Paul - don't get excited and lose it or anything like that
Really, I think the Canon 55/1.2 bokeh is also very nice. At f/1.2 it could be just as good or better depending on what you are looking for - or other factors like lighting and subject to background distance. The Rokor bokeh is prettty good wide open, but better when stopped down a little.
Alf Beharie wrote:
Prove it.
Edited on Jul 14, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Jul 14, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I'm not quite following you here Alf. You made the claim that your pictures "clearly show" that the bokeh is better on the Canon FL 55 than on the Rokkor 58. I take Paul's response to mean that he doesn't see the pictures as clearly showing what you take them to be clearly showing. What does he have to prove? To Paul the pictures do not clearly show what you see. Isn't that just the nature of bokeh? Some like one lens' rendering better, others like another. In my view you can't clearly show or prove anything. It's like trying to clearly show that Van Gogh was a better painter than Monet. This sort of subjective judgment can never be clearly shown or proven. My two cents.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I'm not quite following you here Alf. You made the claim that your pictures "clearly show" that the bokeh is better on the Canon FL 55 than on the Rokkor 58. I take Paul's response to mean that he doesn't see the pictures as clearly showing what you take them to be clearly showing. What does he have to prove? To Paul the pictures do not clearly show what you see. Isn't that just the nature of bokeh? Some like one lens' rendering better, others like another. In my view you can't clearly show or prove anything. It's like trying to clearly show that Van Gogh was a better painter than Monet. This sort of subjective judgment can never be clearly shown or proven. My two cents.
It is not easy to compare bokeh when shooting two different subjects with different background. Any lens (well almost...) can produce good bokeh if you shoot it right.
This claim about the Canon´s bokeh superiority based on these images is rather ridiculous.
1. The Canons shots have smooth backgrounds, while the shot with the Rokkor has very busy background.
2. OOF areas are much closer in the Rokkor shot than in the Canon shots, creating completely different scenarios for bokeh rendering.
3. The light is contrasy with lots of highlights and shadows in the Rokkor shot while soft and flat in the Canon shots. Will of course affect the appearence of the image, including the bokeh.
Apples and oranges, anyone?
EDIT: Ah, I see you were here with the same thoughts, Anden
Edited by ovredal73 on Jul 14, 2008 at 03:04 PM GMT
These two were on the way to the restaurant with the belly dancer and the then the way back. I think the old lady must have been Maria of Maria's Bar, as she was in there everytime I went by over the next few days.
I own the 55/1.2 which I use as a short tele lens on my D200. It gives a bit low contrast and a yellowish cast, but I really love it. It has better bokeh than many other 50-ish Nikkors, especially when stopped down. But even wide open, the bokeh is OK.
Here's a little test. You can clearly see the "haze" which gives the low contrast, and the yellow cast.
Considering the outstanding edge sharpness and low vignetting on APS-C, I believe this lens to be very nice on FF. The major drawback is the low contrast, but on the other hand the lens has a nice "personality" that I really like.
This image looks great. Have you adapted the 55mm f1.2 to digital or are these film scans?
Robert
Thanks...I have converted it to Sigma SA mount and that pic was taken at a local carnival with my SD14.
Hers a few pics showing how I converted it (The SA mount has the same registration distance as the Canon EF mount (EOS) so it can be converted to EF mount just as easily) :
The one you can afford!...Seriously, you could'nt go wrong with any of them as they are all good.
I have'nt seen any evidence that the aspherical version is worth its huge asking price so you might as well save your money and get one of the others.
The FD 55mm f1.2 is directly based on the optics of the FL 55mm f1.2, the only differences being the relocation of the aperture dial (on the front with the FL version and on the rear with the FD version) and of course the inclusion of the more complex FD mounting plate on the FD version.
The S.S.C verion is again optically the same but it has better coatings...Whether that helps or hinders in the bokeh department I cannot say but the S.S.C version should, in theory at least, have better contrast that the non S.S.C versions.
wiregen wrote:
What's not mention'd is the 58mm FL f/1.2, is this off the same lens design?
Similar, but not the same...
Here is the element layout diagram for the FL 55mm f1.2: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fllenses/fl55mmf12optic.gif
And here is the element layout diagram for the FL 58mm f1.2: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fllenses/fl58mmf12optic.gif
You can see that the front element group/s for both look very similar but the rear element group/s differ quite a bit between the two.
In fact the FL 58mm f1.2 is an older design and the FL 55mm f1.2 replaced it.
The elements in the 58mm have a single amber coating but the 55mm has at least two coatings, amber and Purple...Which means in theory the 55mm should have better contrast.
Recently someone tried to modify an FL 58mm f1.2 to SA mount in the same manner I did but apparently the iris actuation mechanism is much more complicated and he had difficulty in performing the conversion...IMO, the 58mm is one to stay clear of.
Pricing goes as follows
Canon FL 55/1.2 <-cheapest
That sounds about right because you simply cant get a better lens than the FL 55mm f1.2 for the money...I picked mine up on ebay for just under £40!
