Thumbs up, that's for sure. Flippin, eck! 40 quid for a f1.2 lens.
How is that lens for bokeh? I've been interested in the rokkor 58/1.2 because I'm a bokeh addict, but I'm willing to compromise since I can't afford the rokkor price.
lorriman wrote:
Thumbs up, that's for sure. Flippin, eck! 40 quid for a f1.2 lens.
How is that lens for bokeh? I've been interested in the rokkor 58/1.2 because I'm a bokeh addict, but I'm willing to compromise since I can't afford the rokkor price.
Is the FL an old-fashioned stop-down metering type of lens? Or should I be looking at the FD for that sort of modern snazzy type stuff? Or would I be losing my precious bokeh?
Is the FL an old-fashioned stop-down metering type of lens? Or should I be looking at the FD for that sort of modern snazzy type stuff? Or would I be losing my precious bokeh?
While FL mount lenses may fit onto FD mount cameras the FD mount is more complicated and therefore more difficult to convert...I did'nt bat an eyelid when I decided to convert my FL to SA mount but I balk at the idea of converting an FD mount version.
lorriman wrote:
I'm totally unfamiliar with the Canon world.
What camera system do you use at the moment because you wont be able to use an FL, FD or MD Rokkor lens at infinity if you have a Nikon DSLR. (unless you use an image quality reducing, f-stop robbing, lensmount adapter that contains optical elements to correct for the difference in registration distance.
The FL and FD mounts both have a registration distance of 42mm but the SA and EF mounts have registration distance of 44mm, Minolta MD has 43.5mm, Pentax K (PK) has 45.5mm, Olympus OM has 46mm and Nikon-F has 46.5mm.
The maximum you can machine off the mounting boss of an FL 55mm f1.2 (without effecting anything else inside the lens) is about 2mm, making it perfect for converting to SA and EF or MD mounts but you would need to machine more than 2mm off to convert it to other mounts and that would effect other components inside the lens.
Because of the extra complexity of FD mount versions you may not even be able to machine as much as 2mm off
I'm unlikely to use it for digital, for which I have only a fuji F30: I currently use a Pentax ME super and a Minolta XG-M (MD mount), but I see that the appropriate Canon SLR is pretty cheap (£25 with an f1.8 lens), and I may then also get my full aperture metering assuming the FD has the same optical formula as the FL.
I have been thinking of a DSLR, so that info certainly colours the direction I might go (I favour nikon, currently, but Sony is looking pretty good these days).
I don't suppose if you know whether a bokeh-worthy canon f1.4 exists? If early FL or FD f1.4s happen to also give nice bokeh then I could save my wrist a bit of aching.
lorriman wrote:
I'm unlikely to use it for digital, for which I have only a fuji F30:
You mean you still use film...Film is dead as a photography medium IMO because Digital is so much better in virtually every way...Well at least my Sigma DSLR's with Foveon X3 sensors are better than film in virtually every way!
lorriman wrote:
I currently use a Pentax ME super and a Minolta XG-M (MD mount), but I see that the appropriate Canon SLR is pretty cheap (£25 with an f1.8 lens), and I may then also get my full aperture metering assuming the FD has the same optical formula as the FL.
Both FL and FD lenses have automatic stop down but FL manages it with one less lever on its mount
I have been thinking of a DSLR, so that info certainly colours the direction I might go (I favour nikon, currently, but Sony is looking pretty good these days).
With the D300 Nikon have finally caught up with the resolution of the Sigma SD14
but you still dont get that Velvia like look that you get with Sigma DSLR's.
lorriman wrote:
I don't suppose if you know whether a bokeh-worthy canon f1.4 exists? If early FL or FD f1.4s happen to also give nice bokeh then I could save my wrist a bit of aching.
There are two types of FL 50mm f1.4...The mark II version is the one to get. The original version suffers from flare WO and its only single coated...The Mark II version is almost 1cm longer, has much better contrast and has at least two coatings.
As for the FD versions, again there are at least two versions. The earlier version is the FD 50mm f1.4 S.S.C and this was replaced with the Mark II or simply "new" version which also has S.S.C coated...They can be instantly told apart because the early version has a silver FD mounting plate and the new version has a black one.
The new one is just 5g heavier than the early version but it incorprates several optical improvements that supposedly make it a better lens. It was so good in fact that it was used for optical measurements at various public institutions and is also the standard which determines color balance for the rest of the nearly 60 lenses in the FD series.
