Sunday 'Open Mike': Which ~50mm Normal Should YOU Use?

['Open Mike' is the not-always-off-topic Editorial page of TOP, in which Yr. Hmbl. Ed. sometimes takes a look at things with extra-fine resolution. Bloviation alert: this goes on a bit.]

I wanted to call out a couple of comments from the "Favorite Normal Lenses of All Time" post. One by Kenneth Tanaka and the other by Rick Neibel.

In 2009, I wrote an article called "The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt." It was published at The Luminous-Landscape, Photo.net, Steve's Digicams, and was translated into several non-English languages for publication on photo sites in other countries. Our best estimate at the time was that, very roughly, 80,000 people saw it. (I never got paid a dime for it.) It started as a rebuttal of a snide comment on another site to the effect that a Leica 50mm was "a real lens" whereas an old Konica lens such as the Konica AR 50mm was not. My rebuttal was a commonsense argument that you can do perfectly good work with pretty much any lens you want. I presented pictures (in reduced-size JPEGs, so they weren't "proof" necessarily) taken with a number of 50mm lenses, from very expensive down to a $12 eBay purchase; from the latest designs to virtual antiques; Leica lenses both new and ancient; famous marques to unknown brands; and lenses that were prestigious ("legendary" per the common argot) versus some that were ordinary.

It's no longer on Photo.net, and Steve Sanders passed away in 2017 at the age of 64. (Did you know Steve used a wheelchair? It didn't stop him from doing his comprehensive tests.) His site is no longer online. "The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt" is behind a paywall at L-L, and importation of the old illustrations into new formats has not been kind to them—they're all blurry and degraded. [UPDATE: Philip found it at the Internet Archive.]

Here's what Rick Neibel wrote: "Interesting: I was a working commercial photographer for 37 years, and used lots of different equipment in different formats. But I couldn't begin to come up with a comparable list, mostly because when I respond to a photo, 'resolution,' or 'micro-contrast,' or 'bokeh' are total non-factors for me. I respond, I think, entirely to content and composition. Different folks, different strokes."

Ken Tanaka wrote: "I have had, and still have, so many lenses that perform so well that it’s hard to call one out as a true favorite. I probably did encourage Mike to consider that Sigma 45mm DG DN; it really is superb in every meaningful dimension (sharpness, color, contrast, weight, size , build, and cost). In fact I also like its 35mm and 65mm DG DN siblings for the same reasons! Sigma’s rise from the so-so third party budget lens ranks into the upper echelon of optical designers has been truly remarkable. I have so many candidates for 'best' or 'favorite' normal lenses….

"So much today depends heavily on the camera’s integration and communication with the lens’s electronics. But if I had to make a choice at this moment mine would be between the APO-Summicron 43mm ƒ/2 and the Summilux 28mm ƒ/1.7 on Leica’s Q3-43 and Q3 fixed-lens cameras, respectively. Their performance is simply breathtaking. If you’ve never tried a Q3 and you love lens characteristics you owe it to yourself to rent or borrow one for a week or so."

Taking Ken's comment first, I can agree with everything he says, with the exception that I haven't tried a Q camera. He says he has many candidates for "best" or "favorite" lenses. This is so true. It's really half the reason why I'm not really a lens hobbyist any more—everything's bunched at the top, and there's just not a lot in the choice between them all. Computer design optimization, modern coatings, and highly regulated manufacturing techniques have made excellent performance the norm now. Even formerly second-tier manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron are making brilliant lenses now. You can't pick a Leica picture out of a lineup.

The situation now is that a.) many manufacturers are building dazzling "statement" normal lenses to demonstrate the extremes they are capable of, yet b.) almost any normal lens down to a kit zoom will do fine even for serious photography, provided the photographer likes it.

Is that ironic, or is there another word for it?

This is a normal 50mm prime from one of the world's best lensmakers. It weighs more than a pound and a half.

And this is a picture made with it. I'm sorry, but I could take this picture with a 1960s Topcon lens and nobody'd ever know the difference.

So how do you pick one? Insightful for sure is this sentence of Ken's: "So much today depends heavily on the camera’s integration and communication with the lens’s electronics." Couldn't have said it better. This is really most of the reason for making particular choices today. If the optics are a wash, then other factors come to the forefront. I'm more likely to pick a lens for its size and weight (I prefer small and handy) and the way it operates on the camera (including what Erwin Puts called its "haptics") as for anything else.

