Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              13       14       end
  

Archive 2010 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread
  
 
sebboh
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


debuggerus wrote:
Fantastic, sebboh. Where is this place? it looks awfully cold.
By the way, the rokkor 24/2.8 has been the number one landscape choice of the minolta fan it should be very good at infinity.


Steve Spencer wrote:
Beautiful sebboh. That's the Chicago skyline in the fourth one, isn't it.


correct, the shots are all taken from promontory point, which is a man made peninsula next to the museum of science and industry.

here is the same shot taken between waves:





the point sticks out far enough that it gets lots of waves whenever there are strong winds. when the temperatures are below freezing for nearly a month this leads to everything on the north side getting coated in ice from the spray of the waves. right now it even goes to the top of the lamp posts:





the night before it actually had formed some nice icicles on the light too, but they apparently fell off when the temperature reached 33 F yesterday.

here's another shot of the other side, which doesn't get as much waves. you can see the museum in the distance:






debuggerus wrote:
By the way, the rokkor 24/2.8 has been the number one landscape choice of the minolta fan it should be very good at infinity.


was that all versions or is there a preference for MC and 55mm or MD 49mm thread for infinity work? i've looked at more of my shots now and it looks like i must have bumped the focus ring in some of my infinite shots - some are quite sharp, while the first ones i looked at were a bit soft.



Dec 23, 2010 at 05:17 PM
debuggerus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Sebboh,
I remember the consensus is that the 55mm filter is more preferable (full frame) since it has better corner and less vignetting than the 49mm filter version. That matched my experience with both versions as well.
The 49mm however is a little shaper in the center which may be better on ASP-C (i.e your NEX). It focuses a little closer too.



Dec 24, 2010 at 04:20 PM
sebboh
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


debuggerus wrote:
Sebboh,
I remember the consensus is that the 55mm filter is more preferable (full frame) since it has better corner and less vignetting than the 49mm filter version. That matched my experience with both versions as well.
The 49mm however is a little shaper in the center which may be better on ASP-C (i.e your NEX). It focuses a little closer too.


thanks, i had heard that my 49mm was supposed to be better than the 55mm up close so i wasn't sure if it was optimized more for that than infinity. i also heard that it had a floating element, but have never had that confirmed (and can't tell from looking). i've used it on my film camera too, but just 400 iso b&w film and i haven't scanned anything in or printed large, so i couldn't really draw any conclusions about image quality on FF film.



Dec 25, 2010 at 01:14 AM
debuggerus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


The 55mm filter version has floating element. There is conflicting info about the 49mm having or not having floating element design. However, I can confirm that the 49mm also has floating element (after disassembling/cleaning a MD 24/2.8).
About the 49mm being better at close distance than the 55mm, my copies didn't show that.
I will have to try to compare them head to head on digital sometimes.



Dec 25, 2010 at 01:46 AM
Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Do these lenses handle blue in a characteristic way? I can definitly imagine situations were these blues would catch "It" better than e.g. zeiss-blues.


Dec 25, 2010 at 08:59 PM
sebboh
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Z250SA wrote:
Do these lenses handle blue in a characteristic way? I can definitly imagine situations were these blues would catch "It" better than e.g. zeiss-blues.


rokkor lenses do all seem to me to have a familial color rendering. there seems to be a slight bluish cast to me when compared to most other lens brands except leica. in fact the color seems nearly identical to what i get from my one leica lens.



Dec 26, 2010 at 04:45 AM
sebboh
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


a few more from my 24mm f/2.8 as i wait for a 28/2.

stopped down a bit:





wide open:












Jan 09, 2011 at 07:20 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Those are nice! Rokkors seem to be fairly colorful in general...

Here's the UW ROKKOR-PG 18mm 9.5. It's a pretty fun day-light lens. No focusing ring so it really turns shooting into a point-n-shoot kinda thing...


























Edited on Jan 15, 2011 at 07:34 PM · View previous versions



Jan 11, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Ed Sawyer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Is that on full-frame? very cool (rokkor 18/9.5). That's a non-retrofocus mirror-lock-up type of lens, right? I haven't seen results from that before. Looks quite good (at web sizes at leaast). thanks for posting

-Ed



Jan 12, 2011 at 01:19 AM
debuggerus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Very, very interesting lens, Bif. Looks sharp everywhere. These are on your Gh1, right?


Jan 12, 2011 at 02:01 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Daniel Heineck
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread








My niece. MD 28/2 55mm filter



Jan 12, 2011 at 03:35 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Nice shot Daniel!




Ed Sawyer wrote:
Is that on full-frame? very cool (rokkor 18/9.5). That's a non-retrofocus mirror-lock-up type of lens, right? I haven't seen results from that before. Looks quite good (at web sizes at leaast). thanks for posting

