Can this lens be adapted for use on a Canon 5D without modifying the camera? Sounds like a nice lens. What do you guys think of the lens? How does the IQ compare to the 50mm 1.8II that I already have?
Eric Gottesman wrote:
Can this lens be adapted for use on a Canon 5D without modifying the camera?
That depends on your 5D. Some have found that they can get infinity on their 5D without needing a mirror shave. Others not. There is always the prospect of getting "near infinity" without shaving the mirror, which is easily doable.
Sounds like a nice lens. What do you guys think of the lens? How does the IQ compare to the 50mm 1.8II that I already have?
It is a stunning lens. Sharp wide open and legendary bokeh. As good or better than the 50L, so compare your 50/1.8 II to the L and that's basically your answer.
Here's a stupid question. What would an extension tube do here. Would I get infinity focus with no clearance issues? Would that effect IQ at all? Perhaps the smallest extension tube?
Heck, I could have the mirror shaved on my camera and buy this lens for less than the 50mm L and open the doors to a lot more lenses out there. I think you guys have another Canon guy crossing over to the alternative side!!
That's jumping in with both feet first. Not really recommended.
I'd rather suggest picking up something like the OM Zuiko 50/1.4 and a $20 OM-EOS adapter and see how you get on with manual focus and stop-down metering.
Thanks. I was actually getting to that question. I'll keep my eyes open for one of those. Any other "first" lens suggestions? What about in the 20-30mm range and 70-90mm range primes? I'm looking for fast glass (2.8 or better) that has good IQ wide open. I have a 17-40 f4 already.
cogitech wrote:
Bokeh is subjective. Have a look at the various current threads here and you'll soon realize that your statement about the bokeh is meaningless.
Not at all...Its a fact that smooth bokeh is always better than rough bokeh and the bokeh of the rokkor is noticably rougher than the FL 55mm f1.2...OK, the FL does'nt exactly have creamy smooth bokeh either but its definetely smoother than the Rokkor.
cogitech wrote:
Everything I have read about the FL 55/1.2 indicates that it suffers from heavy coma and field curvature, and that wide open it stinks.
I'm not a pro, but I like the portrait shots from my Rokkor 58/1.2 a lot better than what you've posted from FL 55/1.2, especially if it's that much close-up shot.
Paul Yi wrote:
I'm not a pro, but I like the portrait shots from my Rokkor 58/1.2 a lot better than what you've posted from FL 55/1.2, especially if it's that much close-up shot.
I'll try to post some picture later on.
I have'nt shot either, but from what I've seen on this forum the Rokkor bokeh is better.
Besides, the Canon does not meet the Alternative criteria an costs quite a bit more.
Sirfishalot wrote:
Besides, the Canon does not meet the Alternative criteria an costs quite a bit more.
Yes it does, and no it doesn't. If a lens requiring mount surgery doesn't qualify as alternative, then what does? And have you not seen the prices of converted Rokkors?
Jul 09, 2008 at 07:16 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Eric Gottesman wrote:
Thanks. I was actually getting to that question. I'll keep my eyes open for one of those. Any other "first" lens suggestions? What about in the 20-30mm range and 70-90mm range primes? I'm looking for fast glass (2.8 or better) that has good IQ wide open. I have a 17-40 f4 already.
-Eric
Hi Eric,
I don't know what you want to spend, but a lens you might consider is the Olympus 28mm f/2. It often gets good reviews and it will be easy to convert. It is moderately priced at about $250 to $300 or so. Being a Oly OM it is also easy to use with a simple adapter and will cause no mirror problems.
If you are willing to spend a bit more money look at any of the Zeiss lenses in this range they are all generally quite good, but would be somewhat more difficult to use and find a converter that works and doesn't cause mirror problems. The 21mm f/2.8 is beyond wonderful, but costs a lot around $2,500. The 25mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8 are more affordable--more in the $400 to $600 range and although not in the class of the 21mm are still quite nice. The 25mm now comes in the new ZF or ZK mount and can be bought new. There is also a 28mm f/2 that is a very nice lens as well, but will cost around $1,000. I hope this helps
StevenPA wrote:
Yes it does, and no it doesn't. If a lens requiring mount surgery doesn't qualify as alternative, then what does? And have you not seen the prices of converted Rokkors?
My bad,
Sorry, I was thinking of the OP was referring to Canon 50/1.2L , instead of the 55/1.2.
I should probably not even made statement on this issue other than the Rokkor bokeh looks fabulous to me.
Here is a "portrait" of one of my favorites wattles...just coming into flower in our " Down Under" garden. 20D 58 1.2 Rokkor wide open and hand held....sharp enough
If there is any noteworthy CA in this picture, then I am having trouble finding it. The CA on the man's glasses in the photo that you posted is immediately obvious however. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Rokkor zealot, I rarely use mine and actually prefer my 50L. I think either you got your hands on a bad Rokkor (possible?), or you're not looking at it objectively.
