gasrocks wrote:
I think it was Cogitech who just mentioned the Nikon Noct lens as a possible comparison.
I've recently been informed (second-hand) by a prominent German optical designer/engineer that "the lens is identical in optical formula and calculation, just not coating with the Nikkor."
So, when you buy one of these Rokkors, you are essentially getting a Noct-Nikkor for about 1/10th the price (?). I still question this a bit, so I plan to shoot the Rokkor at night and see if it can deal with point-light sources as well as the Noct-Nikkor. I suspect that it does not, because I suspect that the Rokkor may not have the hand-ground aspherical element that makes the Noct what it is.
brainiac wrote:
Ever notice that FM has no advertising? You've certainly contributed a lot of great photos and useful information here on FM, but I wonder to what extent you feel you have benefitted from the facilities provided here. FM is in real danger of losing money, and I don't think Fred is going to keep running it as a charity.
I've been thinking about this over the past few days. My biggest beef with the fee was that you have to pay for a whole year. Then I saw that the fee is only 24 bucks. I think I can afford that
That's the spirit, cog! Fred's said it to me before, and I know from running my own sites: you would be amazed how little income even quite popular websites generate. The non-commercial philosophy of the boss is one of the things I like around here...
I've seen samples from the Noct-Nikkor on digital and it's the sharpest f/1.2 lens results I have seen, especially noteable at infinity distances.
Each Noct-Nikkor has hand polished glass surfaces, and it hand assembled. I don't think the Rokkors have that.
cogitech wrote:
I've recently been informed (second-hand) by a prominent German optical designer/engineer that "the lens is identical in optical formula and calculation, just not coating with the Nikkor."
So, when you buy one of these Rokkors, you are essentially getting a Noct-Nikkor for about 1/10th the price (?). I still question this a bit, so I plan to shoot the Rokkor at night and see if it can deal with point-light sources as well as the Noct-Nikkor. I suspect that it does not, because I suspect that the Rokkor may not have the hand-ground aspherical element that makes the Noct what it is. ...Show more →
Where is the source of this info? I've tried a few of these lenses and I think you have it backwards - the higher numbers are better?
cogitech wrote:
The only comparison I have made between those two is the appearance of the lenses themselves. Sure, they are both 58/1.2, but the size and shape of them is also so very, very similar. Suspiciously so.
Regarding performance, I think the Noct-Nikkor is probably the most over-priced lens on the planet. It is said to be "optimized for wide open" but a German photo magazine tested it in a huge group of ultra-fast normals and it did not impress. The Nikkor 50/1.2 certainly faired well, though.
Based on my experience with three MC Rokkor 58/1.2s, I would estimate it would land very close to the top of this list (based on comparisons I have seen between the MC 58/1.2 and the MD 50/1.2. On top of that, the MC 58/1.2 bokeh is simply superb....Show more →
pdmphoto wrote:
Where is the source of this info? I've tried a few of these lenses and I think you have it backwards - the higher numbers are better?
The source is a scan of an old article in a German photography magazine. Another member sent it to me. It was all in German, but the member explained the results to me. It is certainly possible that they are incorrect. Hmmm...
I have lost the image of the article. I'll see if the member can send it to me again.
The 'higher numbers bad' theory seems appealing when you look at the general ranking, but what would explain the low-number scores of the sharper smaller apertures?
hubsand wrote:
The 'higher numbers bad' theory seems appealing when you look at the general ranking, but what would explain the low-number scores of the sharper smaller apertures?
That's a very good point (if I understood it correctly), but it leads me to believe that the score is some sort of "blur factor" or "blur index" (much like they use over at slrgear.com).
If that is assumed to be true, then it makes sense for the smaller aperture results to have lower numbers (less blur) and this coincides with the info with which I was provided; that lower numbers are better.
BTW, I have recently seen some wide open shots with the SMC-Pentax 50/1.2 and they are very, very impressive. I have also seen shots from the Noctilux that are less impressive (from a resolution/contrast standpoint). So the chart is not so shocking, after all.