-Ed


That's the GH1 again. I have an APS-C camera but it's CMOS, older, and I have no adapters for it. Right, the lens has no focus ring, only an aperture ring and there's no linkage on the mount coupling for any kind of "auto" aperture control by a camera. Just set the aperture and shoot away. It's sharp (but not exceedingly so) wide open from about 1 meter to 4 meters. It's sharper from 4m to 8m and a little sharper yet from 8m to 35m or so. From 35/40m to infinity it drops a tad but still pretty good. Stopping down to f/11 changes the formula but I dunno exactly how yet. I also don't seem to detect any diffraction at f/22 and the physical size of the iris opening at f/22 looks pretty big compared to my other 18mm UWA lenses. According to the information I've been able to find on-line only the ultra-extreme corners suffer any softness and there's very little vignetting. There is some contrast killing flare when shooting without a hood at acute angles to a bright Sun ball but I was kinda surprised by how little the affects were - the construction looks as if it would flare all over the place - but not so. There is CA but it's the kind that can be completely removed from every image equally by setting the correction sliders in Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) or other. The lens cap is interesting - very thick aluminum and attaches via a bayonet mount. The rear of the lens has an inset screw mount that accepts special filters - I have the UV one. Reviews say that the filter needs to be in-place as it's part of the lens's optical formula but I don't find this to be true at all <shrug>. I bought the lens in order to sell it but it's fun, old, and good enough that I'm debating keeping it - I'll probably sell it though I need to generate some cash. Here's some shots I took of it for a potential auction:








































debuggerus wrote:
Very, very interesting lens, Bif. Looks sharp everywhere. These are on your Gh1, right?


It's sharp for a lens this age I think. I guess some zeiss lenses are sharper but I dunno. It seems to get good reviews from those who have a copy.

Here's some 100% crops from the above images. The first one is processed in PS some sharpening and curves applied, the second one is a straight RAW conversion with only ACR's color NR and the default sharpness of 1.1pixels @ 25% applied:













I think these are pretty good for being from a GH1. If you've seen my other 100% posts you've probably noticed that the GH1 often looks a little pasty at 100% - no exception here either.



Jan 12, 2011 at 07:51 AM
Ed Sawyer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


That does look good. I think I might have been thinking of another UW rokkor (21mm? ) that is a retrofocus type which sticks into the mirror box. This one looks quite good, impressively so! Is it a fisheye? It seems to be or at least the images look that way. That would explain the low flare and good sharpness.

Thanks for sharing
-Ed



Jan 12, 2011 at 08:47 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


It could be, I dunno. The Rokkor Files guy calls it a fisheye. But then again many people seem to misuse that term and interchange it with UWA. I'm not even sure I know exactly what the term "fisheye" is supposed to imply. Guessing what it might look like on a FF I don't think its a full circular type fisheye tho - I could be wrong. Also why would the fact that a particular lens is a fisheye imply "low flare and good sharpness"? I need a little edu-mo-cation here.




Jan 13, 2011 at 06:50 PM
Ed Sawyer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Are straight lines straight? That's the primary criteria on fisheyes - they have uncorrected barrel distortion. Looking at the pics, it seems like that might be the case, particularly near the edge of the frame. It's probably a full-frame fisheye, e.g. 180 degrees across the diagonal of the full-frame image. (like the canon EF 15mm).

Fisheyes, in general, do have low flare and good sharpness. It's simply a by-product of the optical design, partly due to the fact there's no barrel distortion correction. It also limits the cos4 falloff (much less falloff on fisheyes, in the corners of the frame.) vs. rectilinear lens design.

if there's an optical diagram of that lens online somewhere it would be easy to tell if it's a fisheye. I think it is.

Edit: after looking at the rokkorfiles page, indeed it basically is a fisheye.

He's right, the rear filter is part of the optical design - keep it in place. Without it there will be focus-shift forward (e.g. towards the lens), of some fractions of a mm, but enough to matter.

-Ed



Jan 13, 2011 at 09:16 PM
sebboh
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Daniel Heineck wrote:
My niece. MD 28/2 55mm filter


cool shot, you must have just about at mfd?



Jan 13, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Daniel Heineck
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


sebboh wrote:
cool shot, you must have just about at mfd?


Thanks and yes, right at mfd. Trying to keep the front element slobber free



Jan 13, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Ed Sawyer wrote:
Are straight lines straight? That's the primary criteria on fisheyes - they have uncorrected barrel distortion. Looking at the pics, it seems like that might be the case, particularly near the edge of the frame. It's probably a full-frame fisheye, e.g. 180 degrees across the diagonal of the full-frame image. (like the canon EF 15mm).

Fisheyes, in general, do have low flare and good sharpness. It's simply a by-product of the optical design, partly due to the fact there's no barrel distortion correction. It also limits the cos4 falloff (much less falloff on fisheyes, in the corners of the
...Show more

Thanks for the info but why would that matter? The lens itself doesn't focus... there is no focusing ring. So if the focus is shifted a few mm (the thickness of the filter) how would that matter? So with the filter in place it's focused from 0.5m ~ Infinity and without it it's focused from 498mm ~ Infinity-2mm. Doesn't that mean that there is no detectable difference? Plus the UV filter might be adding reflections, decreasing micro-contrast resolve (clarity), and reducing global contrast - as filters from this era do. Or do I have bass-ackwards somehow?




Jan 15, 2011 at 03:25 AM
Ed Sawyer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


it would be less than the thickness of the filter. The risk is it wouldn't reach infinity w/o the filter. Minor issue, but nonetheless it's best to have the filter in place. Could always get a better filter if need be, though it's probably a non-issue.


Jan 15, 2011 at 06:10 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · ROKKOR Wide/UlW Image Thread


Thanks Ed! I just realized, the filter is at the back of the lens so am I right in thinking that without it, it's a bit like offsetting the flange depth? Also what's at work here that it would less than the thickness of the filter? Now, I lost (again). Does it have to do with the refractive index of the filter glass per chance?






Jan 15, 2011 at 07:07 PM
1      
2
       3              13       14       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              13       14       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password