cogitech wrote:
cavewalker,

Some conclusions can certainly be drawn from these large comparison shots, http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/763806/0 (as linked on the first page).

Note: The best way to judge sharpness in these images (IMO) is to look at the ground and find the focal plane. There are enough differences in focus between the shots to make comparing the scooter meaningless. For instance, the Noct, FD 50L and both OMs are significantly front-focused (but by varying degree) and there are smaller variations amongst all the rest.

Once you look at the ground in those shots, the conclusions become quite obvious.

Also, despite the differences seen and the immediate conclusions, it is important to keep in mind that the front-focused lenses have a disadvantage because the area of sharp focus is a bit closer to the bottom edge of the frame (is further from centre) where f1.2 lenses can reasonably be expected to drop in resolution.

I agree with all of this, but:

"Once you look at the ground in those shots, the conclusions become quite obvious."

I can't see the obvious, sorry. Spell it out for me.

To compare sharpness for real it's needed to shoot a resolution chart like at Dpreview

Dumb question (I'll ask it anyways):

Is there much camera to camera variation, even between similar models, that would factor into taking the test results like these from one person's camera and concluding how the lens would perform on my specific camera (assuming similar sensor size and other obvious variables)?

cavewalker wrote:
To compare sharpness for real it's needed to shoot a resolution chart like at Dpreview

But resolution charts are flat and real subject rarely are (especially subjects where thin DoF is desired). Furthermore you can shoot resolution charts at only one (short) distance. This way of testing gives you quite limited information.

JimBuchanan wrote:

I agree with all of this, but:

"Once you look at the ground in those shots, the conclusions become quite obvious."

I can't see the obvious, sorry. Spell it out for me.

Well, if it is obvious to me and not obvious to others, then it will merely be a point of disagreement.

But, for what it's worth, the sharpest part of the Rokkor sample is sharper than the sharpest parts of the Konica and the Noct samples. The Konica shows more macro-contrast, but the Rokkor resolves more fine detail. The Noct is at a disadvantage due to front-focusing, which pushes the plane of sharpest focus closer to the edge, but this also gives it a "bokeh advantage" due to closer focusing resulting in a more blurred background. The OM 50/1.2 looks softer and lower contrast initially, but if you pay attention only to the detail resolved on the sharpest part of the ground, you'll see that it is on par with the Rokkor, but the Rokkor has better bokeh (subjective). The FD 50L, like the Konica, has high macro-contrast which tends to make it look "sharper" but the fine detail is not quite there.

This is all from memory, due to the facts that:

a) The link to those test images has now been changed to a site called "radikal.ru" which my site filter is blocking due to potentially harmful content. It used to be at album.foto.ru, where all the rest of the samples are and which is not blocked.

b) The link in my post above, which used to be a link directly to the comparison shots, has been changed to a link to the first page of this thread. I did not change this myself, as you can see the post has not been edited. This is the sort of shit that happened on my forum before I finally decided to just shut it down.

Anyone have impressions on how the current Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SLII compares?

cogitech wrote:
JimBuchanan wrote:


This is all from memory, due to the facts that:

a) The link to those test images has now been changed to a site called "radikal.ru" which my site filter is blocking due to potentially harmful content. It used to be at album.foto.ru, where all the rest of the samples are and which is not blocked.

b) The link in my post above, which used to be a link directly to the comparison shots, has been changed to a link to the first page of this thread. I did not change this myself, as you can see the post has not been edited. This is the sort of shit that happened on my forum before I finally decided to just shut it down.






Paul, sorry if i get your thoughts wrong, but this thread i have started (this thread is called - Major 50mm and 58mm shootout 2!) because i have had the new test material of 58mm lenses and by that time you forum was already closed (i have placed test shots on Radikal.ru server because it is free and allow to upload files over 5mb, album.foto.ru max 5 mb.) and some FM members wanted to see original shootout of 58 and 85mm.
Here is your thread about this http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/730975/0?keyword=Major,50mm,and#6622818

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

Rokkor MC 58 1.2
Rokkor MD 50 1.2
Canon FDn 50 1.2L
Canon FL 58 1.2 (II version)
Canon FL 55 1.2
Olympus OM 55 1.2
Olympus OM 50 1.2
Konica Hexanon AR 57 1.2
Nikon Noct nikkor 58 1.2
Canon EF 50 1.2L
Canon EF 50 1.4

Hope to include into the same test scenes Sigma 50 1.4 as well and the test moment i do not have Pentax smc 50 1.2 but when i haD it lookED similar to minolta MD 50 1.2 but the contast and color more vivid wideopen.

Another plan to make shootout of 85 mm all on mine 5D

FD Canon 85 1.2 ssc asph
FDn Canon 85mm f1.2L
EF Canon 85 1.2L Mark II
Nikon AiS 85 1.4
Minolta rokkor MC 85 1.7
Konica Hexanon AR 85 1.8
Canon FL 85 1.8 (ernostar type not planar)
CZJ Biotar 75 1.5
Helios 40-2 85 1.5

Oh my goodness I'm rubbing my hands in anticipation. This is very exciting.

Be interesting to throw the Pentax A 50/1.2 into that mix...

Then there is the awesome Pentax A* 85/1.4 as well...

... and Pentax K... although I already know its signature, it's muck like Sigmalux (sharp and dull )

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.

-Ed

Dim.ka_ wrote:
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

Yes, me too. I had a great time saying him ranting

Dmitry,

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).

I agree, it will be a very time consuming test, given the number of contenders and long-winded process. So measure twice, cut once!

Good luck to you and I'm waiting excitedly for the updates/results.

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:
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.

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

m-a-x wrote:
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.

Thanks for the info

Rokkor on crop cameras is sweet tho, and way easier to mount on EOS. Paul Cogitech and Jim Buchanan are here to help, eventually not entirely for free