AhamB wrote:
I think I found one or two links for an Alpha mount replacement for the Rokkor and posted it here once. Maybe they are still available.
I did look for kits but didn't find anything immediately available. I thought about e-mailing Peter Ganzel after seeing his name mentioned in a Minolta forum, and Jim, of course. But now I'm thinking it'd be a little more challenging (and therefore fun) to do it myself.
freaklikeme wrote:
I can work a drill (press, anyway, I'm a bit of a menace with the hand-held) and as long as I don't have to do anything but buy the sandpaper...
Thanks, D. It does look simple enough. I'm excited about this right now, but here's what I think will happen. I'll buy one and do the conversion. I'll shoot it for about a week on the a900 because I've never shot anything that fast on it and I want to see if I can focus it with the OVF. Then I'll remember why I don't buy ultra-fast lenses anymore and there will be an Alpha mount convert (with James Lao chip!) for sale on the boards.
everybody here has a problem... mine seems to be that i don't want to sell any lenses even when i don't use them.
you don't have shoot it at f/1.2. i mostly use mine between f/2 and f/2.8. what is your 50 now the cron? 58mm and 50mm are totally different focal lengths, no overlap there.
sebboh wrote:
everybody here has a problem... mine seems to be that i don't want to sell any lenses even when i don't use them.
you don't have shoot it at f/1.2. i mostly use mine between f/2 and f/2.8. what is your 50 now the cron? 58mm and 50mm are totally different focal lengths, no overlap there.
Actually, the only 50 I own now (aside from a Minolta Maxx 50/1.7 I used to test AF on the a900) is in the middle of the 35-70/4. I prefer 60mm for a normal, which is another reason I'm attracted to the 58, since that would likely be close enough. I'm sure could come up with a few more rationalizations if I really need them.
I'm curious about something. I know you prefer the older body style with the knurled focus ring, but I really like the SOOC colors of the plasticy 45/2. Can you get the same color rendering out of either of the 58/1.2s? Is the mount the same on the newer style or is it just the older style that lends itself to simple conversion?
Nice shot from the 42. I think you're right about the similarities between it and the 60, but I will say the 60 could never be that subtle in the tonal range. It's a strong contrast lens (the 25/2.8 is about the same), strong to the point where, when I think about using them, I'm usually shooting for a B&W conversion.
freaklikeme wrote:
I did look for kits but didn't find anything immediately available. I thought about e-mailing Peter Ganzel after seeing his name mentioned in a Minolta forum, and Jim, of course. But now I'm thinking it'd be a little more challenging (and therefore fun) to do it myself.
I've had to file rear element retaining rings on two lenses and while it's sort of satisfying when you can make something work yourself, when given the option, I'd definitely just buy a mount replacement kit from the Rokkor. I wouldn't want to sand down that aluminium spacer and do a destructive/irreversible conversion.
Some people see only what they want to see but this is exceptional IMO. Again, I like it better than the Rokkor... Of course I like the 85/1.2L better than both of these - by far!!!!!!!
Fr3d wrote:
Not alt but fast and rare Canon 50mm f/1.0 L USM wide open on FF:
sweet!
freaklikeme wrote:
Actually, the only 50 I own now (aside from a Minolta Maxx 50/1.7 I used to test AF on the a900) is in the middle of the 35-70/4. I prefer 60mm for a normal, which is another reason I'm attracted to the 58, since that would likely be close enough. I'm sure could come up with a few more rationalizations if I really need them.
I'm curious about something. I know you prefer the older body style with the knurled focus ring, but I really like the SOOC colors of the plasticy 45/2. Can you get the same color rendering out of either of the 58/1.2s? Is the mount the same on the newer style or is it just the older style that lends itself to simple conversion?
Nice shot from the 42. I think you're right about the similarities between it and the 60, but I will say the 60 could never be that subtle in the tonal range. It's a strong contrast lens (the 25/2.8 is about the same), strong to the point where, when I think about using them, I'm usually shooting for a B&W conversion. ...Show more →
the conversion is the same for both the rubber focus ring and the metal focus ring versions. both of mine were metal focus ring versions, however one was radioactive and the other was not. the radioactive one was lower contrast due to the yellowing that i did not correct. my non-radioactive one seems to have more color pop to it as well. it's very similar to the MC PG 50/1.4, which i believe you've shot with? all my non-radioactive minolta glass seems to have a very similar color palate, but the MD 45 and MD 24/2.8 seem to have more pop and and color separation. maybe it's just because those are my two slow rokkor lenses and they are really the same as the faster ones at matching apertures, maybe it's because they are newer and have better coatings, or maybe it's because they're slower allowing them to be higher contrast. anyway, if you want i can shoot the same basic shot on the 45/2 and 58/1.2 at say f/2 and f/5.6 for a comparison.