I received my new mount yesterday - it came with the only tool required to attach it and full instructions. I paid $90 inc. shipping, which took about a week to Australia. It works well. I'm not sure if it reaches infinity or not as it hits the mirror at around 10m on the focusing scale. I probably won't shave the mirror of the 5D as I will use my Leica 50 for infinity. Prelimary observations suggest it is a nice sharp lens with a fairly neutral look - there's nothing particularly distinctive about it except that it has very thin DOF. I will do some form of comparison between it and the Summicron 50, C/Y 50 1.4 and the SUper Takumar 50 1.4.
Justin D wrote:
I received my new mount yesterday - it came with the only tool required to attach it and full instructions. I paid $90 inc. shipping, which took about a week to Australia. ............ I will do some form of comparison between it and the Summicron 50, C/Y 50 1.4 and the SUper Takumar 50 1.4.
I am most interested in your comparative study of the above lenses, especially the Summicron 50 and the Rokkor 58mm.
Do you know where the CZ 50/1.4 came in this comparison? Or was the entry bar set at f1.2 and faster? I've just converted my 58/1.2 for Canon (and/or Sony!) Seems nice: will test against the SMC-A 50/1.2 and CZ50/1.4 in a few weeks.
On the 5D, when correct infinity focus is set, mine hits the mirror at about 30ft, a bit like the Takumar 50/1.4. It would be possible to set the lens so it doesn't quite achieve IF: it would then clear the mirror, but might be compromised optically.
hubsand wrote:
Do you know where the CZ 50/1.4 came in this comparison? Or was the entry bar set at f1.2 and faster? I've just converted my 58/1.2 for Canon (and/or Sony!) Seems nice: will test against the SMC-A 50/1.2 and CZ50/1.4 in a few weeks.
It was only f1.2 and faster lenses, AFAIK.
On the 5D, when correct infinity focus is set, mine hits the mirror at about 30ft, a bit like the Takumar 50/1.4. It would be possible to set the lens so it doesn't quite achieve IF: it would then clear the mirror, but might be compromised optically.
cogitech wrote:
I have also seen shots from the Noctilux that are less impressive (from a resolution/contrast standpoint). So the chart is not so shocking, after all.
The older tests of the noctilux did not take into account the focus shift in the f2 to f5.6 range. Erwin Puts wrote about this and said if you refocused the Noctilux to account for the shift, the MTF went up. The current M8 users are running into this problem. The stock Noctiluxes seem to come with a compromised focus cam setting which is not accurate wide open or at certain apertures where the shift occurs. When you get the focus mount adjusted the Noctilux is quite sharp at f1 and at f1.2 the quality jumps dramatically.
I don't have any good examples of the Noctilux at f1 because I shoot it in pretty dim conditions at f1 and high ISO, which the M8 isn't great at, but here is a noctilux shot by Cindy Flood from the GetDPI forums, shot at f1 and 160iso. It looks plenty sharp to me. Lets see another fast lens resolve the iris of the eye details like that.
I didn't read this for a while, that is why I did not tell you any earlier:
I was Cogitech's source. And here below is my original source:
The (back then highly respected) magazine was the German Color Foto Test 1980: "Lichtstarke Normal-Objektive".
And yes folks: Lower numbers are better.
This article and the need to find a specialzed bokeh lens inspired us to prepare an extensive test (again at my university lab). We already collected copies (mostly more than one) of the Yashica 1.2/55, Pentax 1.2/50, Zeiss 1.2/55, Olympus 1.2/55, Canon 1,2/55 AL, Nikon 1.2/50. We are waiting for Cogitech's conversion of a Minolta 1.2/58 and gave up on the conversion of the Konica 1.2/57 (which turned out to be impossible).
When the Cogitech converted Rokkor arrives we will start a fairly elaborate test program. But from what I've seen already the main question - do we all need to spend the money for the Jubiläums Zeiss - could find a surprising answer.