What are "haptics"? The word was borrowed from the New Latin hapticē, meaning "science of touch," and derived ultimately from the Greek haptesthai, meaning "to touch" (Merriam Webster). More generally, it's how a camera stimulates the senses, especially of touch, in operation, including, broadly speaking, "integration and communication." Here's an example: When my lens is on manual focus on my camera, and I move the focus ring even slightly, an enlarged central rectangle appears that shows red "blinkies" on the in-focus edges. And by the way, the focus ring has possibly the best feel of any focus-by-wire system I've experienced. The second I take my finger off the focusing ring, the focus aids disappear, and I see the entire image with no red outlining. And nothing at all superimposed on the image. It's so nice I've taken to using manual focus almost exclusively. Is there anything wrong with the AF? No. Am I some sort of manual focus fan or advocate? Nope. I've had no problem using cameras with AF since I got my Nikon N8008 (F-801) in 1988, all the way up to my current Fujifilm X-T4 (2020), with plenty of autofocusing cameras in between. Sigma's manual focus implementation just gives me a feeling of being in total control, which is what I like and want, and seek out. It's just...really nice. So I use it.

Golden this and that
Speaking of the senses, I do retain my "golden eye" problem to some degree. The phrase comes from the audiophile hobby, where "golden eared" enthusiasts can drill right down to the nitpicking level and identify arcane qualities and properties that normal listeners haven't trained themselves to hear. I had that too, when my hearing was better. I had exceptionally good hearing for most of my life—always pegged the audiology charts—and I'm still above average for my age. I could hear standing waves, phase, and humps and suckouts in the response curve, as well as things like dynamics and certain distortions that some hobbyists don't even listen for. I was responding badly to IM distortion in CDs before it had commonly been identified as a problem. It was very interesting to go along for the ride while the industry and the experts figured out the various weaknesses of digital sound reproduction and solved the problems one after the other. I still have a tendency to look for optical properties in lenses that I can still identify easily even when I...well, shouldn't. See below, under neuroses.

I'll throw this in: most great photographers used old lenses, because they made their work decades or even more than a century ago. See book illustration below.

With audio, eventually I taught myself how to get to Rick's level. I realized that if I listen to a setup for a while, I can relax about its properties and listen "through" it to the music. Hey, I trained myself to have golden ear, so I can also train myself not to have it. I learned that, in time, I get accustomed or habituated to the equipment, and the system's strengths and weaknesses recede, and I can just listen and not stress about it. Of course some things are harder to let go of than others. My observation from a psychological perspective is that many audiophiles have a particular property or two that they love, look for, and pursue, whether it's bass (depth, amount, or clarity of), transparency, flat response, smooth "non-fatiguing" treble, or whatever. My personal weakness is for good imaging—the illusion just charms me like a wizard's spell—and I listen in the nearfield such that imaging is very good. However, I no longer pursue holy grails in regard to imaging and soundstaging. What happens when you pursue holy grails is that even when you've worked long and hard to optimize whatever it is you love, you still have to try new candidates just to see if maybe they might be better. You never can get off the merry-go-round. Similarly, with lens images, I have a particular sensitivity to bokeh, and although I've worked to train myself to ignore it, or look past it, still, I have to make sure that my lenses don't provoke my "allergy" to bad bokeh too much. But I'm, um, healthier than I used to be. (Golden ears and golden eyes can easily begin to overlap with neuroses!*)

When you buy a book by a long-gone photographer, do you really look at the pictures and think, "too bad they didn't have any good lenses back then"?

Hmm, I'm having a visual migraine (not joking, I am), and can no longer see the letters I'm typing clearly. These only last about 15 or 20 minutes, so I'll go eat breakfast and continue writing after it goes away.

•     •     •

So, to recap:

From Ken: There are a large number of candidates for "best" or "favorite" lenses today, because so many are extremely good now, and choice often comes down to haptics and the camera’s integration and communication with the lens’s electronics, as well as things in a lens that are apart from the optical qualities: form, size and weight, feel, how well it works with the camera's features, how transparently and quickly it performs, and the degree to which it does what you want it to and gets out of the way.

