some of them are nice, still not wowing me like it is the most incredible lens there is though... in this thread I like the examples from the 50L and Konica the best.
All lenses are capable of producing good and bad bokeh... I think in general when people are showing off how good a lens is it should be spectacular though... these are typically picked because they are the *best* that the lens can produce... and there are plenty of Rokkor examples in the thread that are really not very nice IMO.
Again, I'm not slamming the lens... it is certainly an interesting option.
cogitech wrote:
mh,
If you are saying that the samples immediately above your post don't look good to you, then I'm not sure I can understand your idea of nice bokeh. Please show us samples from a lens that you think is better.
Either that or just admit that it is "simply stunning". You know it is.
cogitech wrote:
I've posted plenty of 100% crops from the Rokkor. You want more?
I want comparisons, since you are making statements of sharpness, back your statements up. I've done this with a comparison at infinity with the MC50/1.4, as you remember.
To be clear, I like the Rokkors, and I strive to contribute the most accurate description of these lenses' character to the forum, to help members understand the traits of the lenses, to their photographic advantage.
I challenge you to compare your 58 with another lens to show their relative sharpness of each, preferably beyond comments like "stupidly sharp", or ""simply stunning", or the extremely confrontational comment, "Anyone who still thinks this lens has bad bokeh and/or is not sharp must have a seriously sub-par sample of the lens."
I believe that it's very simple. cogitech's simply saying that comparing an f1.4 lens at f1.4 to an f1.2 lens is pretty much irrelevant if you need or want f1.2 and that if you're going to compare the 58 Rokkor's wide-open performance, compare it to a similar lens. The MC1.4 you keep bringing up as a better performer is simply irrelevant in the context of what's best at f1.2
JimBuchanan wrote:
I want comparisons, since you are making statements of sharpness, back your statements up. I've done this with a comparison at infinity with the MC50/1.4, as you remember.
To be clear, I like the Rokkors, and I strive to contribute the most accurate description of these lenses' character to the forum, to help members understand the traits of the lenses, to their photographic advantage.
I challenge you to compare your 58 with another lens to show their relative sharpness of each, preferably beyond comments like "stupidly sharp", or ""simply stunning", or the extremely confrontational comment, "Anyone who still thinks this lens has bad bokeh and/or is not sharp must have a seriously sub-par sample of the lens." ...Show more →
Here you can almost make out the smallest letters on the coffee cup (my intended focus target).
The rokkor IS stupidly sharp.. and it is simply stunning The fact that our designated dead-horse-beater has made a few methodically not-so-sound tests that confirm his own opinions is all well and good, but it does not "prove" anything, it just shows that theory-dependent data is just that.
I much prefer the fast-50 test over at the conversion-forum.. it shows how some lenses really shine when compared to others.
Edit:
My 180 2.8 is sharper wide open than my 58 1.2.. the slower a lens is, the easier it is to keep it sharp wide open. The complecity of design makes it much harder to have a 1.2 lens sharp at 1.2 than a 1.4 at 1.4, even so, the Rokkor 1.2 seems to hold it's own against quite a few 1.4-lenses. I have personally tested it against the canon 50 1.4, nikon 50 1.4, nikon 50 1.2 and the helios 44-5 58 2.0. It came out very favourable in all encounters.
mawz wrote:
I believe that it's very simple. cogitech's simply saying that comparing an f1.4 lens at f1.4 to an f1.2 lens is pretty much irrelevant if you need or want f1.2 and that if you're going to compare the 58 Rokkor's wide-open performance, compare it to a similar lens. The MC1.4 you keep bringing up as a better performer is simply irrelevant in the context of what's best at f1.2
OK!, thank you, for the interpretation.
I did not bring up the old MC1.4 thread, as a better performer, but as an example of a comparision with the 1.2. If one holds it invalid because one is 1.2 and the other is 1.4, is OK with me. The way this thread is going, one would think I dislike the Rokkor 58/1.2, when it is one of my favorites. Go figure.
