direction to the other lenses. They follow the original, pre-WWII Zeiss Contax direction. Since Nikon and Pentax were influenced by Contax cameras this makes some sense. Kiev cameras also maintained the Contax direction for obvious reasons. Canon and Minolta follow the Leica direction of twist. Modern Zeiss lenses, however, especially those with a Leica M mount, follow the Leica direction of twist.

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Thank you. I did not realize that the old Contax lenses turned in that direction.

[@willbaren]

@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 you're welcome. As a long term Nikon user it had puzzled me as well and I only recently came across the explanation.

[@kenjordan5750]

Maybe I don't need that Nikkor Z 50/1.8, since I always loved my 50/1.4 SMC Takumar. You can leave the lens in direct sunlight to remove the yellow tint.

[@Tintara369]

Oly 50mm f1.4

[@hans-joachimzimmermann3662]

Ein sehr interessanter Vergleich, der meiner Meinung nach aber noch einen Level höher ausgetragen werden sollte. Nun, ich meine den Vergleich der Lichtriesen aus den späten 60-ern und 70-ern, also Normalbrennweite von 50-58mm und Blende 1,2! Hier wären zu nennen: Nikon Nikkor 50mm; Minolta Rokkor 58mm; Olympus G Zuiko Auto-S 55mm; Konica Hexanon 57mm; Canon FD 50mm und das SMC Pentax 50mm. Das wäre doch das absolute Duell der Champions! Ich bin in der glücklichen Lage diese phantastischen Linsen in meiner Sammlung zu haben, aber für einen Vergleichstest fehlt mir das Know-how. Falls Du Dich also dieser Herausforderung stellen solltest, stelle ich die Linsen gerne zur verfügung.

[@MrGibsonguy335]

Well done video. I found it informative. I have the same Canon, the MD Rokkor and the SMC Pentax. I suspect the MD might be a little bit better than the old MC. An interesting comparison might be The Thoriun Takumar vs the SMC Pentax. Where is the Olympus???

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Don’t have the 50 1.4 Zuiko but do have the 50 1.8. I’ll get around to a 1.8 comparison soon.

[@MichaelRusso]

Which is best? They are all best.

[@seencere7284]

it would be more convenient if you would put those test images in hi res somewhere on the web (like flickr)

[@johnrflinn]

The Nikkor 55mm F2.8 is the sharpest with the most contrast.

[@AuspiciousOncologist]

0:17 The Minolta appears to have some sort of haze or balsam separation issue, which may or may not have affected the results of the test.

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Thank you for your comment. I just checked the lens and it is clear except for some dust which is normal for a lens of its age. I do see what you mean in the video, but that could have been caused by my lighting.

[@AuspiciousOncologist]

@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 Weird! Perhaps you're right and it was just a trick of the light. Whenever I look for flaws in glass, I do the flashlight test. Basically all it involves is shinning a bright light through the lens and then examining the other side at various angles. Thank you for the great video by the way!

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

@@AuspiciousOncologist Thank you. I did that and all I see is dust.

[@zirvecibekir3844]

I work as a sports photojournalist in Turkey. I have Canon FD, Nikon AI-S and D, Minolta MD Rokkor, Pentax SMC, Olympus OM Zuiko, Carl Zeiss Planar (24-28-35- 50 -135 mm.) lenses. I want to use them on Sony Alpha NEX 5 and NEX 6 with suitable adapters. Which is the most suitable (in mm) for video shooting? I'm waiting for your answer. Greetings from Turkey.. Bye...

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

The crop factor for your cameras is 1.5 so a 50mm lens gives you a field of view like a 75mm lens on a full frame camera with no crop factor. So it depends on if you need a telephoto or wide angle view. Your 135mm gives a field of view like a 202mm lens so depending the sport that may be your best bet. If you’re shooting basketball from under the basket a 35mm or 50mm would probably be best. Overall the Zeiss lenses are the best. Hope this helps.

[@arneelgersma6168]

Buy a second hand a7 with adapter. Or buy a cheap adapter. Most of them are good

[@jaceksnaturblicke5278]

No Bokeh test open wide? I never buy that fast lenses to shot in f2.

[@Rowan611]

The older FD 50 1.4 is better built, bigger and heavier. I have the FD 50 1.4 and 1.8, Contax Zeiss AEJ 50 1.4 and a Minolta MCIII Rokkor X 50 1.4 PG on the way. I love 50mm and vintage glass. I definitely have a vintage glass problem.

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

I agree that the older FD is better built. I have one but haven’t gotten around to testing it vs the newer version. Some people have said the newer version is sharper. Like you I also have a vintage glass problem.

[@Rowan611]

@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 I would be curious to see how the older FD does against the FDn.

[@seoulrydr]

Thank you for the comparison. I have all but the Canon lens and I can readily agree with your conclusions. Will you be doing a fast 50-58mm f1.2 vid? I've tried comparing the few I own and have yet to reach a conclusion concerning sharpness.

[@campbells0ups]

how do the focus travel paths compare? i heard the nikon AI-S lens might have the shortest focus travel

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

What you heard is correct. The Nikkor is about 1/3 of a turn, the Takumar a little less than 1/2 a turn, the Rokkor about half and the Canon a little more than half.

[@campbells0ups]

@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 for that reason alone along with the color scheme i might end up bagging the nikkor at some point. i like pulling and snapping focus quickly for moving subjects

[@kyleparks4528]

At about 13 minutes you mention that you don't recommend f.1.4s for reverse/extension tube macro. I've been shopping around and trying to read up on vintage prime lenses for macro and have not found a lot of comprehensive advice, and that's the first time I've heard specific advice on what to avoid. Could you elaborate on why a f/1.8 would be better than a f/1.4? Thanks!

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

I don’t know the optical reasons why the slower 50’s are better for macro, it’s just something that I read in Nikon literature years ago. They recommended the 50mm 2.0 over the 501.4. Also the 24mm is recommended reversed to get really close. I never questioned whether which lens was better for macro, but I may try reverse mounting a 50 1.4 and comparing it to a 1.8 or 2.0. Thank you for your comment.

[@kyleparks4528]

@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 Would love to know your results if you do this!

[@julesvuottosphotofocus4696]

Hi Kyle, I will publish a video on this subject on July 20th.

[@terrygoyan]

@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 I’ve read the same Nikon recommendations for macro work. Perhaps the lens corrections of a fast lens don’t lend them selves to reversing them for macro work. Most of the macro lenses on the market seem to be f/2.8 or less. I’ve been using a 55 micro lens reversed on bellows to good effect. Also a Rodenstock 135 f/5.6 enlarging lens. It’s fun to experiment and I would love to hear about your results with the 1.4 lenses!

[@amricorizal2247]

takumar wins all the time