Bifurcator wrote:
Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 all at f/1.2
Some people see only what they want to see but this is exceptional IMO. Again, I like it better than the Rokkor... Of course I like the 85/1.2L better than both of these - by far!!!!!!!
everybody sees mostly what they expect to see, that's how our brains work.
some people look for different things. you seem much more interested/impressed by sharpness in a lens than i. the lens looks very sharp for a f/1.2, the bokeh looks more similar to the other canon f/1.2 normal lenses than to the rokkor 58/1.2 to me. all your shots seem to have the same color no matter one lens you shoot (which happens to be similar to the color i get from canon lenses), which makes it more difficult for me to compare to my own experience with lenses.
^^^ The FL 55/1.2 and the FL 58/1.2 are different lenses. You know that right?
Bifurcator wrote:
Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 all at f/1.2
Some people see only what they want to see but this is exceptional IMO. Again, I like it better than the Rokkor... Of course I like the 85/1.2L better than both of these - by far!!!!!!!
sebboh wrote:
everybody sees mostly what they expect to see, that's how our brains work.
Maybe.
all your shots seem to have the same color no matter one lens you shoot, which makes it more difficult for me to compare to my own experience with lenses.
I think this is a total falsehood you've convinced yourself of. I don't even think it's actually possible. Whatever...
Bifurcator wrote:
^^^ The FL 55/1.2 and the FL 58/1.2 are different lenses. You know that right?
i'm open to the possibility that the 58mm is much better. i've mostly just seen your shots with the 58/1.2 and those look very similar to what i've seen from the 55/1.2 to me. obviously you are seeing more, but i've not seen anything to make me so certain yet.
Bifurcator wrote:
Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 all at f/1.2
Some people see only what they want to see but this is exceptional IMO. Again, I like it better than the Rokkor... Of course I like the 85/1.2L better than both of these - by far!!!!!!!
sebboh wrote:
everybody sees mostly what they expect to see, that's how our brains work.
Bifurcator wrote:
Maybe.
the neuroscience and psychology data seems pretty solid on this.
Bifurcator wrote:
I think this is a total falsehood you've convinced yourself of. I don't even think it's actually possible. Whatever...
i didn't think it was possible either, but it's true except when you post shots that are straight out of acr. maybe the light is just different in japan and i'm seeing that when you correct the shots for what you saw, but the color just looks a bit odd to me on all your shots (and i noticed it when you first started posting).
Canon 5DMkII, Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2, cheap Chinese macro bellows, post processing - convert from RAW to jpg, to sRGB color space, and resized.
Pretty much straight from the camera.
sebboh wrote:
all your shots seem to have the same color no matter one lens you shoot, which makes it more difficult for me to compare to my own experience with lenses.
Bifurcator wrote:
I think this is a total falsehood you've convinced yourself of. I don't even think it's actually possible. Whatever...
Haha.... actually, I agree with sebboh at least on the part about the color of your images, though not necessarily that they're all the identical color regardless of lens. I read this page from bottom to top, and when I saw the dog photos, I guessed they were from you before I scrolled up far enough to see your avatar. So, at least in this respect, I do think the images you have posted recently have a certain distinctive color to them - fairly magenta/red with cool WB. But it doesn't really bother me so much. I'm viewing the images here more for sharpness/bokeh type qualities than color rendering...
I'm not doing anything unusual to them. As Shot White Balance most of the time, sometimes a little fill light, some sharpening, and scaling... that's about it. The two dog shots were taken 7 months ago on a totally different camera: 2011:09:14 16:59:39. The one thing I do do which might affect color is that I bring them in as ProPhoto from ACR and then after scaling, just before saving them I "Convert to" profile sRGB. But that shouldn't be causing any anomalies.
Here's a totally different f/1.2 lens. Same lighting, same sushi bar, same time of night... Do they look the same too?
