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


George, here is the answer http://homepage3.nifty.com/ohbehello/the_fl_lens_waku2/fl58mmf12_kousatsu.htm (google translation tool will help)
The most noticeable difference - color of multicoating if it is with purple cast - you have II version, if it is all amber it is I version.

cogitech 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!

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.

Dim.ka_ wrote:
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


George, here is the answer http://homepage3.nifty.com/ohbehello/the_fl_lens_waku2/fl58mmf12_kousatsu.htm (google translation tool will help)
The most noticeable difference - color of multicoating if it is with purple cast - you have II version, if it is all amber it is I version.

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.

dasrocket wrote:
Dim.ka_ wrote:
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


George, here is the answer http://homepage3.nifty.com/ohbehello/the_fl_lens_waku2/fl58mmf12_kousatsu.htm (google translation tool will help)
The most noticeable difference - color of multicoating if it is with purple cast - you have II version, if it is all amber it is I version.

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

Concerning Pentax 50 1.2, here is quick test of Pentax and rokkor MD 50mm f1.2

Pentax f1.2
f1.2

Not much between them really. I would give the nod to the Pentax. Looking at the near center area with the green leaf in focus there is more haloing around the leaf in the Rokkor. That same branch looks sharper in the Pentax. But any slight wind might have impacted the results.

Dim.ka_ wrote:
dasrocket wrote:
Dim.ka_ wrote:
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


George, here is the answer http://homepage3.nifty.com/ohbehello/the_fl_lens_waku2/fl58mmf12_kousatsu.htm (google translation tool will help)
The most noticeable difference - color of multicoating if it is with purple cast - you have II version, if it is all amber it is I version.

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

So, here is test shot at f1.2 and f2 from three lenses canon fl 55 1.2, mc rokkor 58 1.2 and konica ar 57 1.2 - this time i did not have fl 58 1.2 with me but think i will make the same scene with more lenses soon.

The main stress - has the FL 55 more creamy bokeh over mc rokkor 58?

Focus point about 3 meters at the center of the frame. Images reduced to 6 mpix each.
Canon FL 55 1.2

f1.2



f2



MC rokkor 58 1.2 (slightly moddified with STF treatment)

f1.2



f2



Konica ar 57 f1.2

f1.2



f2

Dmitry,

Very interesting comparison shots.
Thanks again for all your hard work!
I prefer the Rokkor 58 over the Canon FD 55 and the AR 57.
Looking at the head of the stalk of grass near the middle of the shots,
I see much better definition of tones,contrast and sharper than the Canon.
I like the bokeh better too.
The AR 57 comes very close to the Rokkor but I still give the edge to the Rokkor 58 as it is slightly sharper and less ghosting/aberrations and more contrast on those same heads of the grass stalks. I think the boikeh of the Rokkor is just a tad smoother than the AR 57 too. Both the Rokkor 58 and the AR 57 have much clearer range of colors and tone than the Canon as the Canon has that more muddy color look.
Thanks again, great job!

Wayne, thanks for your comments but i should mention once more - this copy of mc rokkor is a bit moddified in a way i did it once with mc rokkor 85 1.7 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/701273/0#6313739), i will have another rokkor untouched and we will see the difference

Ok, thanks for the interesting link. Didn't know it was modified.
Yes, it would be nice to have unmodified Rokkor shots added to the comparison too.
Thanks,

Wayne

Before the main test here is quick test from mine 8 lenses.

- Canon ef 50 f1.4
- Canon Fdn 50 f1.2L
- Minolta rokkor md 50 f1.2
- Zuiko OM 50 f1.2

- Minolta rokkor MC 58 f1.2
- Konica AR 57 f1.2
- Canon FL 55 f1.2
- Canon FL 58 f1.2 mark II



Each shot is resized to 6 mpix - all wideopen.

aprox. 2mb
50mm Group



55-58mm Group

I'd say both Rokkors take the cake in each of their respective groups, if the combination of sharpness, contrast, and smooth bokeh is used as the measure. The MD 50/1.2 has surprised me here.

Very nice job keeping the focus consistent across all samples, Dmitry!

I'd vote for Rokkor 58 and Canon FD 50/1.2L as the two best IMO. I am surprised at how good the Rokkor 50/1.2 is, and how much glow is on the OM 50/1.2 (looks almost like a 55/1.2 in that regard). I wonder how the Pentax 50/1.2 stacks up? I had a K 50/1.2 and now an -A 50/1.2, both were nice. I sold the K so don't have it to compare. The Pentax-A 50/1.2 to me seems to have a bit more bat-wing type inward coma (flare/glow) than the Rokkor, wide open. It's hard to say, but overall I think the Rokkor edges it (at least with my copies of each). I am not sure how much if any sample variation exists in Pentax-A 50/1.2s.

Paul, Ed thanks for your comments. After testing a lot of lenses i would say focal lenght itself is the main factor which gives that smooth look and shows the real difference in a lens drawing - just check any 50mm and 58mm lens. But of course the lens design, glass type and thickness, front/rear group diameter all these features are very important, but simple addition of 5mm or 8mm will make the look smoother. And yes - someone should compare a lot of lenses and say that 58mm mc rokkor is one of the best 58mm f1.2 ever made.