So finally, have received Canon FL 55 1.2 and converted to EOS - wow it was really easy task 1-2 hours for convertion. So the initial test will soon be done and before it - i will make rokkor 58 1.2 vs Canon FL 55 1.2 vs Konica ar 57 1.2 vs Canon FL 58 1.2
I remember FM member Alf Beharie with FL 55 1.2 + Sigma sd14 and his rokkor attitude and now it is time to see where the truth is It is even possible for me to compare rokkor 58 1.2 vs Canon FL 55 1.2 on Canon 5D and Sigma sd14
Nice! great to hear that even more lenses will be added to the mix. Adding Pentax-A 50/1.2 and EF 50/1.0L would be ideal, though understandable if it's not feasible.
As per my earlier analysis of your previous results, could I kindly suggest you use focus bracketing this time and then choose shots that are focused on exactly the same plane for the comparison? I think this is an absolute must in order for the results to be useful. Even a slight focus difference can dramatically effect the results (not just sharpness, but bokeh as well).
Based on purely subjective analsis, the Konica is my favorite of the bunch.
For now, though, my EF 50 1.4 will have to be enough, and it has done well enough for me. But someday, I might just have to pick up one of those Konica 50's!
alexandre wrote:
... and Pentax K... although I already know its signature, it's muck like Sigmalux (sharp and dull )
Heh. That smiley isn't enough Alexandre to make such a joke. Having owned the SMCP 50/1.2 (two copies) and the Sugma 50/1.4 (two copies) I have to say they aren't very similar at all.
ShaneEngelking wrote:
Based on purely subjective analsis, the Konica is my favorite of the bunch.
For now, though, my EF 50 1.4 will have to be enough, and it has done well enough for me. But someday, I might just have to pick up one of those Konica 50's!
Be prepared to shave the 5D mirror very heavily (like 4mm or more) to use the Konica, which will result in significant impact to your VF view. Not worth it, IMO. We all draw the line somewhere, I guess.
Dim.ka_ wrote:
Finally i have got FL 55 1.2 - after convertion to eos mount, i will try to make the real test with the next lenses. Will try to make it with different distances to focus object and backstage and with harsh and even lighting conditions with focus bracketing for more consistent result. The main stress to lens drawing and sharpness wideopen (,,,)
I'm lining up in the queue to see the results. This is a great effort and I thank you for even thinking about it and can only hope you feel committed to make it happen some day!
Jonas B wrote:
Heh. That smiley isn't enough Alexandre to make such a joke. Having owned the SMCP 50/1.2 (two copies) and the Sugma 50/1.4 (two copies) I have to say they aren't very similar at all.
Hm, in my experience with my Pentax and Makten's pics shown here and there, I thought it was... Thanks anyway, good to know your opinion given you own(ed) both.
ShaneEngelking wrote:
Based on purely subjective analsis, the Konica is my favorite of the bunch.
For now, though, my EF 50 1.4 will have to be enough, and it has done well enough for me. But someday, I might just have to pick up one of those Konica 50's!
5d needs a proper shave but you can use it on your 20D!
It's niiiice!
Conversion is not that easy, though.
Does anyone know how I can tell if my FL 58 1.2 is I or II? Maybe through the serial #? The lens does not have a "II" on it, does that make it version I?
many thanks, George
cogitech wrote:
Even a slight focus difference can dramatically effect the results (not just sharpness, but bokeh as well).
Paul, yes i will do all my best in order to have consistant result (tripod, cable release, center focusing and focus bracketing) but i would not agree that very slight missfocus would change the lens character dramatically, but i agree that center focusing point would be the best choice in order to get consistant focus with all lenses, based on my previous experience i could say out of center focusing is not the best choice for lens testing, it is hard to get that consistant result wideopen.
dasrocket wrote:
Does anyone know how I can tell if my FL 58 1.2 is I or II? Maybe through the serial #? The lens does not have a "II" on it, does that make it version I?
many thanks, George
cogitech wrote:
Be prepared to shave the 5D mirror very heavily (like 4mm or more) to use the Konica, which will result in significant impact to your VF view. Not worth it, IMO. We all draw the line somewhere, I guess.
Significant impact, you can notice if you stop down the lens at f4 and up f5.6 f8 etc. - you would have black bar on top of your VF, so you get some diffficulties in framing, but if you shoot mostly wideopen it is ok to trim about 5mm.
Now I am further confused : the coating seems amber, but the pin payout at the mount looks like version II...? that is without translating; I will read the page for further clarification.
dasrocket wrote:
Now I am further confused : the coating seems amber, but the pin payout at the mount looks like version II...? that is without translating; I will read the page for further clarification.
thank you Dim.ka. for the link.
George.
George, what is the number of your lens? Coating amber, but when you turn the lens side to side there is purple cast, like here
)