Has anyone had both of these? what are the differences other then the light gathering, are they both similar at 1.4? i am assuming the 1.2 will be a tad sharper with maybe better bokeh? but there isn't much i that found. If anyone can shine some light on this that would be great, or point me where to find some more info. For reference i plan to use this on a 5d.
A lot smaller/lighter.
Perhaps a little more contrast wide open
Bokeh much harder wide open (but still not bad, it depends on subject)
58/1.2
Goes from 1.2 to f2, so can't do a straight 1.4 comparison. I've never felt the need to modify a "half stop" or so inbetween, although some do complain. 1.4 & 2 work fine to me.
Sharper at 1.2? Honestly can't judge that one, I'm the wrong person to ask. What I can say is that I can happily use both wide open in terms of detail rendering.
Overall this lens has a smoother look to it.
I'd just go with a 50/1.4 Takumar and save yourself the trouble if you can't find a 58/1.2. The Takumar is a better lens than the 58/1.4 Rokkor in my experience, althuogh I do still like both Rokkors.
I agree with the Takumar suggestion from a technical perspective. Most people that use the Rokkors, choose them for the way they render images (particularly the 1.2) not for their absolute image quality. I've tested the following lenses:
Nikon 50mm f1.4 ais
OM 50mm f1.4
Rokkor 58mm f1.2
Rokkor 58mm f1.4 (only tested on micro 4/3s)
Yashica ML 50mm f1.4
Contax Planar 50mm f1.4
Contax Planar 50mm f1.7
Pentax A 50mm f1.4
Super Tak 50mm f1.4
8 Element Super Tak 50mm f1.4
Super Multi Coated Tak 50mm f1.4
SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4
Of all of those I like the Pentax A or SMC (M42 - non scalloped focus ring) the best. The Contax lenses were very close performance wise, but the price factor greatly favors the Takumars. I was surprised that both of those Pentax lenses were better stopped down at infinity than either Contax lens. The were very similar in the center, but the Pentax lenses were better away from center.
It also depends on what you want to do with it. If it's shallow depth of field portraits, there's not many other lenses that can compete with the Rokkor 58 1.2. Look through the thread linked above and see if the rendering style of the Rokkors is what you are looking for. If you're looking for a good all around fast 50, I highly recommend one of the Takumars. Just be wary of the Super tak and S-M-C Tak as both are prone to yellowing of the internal elements which would need to be corrected for optimal performance.
The Rokkor 58/1.2 produces a very interesting lively bokeh at f/1.2 but it completely changes character in the f/1.4-f/2 region becoming ultra-smooth. From what I've seen of the 50/1.4 it's very different.
anybody have any experience with the rokkor 50 f/1.2? the 58s are hard to come by..somebody i know has one for sale...i know jim b./leitax can clean it up for eos use but will it clear FF?
The Rokkor 58/1.2 produces a very interesting lively bokeh at f/1.2 but it completely changes character in the f/1.4-f/2 region becoming ultra-smooth. From what I've seen of the 50/1.4 it's very different.
actually the MC PG 50/1.4 is the same (similar lively bokeh wide open, ultra smooth stopped down to f/2) and has nearly the same optical design as the 58/1.2. the 58/1.4 has a different design (one less element i believe) and is lower in contrast and sharpness at wide apertures. also, the 58/1.4 has busier bokeh than either the 58/1.2 or the MC PG 50/1.4. n.b. the later MD 50/1.4 lenses with 49mm filter threads are yet another different design and i can't speak to their performance. the best value by far is the rokkor MC PG 50/1.4 – it is sharper and has similar bokeh to the 58/1.2 but the shorter focal length and slower max aperture mean you won't get quite as smooth at matching apertures. it's big weaknesses are that it is a pain in the a** to convert and it only has 6 aperture blades which means you can get hexagons at apertures smaller than f/2.
crazeazn wrote:
anybody have any experience with the rokkor 50 f/1.2? the 58s are hard to come by..somebody i know has one for sale...i know jim b./leitax can clean it up for eos use but will it clear FF?
yes, sharper than the 58/1.2 but with busier bokeh. somewhat similar bokeh to the f/1 noctilux. can produce amazing images, but requires more care shooting wide open. there was a brief discussion comparing the two recently in the rokkor normalish thread.
edit: everyone i've heard from who tried it on FF canon says there is no mirror collision.
The only thing I can add to what sebboh has just said, relates to the 5D mirror issue.
The Minolta 50/1.2 has its rear element mounted in such a way that there is no protruding housing, giving is just enough room for the mirror to swing by. The Canon FL55/1.2 also shares this feature.
While I can't make the blanket statement that the Minolta 50/1.2 and Canon FL55/1.2 have no mirror issues at infinity focus, very rarely do I come across either of these 2 lenses that has a mirror problem at infinity, but it really depends on camera manufacturing tolerances and camera position.
i should have mentioned that i had a rokkor 58/1.2 a while back and wanted to get back to that focal length. rendering doesn't have to be the same, but i am looking for what i suppose will mostly be a portrait lens. being more popular now and hard to get one under $450 i was looking for alternatives, considering the 58/1.4 goes for $50-100 i figured i might be worth a try. what other lenses are there around 58mm at 1.4, i know there is a konica 57/1.2 but that doesn't fit on a 5d.
thanks everyone for all the replies!