From Rick: Don't get distracted by picayune technical properties: look through them and see the picture, the subject. By analogy, listen to the music, not the gear. I've added: even if you have to train yourself consciously to do that.

To Ken's and Rick's insights I'll emphasize one thing I said in my post last Wednesday. "We photographers mostly use fine lenses for our own gratification, not because non-photographer viewers care very much." Consider this: do you ever really get any extra credit from viewers of your pictures for using the best lenses? It might be nice to think so. I would argue that it happens very seldomly, and that even when it does it's not very important. Viewers just see the picture. They either look right past, or aren't even able to see, the subtle telltales of lens quality that lead the likes of us to get our Sherlock Holmes magnifying glasses out and press our noses to the print. I've always said that being a lens enthusiast is a separate hobby from being a photographer. As photographers we just don't get any extra credit for using special and fancy lenses. It satisfies and gratifies us, is all. Which is a good enough reason to do it.

When's the last time you looked at work online or in museums and thought, "what great work, too bad s/he didn't use a better lens"?

It almost never happens to me...and I'm picky.

Mike

*The key to understanding if your obsessions are healthy or not is whether you enjoy the hunt—the continual shopping and testing and comparing—or are made anxious and troubled by it. Do you you appreciate the differences and distinctions you uncover, or are continually disappointed or let down by one thing after another in succession? If the latter, then it's probably getting the best of you. I used to say that "all lenses yield their gifts"—that is, with any lens, sooner or later you will find the use for it that it's just perfectly suited for, where its properties mesh with the subject and the light in such a way that it shines. This is as true of cheap, old, discarded lenses bought for a pittance on eBay as it is for the latest, greatest, most coveted and most expensive lenses money can buy. I enjoyed my lens hobby; it made me happy. I never claimed it was more productive than playing video games or attending comic cons. On the contrary, it had more in common with things like that than it did with being a photographer. I did try lenses I disliked, or moved on from quickly, but mostly I just enjoyed figuring them out.

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Rob de Loe: "Re 'Consider this: do you ever really get any extra credit from viewers of your pictures for using the best lenses?' No, definitely not. In fact, it goes way beyond the lenses. I haul around a digital view camera and use movements in the majority of the photographs I make. The tools allow me to make photographs the way I want, and I think they let me bring something to the image that is not otherwise possible. Nonetheless, audiences of regular folks don't see any of that. The picture either works for them as a picture, or it doesn't. And that's how it should be. It's either successful as a photograph, or it's not. No bonus points for the cost of the lens, clever combinations of tilt and swing, or any of the other things we photographers worry about."

Comments

[Rick in CO]

I agree and disagree with Ken & Rick on various issues. Depending on the intended use, one might prefer central sharpness and care less about the outer areas, whereas another application might require sharpness across the frame. Second, there is a "look" to different lenses that can only be seen by shooting various examples (ie. your 40mm Summicron Leica/Rokkor). Then there is focal length. I have used a 28/35/50 Tri-Elmar for a couple of years now. It has taught me that 50-60% of my pictures, mostly travel, are taken with the 50mm, 10-15% with 35mm and 20-30% with 28mm. You could also use a zoom lens for this, but the results would be less discrete. I tried a Q3 but the distortion with its 28mm was too much for me. The Q3 43 is, as Ken points out, simply amazing, but do I need that much? I compared the 50 Apo Summicron-M to my Tri-Elmar's 50 and yes it was better, but not by so much that I kept it. For what it's worth, when I used to shoot weddings I liked the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 and, believe it or not, the 50mm f2 ZM Planar. For sports and wildlife any of the Canon EF-L zoom lenses. All generalizations aside, it simply depends on the individual user and lens.

[SteveW]

I remember reading one of your articles that said something like: choose the lens you want to use, and then choose a camera to use that lens.

I really agree with that approach, even now when pretty much all lenses are really good. I first did this when I wanted to use the Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G, my personal "number one" lens. I bought a Nikon D750 to use this lens.

Later I changed to Fuji to downsize my gear from the big Nikon DSLR's and lenses I had to something smaller, and I chose Fuji because I wanted to use the small f/2 primes (fujicrons). This approach worked out pretty good for me. Now my entire kit is an X-T5 with the 35mm f2 (on the camera 90% of the time) and the 16-50mm kit lens, which I found to be a great value and good for travel.

