Ed Sawyer wrote:
The rokkor was/is the sharpest @ f/1.2 of any f/1.2 lens Modern Photography ever tested, my results with 4 of them bear that out. Haven't had the canon but haven't been impressed with anything I've seen from it. The canon FL/FD 1.2s other than the L (and maybe the SSC aspherical) are generally regarded as dogs, as far as sharpness goes. Then there's the conversion hassle...
-Ed
Ed,
I must interject here.
I have no idea where the notion comes from that the "canon FL/FD 1.2s other than the L (and maybe the SSC aspherical) are generally regarded as dogs".
I have hands-on experience and have tested (and have copies of) all of the canon 55-50mm FL/FD 1.2 and 1.4 lenses except the 55mm aspherical but including the FD50L.
I also have had more than 6 copies of the Rokkor 58mm f1.2 (current keeper is a 250xxx series). I can say without a doubt that from my experience all of the FDs are/were sharper at f1.2 and 1.4 than any of the Rokkors.
The fact remains as previously pointed out though, that I don't own the Rokkor because it is the "sharpest tool in the shed". It's for all of the other reasons that have been exemplified in so many discusssions and pictorial proof in this forum.
Sharpness is a reason to try a converted FD 50 or 55mm lens. Try one and you will see for yourself.
The Rokkor 58/1.2 is one of my favorite lenses, but the FD50L is a serious contender with no focus shift, the least flare, and great closeup performance.
I think Dmitry's fast 50 comparison test showed all of these fast 50 lenses and I remember the FD50L was close to the Rokkor 58 in sharpness, but I preferred the bokeh of the Rokkor.
Although bokeh is subjective and personal, I found the Zuiko 50 1.2 bokeh to be the worst of the them.IMHO and YMMV.
I would like to see some evidence, on 21 Mpixels, wide open, with identical processing, that Rokkors vary by a significant amount. The differences in Rokkor performance that we have seen on this thread could be down to different processing, subject matter, and different pixel pitches. Now that the Rokkor 58 has become so expensive, I'm not going to buy 5 more copies chasing one that works marginally better than my existing copy, if such a thing exists.
pdmphoto, I'd love to have a Zuiko 50/1.2, and I'm sure you're aware of this
I believe the Zuiko (apart from its funky bokeh) matches the Rokkor. Dim.ka has shown this in his comparisions. I had the Zuiko 55/1.2 and I didn't like it.
Edit. damn, wayne beat me.
Edit 2. Richard, there's sample variation, I'm positive about this. Maybe it's previous owners fault, who knows? But I had 3 very good Rokkors, 1 awesome, 1 OK and 1 poor. So it's more likely you don't use a lemon on 5D2.
Alexandre - I take your word for it. Mine seems very good to me, and I never expected it to be better than a 50 f1.2L.
Cog - I'm interested in how good your chosen Rokkor is. We only ever see you use it on a 5D. Any chance you'll be able to show some wide open crops on a 500D or other high res sensor? I'm particularly interested to see if some Rokkors don't have the wide open halo effect that we notice in comparison with the Canon 50 at f1.2. Mine certainly has a little bit of halo effect. Of course, one can add sharpening to the image to mitigate it, and I wonder if your processing method is helping in that regard.
brainiac wrote:
Alexandre - I take your word for it. Mine seems very good to me, and I never expected it to be better than a 50 f1.2L.
Cog - I'm interested in how good your chosen Rokkor is. We only ever see you use it on a 5D. Any chance you'll be able to show some wide open crops on a 500D or other high res sensor? I'm particularly interested to see if some Rokkors don't have the wide open halo effect that we notice in comparison with the Canon 50 at f1.2. Mine certainly has a little bit of halo effect. Of course, one can add sharpening to the image to mitigate it, and I wonder if your processing method is helping in that regard. ...Show more →
Richard,
I don't own any cameras with tiny pixel pitch (I only have 10D and 5D), but I have shown in the past some comparisons of two different Rokkors wide open on 5D. The results clearly illustrate significant sample variation. Maybe the difference would only be more dramatic on a higher resolving sensor... maybe not. I can post the two for comparison again, if anyone would like to see them.
Either way, I am quite certain than Hinnerker's sample represents the low end of the sample variation scale. As I said, of the 13 that I have used, only one produced results similar to Hinnerker's sample. The majority are significantly better ( only a bit of "glow" wide open) and some are simply fantastic. I can't imagine how a 21MP sensor would manage to tell a different story, but that is neither here nor there because I only own 1 Rokkor 58/1.2 now, so it would be impossible for me to re-test, even if I did have access to such a camera.
Post-processing of that image sample; default "capture" sharpening on the RAW file of 150 (on a scale of 400), "Provia" custom tone curve applied. The full image has some USM, but the 100% crop has none.
Note: Anyone who doubts that my sample is wide open (not pointing the finger at you, Richard) should note the highlights in the banana stand. The Rokkor only gives that sort of funkiness wide open, as many of you are already aware.
I experienced the halo/coma like effect (wide open) on a 4/3rd camera (e520) on all of my fast lenses with large rear elements, not just the rokkor 58/1.2s.
On the other hand, for the same lenses, including the rokkor 58s, they show no such effect on a 400D, 40D, 5DMKII, A700 and A900.
Why are you all talking about "the" Rokkor? Isn't there alot of different versions, that might have been tweaked optically over the years? I mean, they've been around from 1968 to 1973.
Makten wrote:
Why are you all talking about "the" Rokkor? Isn't there alot of different versions, that might have been tweaked optically over the years? I mean, they've been around from 1968 to 1973.
My rokkor 277xxxx serial number was very similar in performance to the samples shown by Cogitech... probably one of the best f1.2 lenses when used wide open and much better than some of the samples shown here that suggest otherwise. Then again, I am sure there may be better lenses out there - I have not tried any of the FD converted lenses.
I used mine on a 1Ds and 50D and it performed flawlessly to suit my needs
You don't hapen to have a case or two of that '76 Cotes-de-Bourg sittin' around do you?
(Sorry to get off topic boys, but first things first).
Sorry, just 1 bottle. It's from my girlfriend (she's born in 1976 and got this bottle from her parents).
I'm interested in a pentax 50 1.2 myself but there don't seem to be many posts with experiences...
Pictures on previous page seem to put in competition with the other 50 1.2s..but that's only one picture.
There are several examples of sharp images with the Rokkor 58 shown in this thread. I had one and if it had even been in the same universe with those examples, I'd still have it. I know a there are a lot of devotees on here but after that one, I'm not one of them.
