I've just seen a Rokkor-X 45mm f2 converted to Sony Alpha (retaining infinity) going for 100USD: is this lens good and how does it compare to other similar pancakes, especially the Zuiko 40mm?
Thanks.
Otherwise, I might start looking into converting a Zuiko, if I can find one cheapish...
The Rokkor 45/2 is a nice lens if you like the stopped down bokeh of the 5 aperture blades. I have one just because of the different than smooth bokeh of my sigmalux and rokkor 58/1.2.
U.C. wrote:
The Rokkor 45/2 is a nice lens if you like the stopped down bokeh of the 5 aperture blades. I have one just because of the different than smooth bokeh of my sigmalux and rokkor 58/1.2.
How is it for sharpness and control of CAs stopped down? Do you use it on full-frame? Many thanks.
Nov 10, 2009 at 07:51 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I have the 45mm Rokkor for a film camera that I share with my daughter. I picked it up for $15. They rarely cost much more. You might start there and if it doesn't quite live up to your hopes you won't be out much, and you can always turn to other alternatives.
Sharpness is ok on my 450D (don't have any FF experience with it). Haven't made a lot of pictures with it, but I will put it to a real-life test tomorrow.
The few online pictures I have, can be found here: link
U.C. wrote:
Sharpness is ok on my 450D (don't have any FF experience with it). Haven't made a lot of pictures with it, but I will put it to a real-life test tomorrow.
The few online pictures I have, can be found here: link
Thanks again. It looks decent. if you don't mind doing a quick dirty test, I might wait for your results b4 taking the plunge (no need to post images, a quick report will do). If it's not good enough, I can always put it back on Ebay and have a Zuiko or Tessar converted.
I tested the 45/2 today on CA, but there wasn't a ray of sunshine here, so I used a few 40W fluorescent tubes with some aluminium grid in front of it. On the edges of the aluminium I could see some CA, but I had to pixel peep to see it. My Rokkor 58/1.2 does the job a little bit better, but I can't complain about this little CA.
U.C. wrote:
I tested the 45/2 today on CA, but there wasn't a ray of sunshine here, so I used a few 40W fluorescent tubes with some aluminium grid in front of it. On the edges of the aluminium I could see some CA, but I had to pixel peep to see it. My Rokkor 58/1.2 does the job a little bit better, but I can't complain about this little CA.
Thank you for that! The person who's listing the lens has also promised to email a full-frame sample, but I'm almost 100% convinced that it should be a reasonably good lens. I still might get a Zuiko 40mm later down the line, since it's reported to be excellent and it's 40mm and not 45mm (and, I've just heard, will be convertible to Alpha), but for now the Rokkor should do the trick.
pancakes are one of the worst lenses out there as far as "trade-off's" go.
The various characteristics are generally:
Fast/Slow
Cheap/Expensive
Small/"big"(aka- not much smaller than a "normal" lens)
Sharp/soft
Contrasty/Dull
I honestly haven't paid much attention to the Rokkor, but it seems totally legit for the price.
I have owned both versions of the Voigtlander 40mmf2.0 SL series pancakes, and they are completely boring as they lack any character. They just have a very clinical look to their images, which a lot of people like. I do not. Also, they are not the smallest of 'cakes, although for their new price they are very respectable.
The Oly 40/2 is pretty much the bee's knees, but very expensive usually ($400-$600). It is super tiny, sharp, has tons of character, a bit on the low-contrast side like most zuikos (at least wide open).
Pentax made a SMALL 40/2.8 that is usually $100 or less. I had one, it was very sharp and contrasty, just not very fast or "special".
This is similar to the Nikon 45/2.8P or the Contax 45/2.8 Tessar. Both of these lenses are VERY small, sharp, and super contrasty, but not the best handlers (because of their miniscule sizes). The Nikon is usually pricey ($300+ silver, $400+ black) but the Contax is cheap (<$150).
ISO1600 wrote:
pancakes are one of the worst lenses out there as far as "trade-off's" go.
The various characteristics are generally:
Fast/Slow
Cheap/Expensive
Small/"big"(aka- not much smaller than a "normal" lens)
Sharp/soft
Contrasty/Dull
I honestly haven't paid much attention to the Rokkor, but it seems totally legit for the price.
I have owned both versions of the Voigtlander 40mmf2.0 SL series pancakes, and they are completely boring as they lack any character. They just have a very clinical look to their images, which a lot of people like. I do not. Also, they are not the smallest of 'cakes, although for their new price they are very respectable.
The Oly 40/2 is pretty much the bee's knees, but very expensive usually ($400-$600). It is super tiny, sharp, has tons of character, a bit on the low-contrast side like most zuikos (at least wide open).
Pentax made a SMALL 40/2.8 that is usually $100 or less. I had one, it was very sharp and contrasty, just not very fast or "special".
This is similar to the Nikon 45/2.8P or the Contax 45/2.8 Tessar. Both of these lenses are VERY small, sharp, and super contrasty, but not the best handlers (because of their miniscule sizes). The Nikon is usually pricey ($300+ silver, $400+ black) but the Contax is cheap (<$150)....Show more →
Thanks! I'm happy with some of the trade offs (slow, maybe soft wide open but on song stopped down, clinical). Clinical is actually quite good for me.
I've seen two Zuikos and they're too expensive for what they are, maybe when I come across a cheaper one. Re the Voigtlander, Nikkor and Pentax, I have no idea if they can be converted.
What about the Zuiko 35mm f2.8? It looks tiny (almost as short as the pancake) and it goes for as low as £50 compared to £300 to over £500 for the 40mm.
Most of the Zuikos are great lenses. One in particular that is very popular here is the 28/3.5, as it is absolutely tiny, and i've known of many people buying them for less than $40. Oh yeah- fantastic performer too.
ISO1600 wrote:
Most of the Zuikos are great lenses. One in particular that is very popular here is the 28/3.5, as it is absolutely tiny, and i've known of many people buying them for less than $40. Oh yeah- fantastic performer too.
A little too wide for a carry-everywhere. The limits are 35mm and 45mm, with 40mm the ideal length.
Do you have any experience with the 35m f2.8? I've just seen one mint listed at £35.
interesting how different the experience with different lens can be.
i think thy oly 40/2 is very much crazy overpaid, and minolta 45/2 i cheap and a gem.
also with the oly in 35mm i had the 3,5 and 2,0 and sold both.
i think the overall performance and colors of the minolta 35/1,8 much much better.
interesting how different the experience with different lens can be.
i think thy oly 40/2 is very much crazy overpaid, and minolta 45/2 i cheap and a gem.
also with the oly in 35mm i had the 3,5 and 2,0 and sold both.
i think the overall performance and colors of the minolta 35/1,8 much much better.
but that makes it so thrilling ...
cheerz
reinhard
rsrsrs, what camera have you used the Rokkor 45mm with? Thanks.
Of course! Forgot to look up! I've decided to go for it (if it's still there) and see how it goes. Do you have problems achieving accurate focus on a non-live-view camera (assuming you use the original 5D)?
