Phillip Reeve wrote:
in order of good pictures i shot with them in 2012
G 45/2
Minolta Macro Rokkor MD 100/4
Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4
Minolta MC Rokkor 50/1.4
Minolta MD Rokkor 35/1.8
Minolta MC Rokkor 58/1.2
Minolta MD Rokkor-PF 135/2.8
Sigma Super Wide II 24/2.8
Minolta MD 85/2
Sony E 18-55
Sony E 16/2.8
Minolta MC 200/4
You seem to like the results you got from both the G 45/2 and Minolta 50 1.4's. Since they are so close in FL, when do you prefer one over the other? I know one advantage with G45 would be the size but in terms of image quality how do they compare in your opinion and do you prefer one over the other for certain types of shots?
curious80 wrote:
You seem to like the results you got from both the G 45/2 and Minolta 50 1.4's. Since they are so close in FL, when do you prefer one over the other? I know one advantage with G45 would be the size but in terms of image quality how do they compare in your opinion and do you prefer one over the other for certain types of shots?
i'm not phillip, but i'm a big fan of both the g 45 and the MC PG 50/1.4. the contax has higher contrast and saturation as well as being (slightly) sharper stopped down (it also has warmer color balance). the rokkor has the extra speed and wonderfully subtle minolta colors. it also has a lovely bokeh character. the contax seems to have more dof than it should for a given aperture while the rokkor seems to have a narrower than expected dof, but with a very smooth transition from in focus to oof (seems to be due to SA). i use the contax primarily for high impact landscapes or narrow dof shots where i want the subject to pop out. i use the rokkor for everything else, primarily portraits, abstracts, and more subdued landscapes.
plasticmotif wrote:
after a quick search, the Tokina/Vivitar 90 2.5 seems to be a real winner on the NEX. any other input?
my tamron, which i believe is a very similar design to the tokina/vivitar seems to be very susceptible to sensor reflections. i'd be interested to here if users of the other 90/2.5 macros have noticed anything similar?
sebboh wrote:
i'm not phillip, but i'm a big fan of both the g 45 and the MC PG 50/1.4. the contax has higher contrast and saturation as well as being (slightly) sharper stopped down (it also has warmer color balance). the rokkor has the extra speed and wonderfully subtle minolta colors. it also has a lovely bokeh character. the contax seems to have more dof than it should for a given aperture while the rokkor seems to have a narrower than expected dof, but with a very smooth transition from in focus to oof (seems to be due to SA). i use the contax primarily for high impact landscapes or narrow dof shots where i want the subject to pop out. i use the rokkor for everything else, primarily portraits, abstracts, and more subdued landscapes....Show more →
Sounds similar to my plan with the G 45 and C-Sonnar.
douglasf13 wrote:
Sounds similar to my plan with the G 45 and C-Sonnar.
makes sense. i suspect your c-sonnar has more contrast (and zeissy colors) than the rokkor but also significantly softer corners stopped down. both have a very special look for portraits. i really do wish the rokkor wasn't so big.
sebboh wrote:
i'm not phillip, but i'm a big fan of both the g 45 and the MC PG 50/1.4. the contax has higher contrast and saturation as well as being (slightly) sharper stopped down (it also has warmer color balance). the rokkor has the extra speed and wonderfully subtle minolta colors. it also has a lovely bokeh character. the contax seems to have more dof than it should for a given aperture while the rokkor seems to have a narrower than expected dof, but with a very smooth transition from in focus to oof (seems to be due to SA). i use the contax primarily for high impact landscapes or narrow dof shots where i want the subject to pop out. i use the rokkor for everything else, primarily portraits, abstracts, and more subdued landscapes....Show more →
Thanks for the detailed response! It makes sense. I am looking to get the lens mostly for portraits so looks like the Rokkor might be a better fit for that. Do you feel that it is fairly usable close to wide open or do you need to stop it down to say f2 to make it work?
I have used the Minolta AF 100mm f2 and 50 macro for a while and always liked the colors that I got out of them and from your description it looks like the Rokkors have similar rendition to those.
And while we are at it, do you have any experience with the FDn 50 1.4? I have tried to look for opinions about how the FD and Rokkor compare and just found some general statements that both should be about the same in quality with minor differences in character. But over here on FM I don't see much love for the FD 50 1.4 whereas the Rokkor seems to have some followers.
curious80 wrote:
Thanks for the detailed response! It makes sense. I am looking to get the lens mostly for portraits so looks like the Rokkor might be a better fit for that. Do you feel that it is fairly usable close to wide open or do you need to stop it down to say f2 to make it work?
I have used the Minolta AF 100mm f2 and 50 macro for a while and always liked the colors that I got out of them and from your description it looks like the Rokkors have similar rendition to those.
And while we are at it, do you have any experience with the FDn 50 1.4? I have tried to look for opinions about how the FD and Rokkor compare and just found some general statements that both should be about the same in quality with minor differences in character. But over here on FM I don't see much love for the FD 50 1.4 whereas the Rokkor seems to have some followers....Show more →
the rokkor is probably my favorite portrait lens on the NEX. it is not super sharp wide open, but it is sharp enough for portraits. it is also very even across the frame so you can place the subject anywhere even at f/1.4. a bigger issue than sharpness is that there is a big drop in contrast going from f/2 to f/1.4 and it has a bit of the 'glow' wide open. both these seem to be a result of spherical aberration, which has the added difficult effect of narrowing the actual plane of sharp focus at f/1.4 making wide open focus more difficult. when you stop down to f/2 contrast comes up substantially and the bokeh smooths out a bit. stop down past f/2 and you get those pesky hexagons.
i've never shot with the FD, but from all pictures and reports i've heard it seems to be sharper and contrastier than the rokkor wide open with canon colors and a little harsher bokeh.
edit: nearly forgot, the rokkor is noticeably sharper at distance than close up.
f1.2 and large vs f2.8 and tiny. That choice allows a portable option and a fast option, pick which you need that day. Also very different lens signatures between the 85L and the 90 Sonnar.
I also have the Metabones Smart Adapter for Canon EOS for which I regularly use:
Canon 14mm v. II
Canon 40mm pancake
Zeiss Distagon 21
Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4
Zeiss MP 50 and 100
Sony SEL16F28 plus both UWA/Fisheye adapters
Leica 21/3.4 SE
Sony SAL24F2ZA via LA-EA2
Voigtlander 35/1.2 II
Zeiss 50/2 ZM
Contax G90
Leica 135/4 Elmar
Voigtlander 180/4 APO-Lanthar (Nikon mount)
Sony SEL55210
Sigma 150-500 DG OS HSM via LA-EA2
The most used are the M-mount lenses. A typical kit would be the 21, 35, 50, and 135. The Voigt 180 is new and getting used, however. I like the G90 a lot IQ-wise but haven't been reaching for that FL much lately.
I just upgraded to LR4 and the 16mm Sony will probably get more use now that I can vastly improve its results with two clicks (CA and distortion).
.