[Rob L.]

There's something in the Nikkor 50 1.8S that haunts me, of course I sold it! The Bokeh and focus range is certain a big part of it, but just the working distance made me work a bit more than my customary 26-35mm walkabout range that I put a bit more though into a lot of what I was shooting as well. My Sigma 35 1.4 is also magic - but again, if I'm carrying that beast on an adapter now, it's with intent. So it's always teh combo of the mechanical properties of teh lens and how the artist responds to it, I guess.

[Eugene]

Hi, am wondering about loudspeakers giving great imaging - what brought about this attribute in a pair of speakers have you discovered? Could it be just listening @ near field or other factors eg. toe in, placement from rear wall, cables, number or size of drive units, size of cabinet, others. Thanks.

[John Bennett]

Ocular migraines: I get them, too. They were a mystery to me when the first landed. Swirling vision, challenge to focus. The docs gave me all sorts of tests…and concluded “ocular migraine.”

Usually brought on by too much caffeine and stress. Two Advil and they're gone in 20 minutes.

[Herman Krieger]

I found that the simple one piece meniscus in a box camera gave pretty good results-


https://hermankrieger.com/bikepath.htm

[Eric]

I think this quote is relevant here - it’s not about getting credit, it’s about making something wonderful.

“There's lots of ways to be, as a person. And some people express their deep appreciation in different ways. But one of the ways that I believe people express their appreciation to the rest of humanity is to make something wonderful and put it out there.
And you never meet the people. You never shake their hands. You never hear their story or tell yours. But somehow, in the act of making something with a great deal of care and love, something's transmitted there. And it's a way of expressing to the rest of our species our deep appreciation. So we need to be true to who we are and remember what's really important to us.
— Steve Jobs, 2007”

[Kodachromeguy]

Ken wrote, "if I had to make a choice at this moment mine would be between the APO-Summicron 43mm ƒ/2 and the Summilux 28mm ƒ/1.7 on Leica’s Q3-43 and Q3 fixed-lens cameras," But here we have the entire imaging chain, from lens to electronic processing in the camera to output as RAW/jpeg, etc. . So how do we know if these lenses on their own are better or worse than other lenses of these focal lengths?

[Philip]

I must have been among the 80,000. There's still a good copy at the Internet Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20130412011759/http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/09222002.html">http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/09222002.html">https://web.archive.org/web/20130412011759/http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/09222002.html

[Stan B.]

FWIW, I'm from the Rick Neibel school of thought- the only time I really notice a lens is when it fails to deliver (I'm thinking of you, Fujichron 18mm f2). Actually, not true... I stood up and noticed when using both the 18mm on the GR and the 28mm on the Q.

[Keith]

Apologies if this doesn't help, I found an article with that title by you from 2002, internet archive's Wayback Machine link

https://web.archive.org/web/20030207201448/http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml">https://web.archive.org/web/20030207201448/http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml

The pictures are lovely, regardless.

[William Lewis]

Every day I go out the door with a camera bag. In the last year, I have only left the house without a camera in hand once that I can remember.

Currently my Every Day Carry bag has a Pentax K-3 and either my HD DA 20-40mm limited zoom or my FA 35/2 AL prime on it as the "Normal" lens. The other one will be in the bag with a DA 15/4 & a DA 70/2.4 giving wide and long. APS-C so, I have effective coverage of 22mm to 105mm and for me that 99.9% in a roughly 20% wide 70% normal 10% long usage pattern. I'm extremely happy with this kit and it's capability. For very rare occasional need (speed or length), I have at home, an FA 50/1.4 and a DAL 55-300 as well. The GAS tank is actually, finally, full...

The only changes I foresee anytime soon is if I go from the K-3 Mk 1 to the Mk 3 or a M3 Monochrome.

[Speed]

Mike captioned one of the pictures, ... a normal 50mm prime from one of the world's best lensmakers.

It is an f/1.2 lens which puts it into a small and costly (almost) specialty category.

[Jim r]

Sorry to cheat, but my favorite 50 is the Lumix 20-60. Quite compact, talented and versatile - but I prefer the 40-45mm zone in any case. At the moment a Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 holds the spot, shot in 4:3 ratio to keep the corners clean since it's an aps:c design. Still awaiting a few more L-mount options before choosing a native option in the 35-45mm space.