As for bokeh quality, which is best is harder to say.
This pic from the older FD 50mm f1.4 S.S.C taken by Cristina at flickr shows that it has harshish bokeh when the background is far away:
Alf Beharie wrote:
I have'nt tried a Rokkor 58mm f1.2 myself but from pics that I have seen here that were taken with at f1.2 I would say that my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 has slightly better bokeh: http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2606/sdim0175cll4.jpg
I would agree with you on that. Of what I have seen posted here, your lens and the f1.2 Noct Nikkor have some of the better Bokeh for my taste.
Bokeh is like wine. Everybody has their preference.
What i personally see from FL lense - the lack of 3D feeling, that you get from rokkor. It is canon and it looks very close to 85 1.2L, 50 f1.2L
I have received my Sigma SD14, so the next step i will convert another copy of Rokkor to Sigma mount and will compare this combo with 5D+ the same rokkor.
You mean you still use film...Film is dead as a photography medium IMO because Digital is so much better in virtually every way
I agree but I only use it for portraits, for which my F30 can't give the oof background, and I worked out that, all the costs added up, it would take 4 years to reach the same cost as a dSLR. The camera and (quality) lens cost only £40 and film and dev costs a total of £1.50 for 36 frames of out-of-date Reala 100 at ASDA. And I can always get a real print if I want something bigger than 8x10. The expense and inherent discipline of each frame, small as it is, makes the taking of each photo an absolute blast. The satisfaction and fun means that I don't want to move to digital, although I can see it is (probably) inevitable.
Both FL and FD lenses have automatic stop down but FL manages it with one less lever on its mount
Really?!?! I thought that full aperture metering only came with the FD? What if I were to attach the FL to an FD camera like the AV-1? I really would like to avoid stop-down and manually cocking and all that nonsense: when I've got impatient 5 year olds in front of me it's all too much, and the light changes too fast in this blessed country.
There are two types of FL 50mm f1.4...The mark II version is the one to get.
I can agree that the Rokkor 58mm f1.2 may well be sharper WO than the FL 55mm f1.2 but exactly because it may be sharper is why the Canon has better bokeh, especially in the aspect of how the two differ in the way they render OOF highlights.
Note how the Rokkor has failed to blur out those highly distracting OOF highlights on the chrome parts on the left of frame behind the engine...Thats not good bokeh IMO.
Or perhaps its best to say that the Rokkor probably has better bokeh than some lenses but its bokeh is'nt as nice as the bokeh of the Canon FL 55mm f1.2.
I wanted to take some comparison shots of a similar subject to show the differences better but I have a problem trying to replicate the same scene with my SD14 because it has a 1.7x crop factor and your 5D of course has a FF sensor.
(The Canon FL 55mm f1.2 on the SD14 has the FOV as a lens of about 94mm vs the FOV of a 58mm lens with your Rokkor on your 5D.)
Hello Alf,
It is sad that i can not show you direct comparison right at the moment (waiting for M42 to Sigma mount adapter for rokkor modification). But here is a shot from rokkor and sigma sd14 - i just take the lense without mounting and place it in front of the sigma mount - of course focusing is kind off but look at the bokeh character.
There was a Nocti owner who dislikes Rokkor bokeh, and now a FL 55 owner as well! Rokkor club is doomed!!!
Well, far from it.
It's a well known fact that at f1.2 the Rokkor can create well-defined-rings type of bokeh, which quickly disappears at f2 or f2.8. But I myself find that very characteristic of f1.2 extremely special, since it retains most of the shapes and forms in the background instead of making a complete swirl of blur with no definition whatsoever.
There are 2 effects to this, firstly it is more challenging if you want it creamy, some forethought of distance consideration is needed; secondly if employed correctly you can create a painterly feel to the photo, as if it was made from brush strokes (eg. water color) and not optics, as humbly demonstrated in my unartistic test shot below:
Maybe a Noctilux gives you cream everytime you shoot at large apertures (and maybe a few other normal lenses), but the Rokkor is the lens that makes itself a fun one to own, IMHO.
This is taken with Voigtlander 58mm @f1.4.
Has anyone compared this lens with the Rokkor? Other than one being a f1.2 and the other a f1.4, they are very similar in design.
...Film is dead as a photography medium IMO because Digital is so much better in virtually every way...Well at least my Sigma DSLR's with Foveon X3 sensors are better than film in virtually every way! 
