Anden wrote:
I posted it more as a reference. I do not like it for it´s smoothness. I can be useful sometimes though.
A
Reading my post again today I wish I had worded myself differently. "I don't mind the image" sounds just snobbish and stupid and as i thought I decided about things. Ouch.
I really tried to say "I like the image, but..."
No worries Jonas. I am not that sensitive :-) The image is was just a test. I have one shot with the Rokkor at almost the same spot. I will post it later.
A
I actually like the later zuiko 50f1.8 - it has sort of a water paint effect (there are 8 or so derivatives of the 50f1.8 so it is a difficult lens to talk about).
One thing I don't get is the Rokkor 58f1.2 - many people loves this lens and I guess it is sharp enough but nearly all the images I've seen posted from this lens turns me off - I'm not sure - but they always seem a bit washed out or lacking in fine detail (not resolution but tonal change - maybe lack of contrast or micro contrast or some other term I'm missing) - hard to put my finger on it but that is one lens the masses seem to like that I just don't get...
My wife has this old plant in the window that keeps on giving...
Shot with a 5D & Rokkor 58/1.2 at f/2.0
PS: I have zero issues with the contrast or detail with this lens. It has nice character near wide open and is very sharp stopped down a bit. But its fun to play with near wide open...
you2 wrote:
I actually like the later zuiko 50f1.8 - it has sort of a water paint effect (there are 8 or so derivatives of the 50f1.8 so it is a difficult lens to talk about).
One thing I don't get is the Rokkor 58f1.2 - many people loves this lens and I guess it is sharp enough but nearly all the images I've seen posted from this lens turns me off - I'm not sure - but they always seem a bit washed out or lacking in fine detail (not resolution but tonal change - maybe lack of contrast or micro contrast or some other term I'm missing) - hard to put my finger on it but that is one lens the masses seem to like that I just don't get......Show more →
Yeah, PhotoMaximums flower shot is just damn ugly!
Washed out: Any lens shooting at 1.2 as wide open will look a bit washed out.
Lacking in fine detail: No.
Lacking in tonal change: No.
Lack of contrast: Depends on software, mostly.
Lack of microcontrast: No.
Hard to put finger on: Sure.
ovredal73 wrote:
PS; Photomax, the flower shot is fantastic
Thanks!
Pretty simple shot really. The flower was about a foot away from the window on a dull day. Most of the light is just window light with a little extra illumination on the flower from a small penlight flashlight (torch)...
ovredal73 wrote:
Washed out: Any lens shooting at 1.2 as wide open will look a bit washed out.
Lacking in fine detail: No.
Lacking in tonal change: No.
Lack of contrast: Depends on software, mostly.
Lack of microcontrast: No.
Hard to put finger on: Sure.
PS; Photomax, the flower shot is fantastic
Ok, I give up. Maybe I should try a Rokkor 58/1.2 again... So, ovredal, do you have any up for sale?
Photomax - I also like that image! It may be a simple shot, as flowers standing in windows often are, but it grabs the beholder from the first second.
Technically I adore the lack of Longitudinal CA. But I think I would crop away the rightmost part.
Nikkor 105 f/2.8 Micro AIS - Nikon D2x
My garden - bamboo curtain about 4 feet - background 8 feet from curtain
Green and brown strands are grass blades. Shot wide open at f/2.8 iso 800
Thanks guys! I really appreciate it! I just saw a sidelighted window with _lots_ of small droplets on, just had to get Ida (my willing model this time :P ) over to check it out! And it worked quite well
Not to argue ovredal73 but clearly I disagree with you.To my eyes I tend to not find images with the Rokkor as pleasing as with some other lenses. It seems that certain lenses have a signature and some folks like 'em and some don't. With the recent hype for the Rokkor there has been a lot of images posted from the Rokkor and uniformally I find something lacking or disturbing (this is not a comment on the photographer or subject but just an expression of a personal opinion). Examples of lenses (from various pictures posted) that have a signature that 'wow' me include the Contax c/y 100f2 (for example). I realize that the posted images are subject to post processing and not suitable for accurate analysis of a lens. I also realize that quality prints might change my view of a lens so perhaps I should qualify my answer...
ovredal73 wrote:
Yeah, PhotoMaximums flower shot is just damn ugly!
Washed out: Any lens shooting at 1.2 as wide open will look a bit washed out.
Lacking in fine detail: No.
Lacking in tonal change: No.
Lack of contrast: Depends on software, mostly.
Lack of microcontrast: No.
Hard to put finger on: Sure.
"Different strokes for different folks" as the saying goes. There are also a lot of lenses out there as well and you are well within your rights to express your disconnect with this lens. Part of the joy of photography is the incredible variation of tools, technique and the images produced.
I will say that your finding the Rokkor images "...something lacking or disturbing" is a bit strong though. Most of the 58/1.2 images posted here are shot wide open as the fast aperture and unique focal length is part of the attraction with this lens. Maybe thats it?
On the large format photgraphy boards you will see fans argue for the Shneider/Rodenstock/Nikon/Fuji lenses to no end. But does it really matter? For me I like the whole package when it comes to the Rokkor 58/1.2: the age, history, funky focal length, heft, feel and the image quality. I have the older metal style and it feels nice to play with. It gives an interesting "look" wide open and then produces another character stopped down. Its not so much a "wow" factor, rather the whole package is very appealing for me...
Of course your mileage may vary...
Another shot showing its different style:
PS: I also have the later Zuiko 50/1.8 and its a nice little lens. But its what I would expect from a name brand 50mm: good solid performer, but nothing really noticeable one way or the other...
Nov 29, 2008 at 10:59 PM