[Allan Ostling]

After your earlier post which listed the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 as tops, I got my Minolta CLE out of the closet, and spent Saturday shooting a roll of FP4 with this combo. The results were not up to my expections. The CLE works fine, but the lens has a significant axial looseness, can be pushed in or pulled out a smidgen. After developing and scanning the film I mounted the lens on my Fuji X-T5; the focus peaking showed the movement to be beyond the limits of acceptability. I shall try to get the lens repaired.

It felt great, sitting in Le Grand Orange in Phoenix unobtrusively taking photos of the young fashionistas at this coffee bar. I shall return soon with my Konica FS-1 and Hexanon AR 40mm f/1.8 loaded with HP5.

[Mark Johnson]

For visual migraines, 2 x paracetamol 500 mg tablets also work for me within minutes.

[Ken Monroe]

RE: Ocular migraines - I've had them for years, usually triggered by bright flashes of light (light off of chrome fittings) while driving; makes for a real adventure! After recent MRI's etc. showed no issues, neurologist suggested 100 mg B2 and 100 mg CoQ10. So far, it seems to be working.

BTW, which camera is it that gives you blinkies "on the edges?" For haptics, I really like the Voigtlander selection.

[My camera is a Sigma FP with a monochrome sensor. --Mike]

[Chris Bertram]

I seem to have ended up with 3 m4/3 normals. The Panasonic 20mm f1.8, the Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4 and the Olympus 17mm f1.8. I seem to use the 25mm most these days: it is fairly small and light and seems to focus much faster than the others, whereas the 20mm in particular (I think the mark 1 version) can take its time...

[Hank]

My favorite 50 for the Leica M system is a Konica - more specifically, a lens that pre-dates the name "Konica" - the Konishiroku 50mm f1.9 from their 1950s. For me, it beats every Summicron from that era that I've tried.
One of my favorite Leitz lenses is the 1930s Summar 50mm, a lens considered "poor" by most folks, but I love its look. It is very sharp in the center, so you learn to use that to your advantage.

[Moose]

Olympus 12-200/3.5-6.3

As pointed out many times above, in various ways, it's how the pix look and feel that matters. This lens is actually optically quite good — up to somewhere around 140 mm. Used on it's own, longer FLs are still decent, and with AI sharpening often great.

User together with:

Olympus 100-400/5-6.3 + 1.4x TC

It gives this eclectic subjects guy the 24-1120 mm eq. range that makes him happy and allows him to make lots of photos he likes.

Olympus 45/1.2

Yeah, I know, this is bash contemporary huge, fast lenses month, but I don't agree that " I'm sorry, but I could take this picture with a 1960s Topcon lens and nobody'd ever know the difference."

That camera (as Topcon Super D in USA) and that lens were the first SLR I really used. I can't now separate which old shots I took with it from those taken with other gear — inadequate records. But I'll bet it had crummier focal transitions and busy background.

Here's an example from a close contemporary, Canon 58/1.2 FD mount.

Note the bokeh in the transition zones, in front of and behind the focal plane. With the Oly 25/1.2, it would all be siky smooth. I prefer that \;~)>

Click on image for full frame.

[Arg]

Whenever I see strong feelings expressed about the 'look' of this or that lens, I can't help but to remember those blind tests where nobody can pick the Leica print from the P&S, or everyone picks the early Sony JPEG over the Fuji or Canon. The placebo effect seems to be having its way with us, big time.

[Rick in CO]

A late comment on the "look" and "sharpness" of lenses (and camera formats): In the 1930's a celebrated Leica photographer published a book comparing photos shot with the Leica compared to larger format camera/lenses. The author's verdict was to tout the quality of the smaller format, suggesting it was comparable to the larger cameras popular at the time. I have a copy of that book and can easily pick out the photos taken with the Leica as less sharp and having less gradation in contrast. Now, that is just fine if one is taking portraits (the reason for special soft focus Large Format lenses) or into a more pictoralistic style of photography, but for the criteria the authors were claiming, it just wasn't there. But, the book was very popular and still referred to today in some circles, showing that oft-repeated mantras can be believed, whether accurate or relevant in this day and age. Leica cameras & lenses have other virtues (I own them) as do the Linhof's I own.