# what is the most contrasty lens you have used????



## rhysgray (Feb 23, 2012)

Hi, i have a 40d with a 15-85. 
i just bought a 50/1.4 and love the increase in contrast... how much better are the L - series for contrast and how good does it get????


----------



## rhysgray (Feb 23, 2012)

does the 50/1.2 have even more contrast?


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 23, 2012)

Try the Asahi Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4, m42 mount plus cheap adapter, less than $100 shipped from ebay.

There's a lens element that's radioactive, as it decays the lens goes yellowish, you can fix it by sticking it in the sun for a few days (UV fixes it, a UV tube would be better). Or just leave it a bit yellowish. Best colours and contrast of any of my lenses (past f/2, f/1.4 is a bit washy and there's no stop in between). Sharpness @ f/2 beats my niftyfifty @ f/4 too.


----------



## ejenner (Feb 23, 2012)

It might be more the fast primes than L lenses. I have TS-E 17mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS and sig 85 1.4.

The sigma is the most contrasty lens I have by far. In fact I was dubious about this 'contrast' property of lenses until I got this, but I tent to add less contrast in PP with this lens.

I used the other L's except the 17mm along side the kit 18-55 with my T1i and never noticed a substantial difference in contrast (just general IQ and flare resistance), although they probably do have better contrast.


----------



## drummstikk (Feb 23, 2012)

Nikkor 105mm f/2.5.

_*WHOA!!*_ Who threw that?!?!?!?


----------



## AmbientLight (Feb 23, 2012)

@rhysgray:

Actually I am not sure about the contrast being better in L lenses like the 50mm f1.2. The most important difference between the 50mm f1.2 L compared to the non-L 50mm lenses appear to me to be both bokeh quality and colour rendition. I do not think contrast is such big factor, except if colour intensity is what you look for.

Can anyone provide more insight here? I am wondering about that contrast issue a little bit.


----------



## sheedoe (Feb 23, 2012)

^ I have found the 1.4 to have slightly more contrast and color saturation. Here's some sample shots I took to campare:

http://s460.photobucket.com/albums/qq328/sheedoe/50mm%20comparison/


----------



## hippoeater (Feb 23, 2012)

Maybe it's just me but it seems hard to tell with your comparison photo's of those two lenses - they look like the lighting is different in both environments and it's skewing the colors.


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 23, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Try the Asahi Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4, m42 mount plus cheap adapter, less than $100 shipped from ebay.



Just thought I'd share an example, didn't have any on my work pc yesterday.

iso100, 1/800s, so probably about f/2.0 or so, bit of a fill flash. DPP processed with minimal adjustments, curve looks almost like a 45 degree line. only +1 Saturation, this lens has so good colours that too much sat makes it look too fake.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 24, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Try the Asahi Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4, m42 mount plus cheap adapter, less than $100 shipped from ebay.
> 
> There's a lens element that's radioactive, as it decays the lens goes yellowish, you can fix it by sticking it in the sun for a few days (UV fixes it, a UV tube would be better). Or just leave it a bit yellowish. Best colours and contrast of any of my lenses (past f/2, f/1.4 is a bit washy and there's no stop in between). Sharpness @ f/2 beats my niftyfifty @ f/4 too.



A radioactive lens? Just what are they doing with it O.O
I'd assume you'd need to take off your UV filter when you leave it out though? 8)

jokes.


I love the contrast on my 135. Then again its the main prime I use, but thats just me I guess...


----------



## PCM-Madison (Feb 24, 2012)

By my count, I have used (borrowed, rented, owned) 18 EFS and EF compatible lenses including 6 L-series lenses. I do own the 50mm f1.4 canon lens. The lenses that I have found to be superior in contrast to the 50mm f1.4 include the macro lenses I have used (EFS 60mm, EF 100mm f2.8, and EF 100mm F2.8L), and the best IQ Canon lens I have used which is the 200mm F2.8L mk1. My copy of this lens has clearly superior contrast and sharpness on my cameras (30D, 60D, 5D) to all other Canon-compatible lenses I have used (I have never used any of the big white primes).


----------



## Joellll (Mar 3, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > Try the Asahi Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4, m42 mount plus cheap adapter, less than $100 shipped from ebay.
> ...


Apparently lens coating wasn't very advanced back then and they had to use thorium, a radioactive element to coat the lens.

I was in a tight budget (teenager here ) and I wanted a fast 50mm lens. I already own MF lenses so I didn't mind getting a film era lens, stumbled across the Nikkor 50/1.4 and the Takumar, ultimately ended up with the latter because of the beautiful golden tint, caused by the decay of Thorium.

For half the price and sharper results than the EF counterpart, I have zero complaints on this lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 3, 2012)

Joellll said:


> For half the price and sharper results than the EF counterpart, I have zero complaints on this lens.



My only complaint about the Takumar is that now that i've got the FL 55 f/1.2 and EdMika adapter, which one do I use?


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 3, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Joellll said:
> 
> 
> > For half the price and sharper results than the EF counterpart, I have zero complaints on this lens.
> ...



you could use the takumar and sell that FL to me 

Looking for one now that ships to where I stay... =(


----------



## mws (Mar 3, 2012)

Just got my Takumar 50 MM from Ebay yesterday, now I just have to wait for the adapter to show up from China.

Now I'm suddenly interested in all sorts of Jupiter and Helios lenses, there goes the money I've been saving for the 5D MK III......


----------



## Joellll (Mar 4, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Joellll said:
> 
> 
> > For half the price and sharper results than the EF counterpart, I have zero complaints on this lens.
> ...


I would have gotten the 1.2 if I was affordable. Haven't used it before, but I can't handle that shallow depth of field while manual focusing, so I'd stick with the Takumar.

Did I mention the Takumar is L lens sharp at 5.6?


----------