kahren wrote:
i should have mentioned that i had a rokkor 58/1.2 a while back and wanted to get back to that focal length. rendering doesn't have to be the same, but i am looking for what i suppose will mostly be a portrait lens. being more popular now and hard to get one under $450 i was looking for alternatives, considering the 58/1.4 goes for $50-100 i figured i might be worth a try. what other lenses are there around 58mm at 1.4, i know there is a konica 57/1.2 but that doesn't fit on a 5d.
thanks everyone for all the replies! ...Show more →
if your looking for 58mm specifically (i prefer this to 50mm myself), the rokkor 58/1.4 makes a nice portrait lens, just be aware that it won't win any prizes for contrast or sharpness and doesn't share the f/1.2's bokeh. another interesting option would be the nikkor 58/1.4, which has a different look but is also low in contrast with a funky bokeh. the best modern lens would probably be the voigtlander 58/1.4, but it goes for about the same price as the rokkor 58/1.2. another option that isn't quite as long would be the canon FL 55/1.2, which is one of the most under rated (and priced) lenses around in my opinion.
almost forgot – earlier versions of the rokkor 58/1.4 actually have 8 aperture blades instead of the 6 that the later ones have, so it's worth trying to get one of those if you decide to go the rokkor route.
sebboh wrote:
another option that isn't quite as long would be the canon FL 55/1.2, which is one of the most under rated (and priced) lenses around in my opinion.
almost forgot – earlier versions of the rokkor 58/1.4 actually have 8 aperture blades instead of the 6 that the later ones have, so it's worth trying to get one of those if you decide to go the rokkor route.
My vote is for the Canon FL 55/1.2.
The earlier versions of the Rokkor 58/1.4 have a different back, or should I say a similiar back construction as most all other Minoltas. Its the later ones that are similiar to the 58/1.2 with the "spacer" and all.
I have both the Rokkor 58/1.4 (which I'm trying to sell - if interested PM) and the Canon FL 55/1.2.
If you don't mind the additional cost and the slightly more difficult conversion, the Canon is certainly nicer. From my observatoins, it costs about twice as much as the 58/1.4 on ebay (still much cheaper than the Rokkor 1.2). Jim's quote for the mount conversion of the FL was very reasonable but I managed to do it myself using a M42 adapter. Not too difficult but quite a lot of work (requires changing the helicoid stop AND sanding down the M42 adapter to make it focus to infinity).
There is a slight issue with the Canon FL 55/1.2 on my Canon 550D though: the rear lens element diameter is wider than the recess of the mirror box and the bokeh of off-center out-of-focus highlights becomes truncated (shadowed) by the mirror box recess (a poster on a German forum has the same problem - another user here whom I PMd couldn't reproduce it). Not an issue on a 5D/1D though.
OpticalFlow wrote:
There is a slight issue with the Canon FL 55/1.2 on my Canon 550D though: the rear lens element diameter is wider than the recess of the mirror box and the bokeh of off-center out-of-focus highlights becomes truncated (shadowed) by the mirror box recess (a poster on a German forum has the same problem - another user here whom I PMd couldn't reproduce it). Not an issue on a 5D/1D though.
Mirror box shading/clipping of blur circles can occur on FF too, even with lenses that aren't ultra fast such as a 200/2.8. Only in some relatively extreme circumstances though, like with blur circles in the very close foreground.
Ah - yes, sorry I was slightly inaccurate there - someone already told me that the mirror box shading can happen on the 5D too. But on my 550D it is extremely noticable in any situation with close-focus and distant highlightts (not just in test shots). Anyway, I'll leave it at that as it wasn't my intention to take this thread too far off-topic.
JimBuchanan wrote:
The earlier versions of the Rokkor 58/1.4 have a different back, or should I say a similiar back construction as most all other Minoltas. Its the later ones that are similiar to the 58/1.2 with the "spacer" and all.
good to know, thanks. i've been looking for a reasonably priced 8 blade rokkor 58/1.4 to donate it's aperture mechanism to my MC PG 50/1.4. any idea how similar the aperture mechanisms are between those two lenses (i'm not worried about matching f-stops as i will make it clickless)? is it worth taking the iris from the old rokkor or are they different enough that will i still have to custom make all the linkages and should just harvest the iris from a cheaper russian lens?
sebboh wrote:
.... i've been looking for a reasonably priced 8 blade rokkor 58/1.4 to donate it's aperture mechanism to my MC PG 50/1.4. any idea how similar the aperture mechanisms are between those two lenses ?
Good idea, but I think they are all different. It wouldn't cost much to find out.
The early 8 blade 58/1.4 is an odd one. It's construction is like a prototype of the Minolta back/aperture linkage to follow, but the later, more numerous 58/1.4s changed to the 58/1.2 spacer type we are all familiar with.
Aug 04, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
kahren wrote:
i should have mentioned that i had a rokkor 58/1.2 a while back and wanted to get back to that focal length. rendering doesn't have to be the same, but i am looking for what i suppose will mostly be a portrait lens. being more popular now and hard to get one under $450 i was looking for alternatives, considering the 58/1.4 goes for $50-100 i figured i might be worth a try. what other lenses are there around 58mm at 1.4, i know there is a konica 57/1.2 but that doesn't fit on a 5d.
thanks everyone for all the replies! ...Show more →
Another very nice 58mm option is the Voightlander 58mm f/1.4. You would have to find one in Nikon mount and either use an adapter or convert it. It is a very nice lens, but price wise it is only a little cheaper than the Rokkor 58 f/1.2.
