Anyone know any fast 50s with a flat field?

[Tristin]

I've recently discovered how much I appreciate a flat field curvature after acquiring my first fast lens that is really, really flat.  Now I find myself often irritated with the field curvature of the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s.  While it doesnt always effect my pictures negatively,  I often find the curvature removing the option of shooting faster than f/2 because the curvature can induce nauseating results.  Ideally no slower than f/1.4  I don't mind spherical abberation as long as fine detail is preserved.  A neutral/sterilecolor cast would be nice as well.  I would also be open to lenses in the 40-50mm range.

Any tips?

[richardHaw]

macro's are usually flatter but not generally fast

will the TAMRON 60mm f/2 satisfy your need for a fast lens? it's not a 50, but since it is a macro lens I am guessing that it should have a flatter field than usual 

[richardHaw]

also, the SIGMA 50mm ART is said to have a flatter field at longer distances to infinity 

not sure how it is wide open. I can test for you if you want. i own that lens and that is what i use for paid or important use just because it works and the AF is fast and reliable. 

[Tristin]

The field curvature of the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s generally irritates me when my subject is at short-mid ranges like 2-4 meters.  That is when it generates nauseating results.  I have come to just know that in this general range, I have to stop down to get an image that doesn't look barfy.

I am aware of the Makro Planar 50mm f/2, but that wouldn't really fix my issue most of the time.  I'm suspecting that I may have no real options faster than f/2 . . . hoping I am incorrect.

If you have a 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s to do a comparison shot with the Sigma 50mm art, that would be highly appreciated.  An image with plenty of items at varying distances, shot at f/1.4 and focused at ~3m would be ideal.  Thanks either way in advance. ☺

[richardHaw]

The field curvature of the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s generally irritates me when my subject is at short-mid ranges like 2-4 meters.  That is when it generates nauseating results.  I have come to just know that in this general range, I have to stop down to get an image that doesn't look barfy.

I am aware of the Makro Planar 50mm f/2, but that wouldn't really fix my issue most of the time.  I'm suspecting that I may have no real options faster than f/2 . . . hoping I am incorrect.

If you have a 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s to do a comparison shot with the Sigma 50mm art, that would be highly appreciated.  An image with plenty of items at varying distances, shot at f/1.4 and focused at ~3m would be ideal.  Thanks either way in advance. ☺

my 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S is back at Nikon's factory (i got mad at them but that's a different story). 

reading the 1001 nights story about the 55mm f/1.2, it seems like a challenge to design a fast normal prime with flat field. i did a research after this and zeiss attempted on their 50 1.4 but ended up with a lens that has undulating field wide open (which is worse than having a curved field!). if you can go to a camera shop and test the SIGMA 50 ART, that might be what you are looking for. It still has some field curvature wide open but not as strong in my opinion.

now, if you have the money and will compromise with 55mm then the OTUS is reputed to have almost no field curvature 

[richardHaw]

Zeiss FE 1.8/55 <- this might be a cheaper alternative for you 
reputed to have less FC than the usual 50 but yeah, its a 55...

[Frank Fremerey]

From all the lenses I currently use the 1.8/50G shows the smallest amount of change in geometrical correction. It is even less that the 2.8/60G, which is small already.

[Erik Lund]

I prefer the look from lenses with flat field as well,,, you could shoot a 55 or 60mm Micro-Nikkor but for speed your have no option except the  Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4

The 58mm 1.4 G has a bit uneven field but not bad.

If your willing to go to 35mm the 1.4 G has a very pleasing rendering wide open.

[Airy]

The Zeiss makroplanar 50/2 field is not especially flat (bent to the rear ad mid distances, iIRC), which is surprizing for a macro lens. On the other hand, marco shooter usually stop down.

The Tamron 45/1.8 may be what you are looking for, but I haven't tested it - only used it, to my delight (it has been sharing my Df with the 105/2.5 since I bought it). Its very homogeneous (and good) resolution wide open suggests a very flat field indeed - no "sombrebro" effect with that one.

Otherwise check the 50/1.8G, a very good overall performer, and much cheaper.

[rosko]

May be one day, thanks advance technology, camera makers will offer curved interchangeable sensors with different curvature according each lens...

Well, using a flat field lens might be cheaper !

[Tristin]

Erik, I only want faster than f/2 for the shallow depth.  I never find myself needing faster than f/2 for the speed itself.  I haven't used a 35mm lens, so I am not sure if it would give a shallow enough depth to please me at f/1.4 but would try it.  My main concern here is would have to be closer to my subject which isn't always comfortable for either of us.  To be honest, 50mm always feels a hair tight for me, so I fear moving to 58mm would introduce as many problems as it could solve.    I also could never see myself being able to prioritize my lenses over other areas of my life to fund an Otus.

Airy, I have indeed been somewhat interested in the Tamron 45mm f/1.8.  As I said, 50mm always feels a tad tight for me.  VR sure does sound nice, I have not had a lens with it and would love to try it.  Again, my concern here is whether it would be shallow enough.  Maybe I will find a way to test one out sometime.

[rosko]

May be one day, thanks advance technology, camera makers will offer curved interchangeable sensors with different curvature according each lens...

Well, using a flat field lens might be cheaper !

[Tristin]

May be one day, thanks advance technology, camera makers will offer curved interchangeable sensors with different curvature according each lens...

And perhaps they will custome build me my dream lenses as well, let's hold our breaths for it.  You first! 

[richardHaw]

Erik, I only want faster than f/2 for the shallow depth.  I never find myself needing faster than f/2 for the speed itself.  I haven't used a 35mm lens, so I am not sure if it would give a shallow enough depth to please me at f/1.4 but would try it.  My main concern here is would have to be closer to my subject which isn't always comfortable for either of us.  To be honest, 50mm always feels a hair tight for me, so I fear moving to 58mm would introduce as many problems as it could solve.    I also could never see myself being able to prioritize my lenses over other areas of my life to fund an Otus.

Airy, I have indeed been somewhat interested in the Tamron 45mm f/1.8.  As I said, 50mm always feels a tad tight for me.  VR sure does sound nice, I have not had a lens with it and would love to try it.  Again, my concern here is whether it would be shallow enough.  Maybe I will find a way to test one out sometime.

i cannot comment on the field curvature of the TAMRON 45mm but i can vouch for the image quality. the close focus feature is also very helpful it almost works as a macro lens 
this might be the lens for you! i also like this lens unfortunately, this is not a manual focus lens, however the manual focusing feels sexy and smooth. try it, you will probably like it

[Airy]

Tristin, I hesitated between the Sigma and Tamron for a while. The Tamron is 2/3 stop slower, but its imaging qualities at 1.8 are such that I'd use it without hesitation (this also applies to the bokeh).

Since you aim at flat subjects, the bokeh may be less relevant. Splashproofness and VC may not be the deciding factors in your case, but they come in handy.

If you tell me your intended use, I can set up a quick comparison with the 50/1.2 AIS or AI (not with the Sigma though), and then a few others (Zeiss MP, 45/2.8 PC-E...).