What I dislike is absolutist statements with no supporting evidence. Take about a
resident dead horse beater.
JimBuchanan wrote:
What I dislike is absolutist statements with no supporting evidence. Take about a
resident dead horse beater.
The supporting evidence is on the previous page. If I was to compare it directly with another lens (as you have done with the MC 50/1.4), conclusions could only be drawn about those two samples of the lens, anyway. What your test confirmed for me was that your sample of the Rokkor seems not to perform like some of the others. I've had Rokkors like that too.
I'm obviously not the only one who feels that the Rokkor's performance is incredible. Time and time again I see quotes on various forums about how surprised people are with the Rokkor's wide open performance. There is an assumption that most f1.2 lenses will be only barely adequate wide open. In my experience, which is echoed all over the place, the Rokkor is far more than adequate wide open. All the shots I posted above could easily be printed at 30 inches and retain the punch you see in the web JPEGs. To me, that is spec-f#%king-tacular for such a fast lens. YMMV.
BTW, the next time I spend 45 minutes digging through my RAWs and batching out 100% crops, it would be nice to at least say thanks before continuing on your diatribe.
Also, I am quite aware that there are 50-ish lenses out there that are sharper wide open than the Rokkor 58/1.2. A couple are even "significantly sharper".
These lenses fit into one of the following categories:
a) Not f1.2 lenses
b) Extremely expensive (in the thousands)
c) Have worse bokeh due (mostly) to over-corrected spherical aberration
cogitech wrote:
These lenses fit into one of the following categories:
a) Not f1.2 lenses
b) Extremely expensive (in the thousands)
Don't forget we are talking about f1 and faster lenses too, though they tend to be in category B, with the exception of perhaps the Canon 50mm for TV and the old Canon rangefinder system.
cogitech wrote:
The supporting evidence is on the previous page. If I was to compare it directly with another lens (as you have done with the MC 50/1.4), conclusions could only be drawn about those two samples of the lens, anyway. What your test confirmed for me was that your sample of the Rokkor seems not to perform like some of the others. I've had Rokkors like that too.
I'm obviously not the only one who feels that the Rokkor's performance is incredible. Time and time again I see quotes on various forums about how surprised people are with the Rokkor's wide open performance. There is an assumption that most f1.2 lenses will be only barely adequate wide open. In my experience, which is echoed all over the place, the Rokkor is far more than adequate wide open. All the shots I posted above could easily be printed at 30 inches and retain the punch you see in the web JPEGs. To me, that is spec-f#%king-tacular for such a fast lens. YMMV.
BTW, the next time I spend 45 minutes digging through my RAWs and batching out 100% crops, it would be nice to at least say thanks before continuing on your diatribe....Show more →
Have it your way, Jim, but please check out Dmitry's test before we embark on this discussion the next time. It clearly shows how well the Rokkor keeps up with the likes of the Noct-Nikkor and various 50Ls. If you then still question my statements about the Rokkor's performance, I'll be at a loss for words (imagine that!).
cogitech wrote:
Also, I am quite aware that there are 50-ish lenses out there that are sharper wide open than the Rokkor 58/1.2. A couple are even "significantly sharper".
These lenses fit into one of the following categories:
a) Not f1.2 lenses
b) Extremely expensive (in the thousands)
c) Have worse bokeh due (mostly) to over-corrected spherical aberration
d) both b and c above
Pentax 50/1.2 K mount (at least my copy) is sharper than my keeper Rokkor.
Its bokeh is slightly worse, and its colors are duller.
So it fits (barely) on item (c).
Priced in the (less than Rokkor) hundreds, this and Zuiko 50/1.2 are natural Rokkor opponents IMO.
I reckon Rokkor bokeh is a matter of taste. I know people here liking Zuiko 55/1.2 bokeh, go figure
Oh well. I love my $25 50/1.2 Pentax K and I love my Rokkor.
, there're some comparisons with 50L and other 50/1.4's here: