I don't care either way. It's all just for study anyway. The only reason for titles and stuff is to keep things organized and indexed so people can land here from a search and know where they are once they get here. So if it diversifies I can easily change the title and add some text to the first post to reflect that.
I think it would be more fun to have multiple threads tho - just me thinking.
I started two more threads if'n yall wanna participate in individual threads. If not don't worry, those can remain small and I can modify this one and the indices text in the others easily enough. Here's the index as it is now:
i went looking for my standard bokeh torture test shot from the 50/1.2 that i use to test all new lenses. haven't done it yet for my newer rokkors since i got them just a bit to late in the echinacea season (will have to do it next year). anyway here is a shot that i believe shows the near maximum level of bokeh funk possible from the lens: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5070946056_0f6607c416_o.jpg
bear in mind that this was shot on 4/3 so the loCA and bright outlines won't be as noticeable on FF (or even 1.5x/1.6x crop). ..
U.C. wrote:
No, for example the 58/1.2 has a much smoother bokeh.
Actually, the Rokkor 58/1.2 can certainly give some pretty funky bokeh (maybe not this extreme) when wide open. Once stopped down to f2 or beyond, it is a cream machine. That's why I love it so much; versatility.
U.C. wrote:
No, for example the 58/1.2 has a much smoother bokeh.
Actually, the Rokkor 58/1.2 can certainly give some pretty funky bokeh (maybe not this extreme) when wide open. Once stopped down to f2 or beyond, it is a cream machine. That's why I love it so much; versatility.
But U.C. is right that the 50 is certainly busier/edgier than the 58. A direct comparison can be found at http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s1.htm (just over half-way down the page, you'll find the bokeh section).
The author of the page concludes: "The images above demonstrate clearly that while the 50mm has good bokeh, it does not inherit the 'magic' bokeh of the 58mm f/1.2, which for nearly 40 years has mesmerised photographers. The images above are designed to show flaws, they don't do justice to the rich creamy bokeh that this lens produces when used. If this is your goal, the 58mm is probably the lens for you."
michael49 wrote:
Do all the Rokkor 50's have cool bokeh like this?
Yes. I've made the point several times in this thread that all of the normal-ish Rokkors share nearly identical properties of bokeh. The main differences are the amounts. Obviously the 1.2 will be able to produce more than a 2.8 and etc. One reason I started this thread was to see if there were any that differed and so far none do - although we haven't seen them all. The 58/1.2 has caught all of the reputation points (and the price follows) but if you want to produce the kind of smooth painterly bokeh repeatedly demonstrated in this thread any of the Normal-ish Rokkors (45mm~58mm) will do it. That makes it nice for those of us on a budget. At some distances different ones will look slightly different like Cogi is saying and linked to, but it's usually the exception. Mostly they all produce creamy almost painterly lens blur.
Also the Takumar normals (50mm and 55mm1.4 and 1.8) produce a very similar kind of lens blur (bokeh) to these Rokkors.
Look again through these pages and you will see that Sebboh's 50/1.2 shots have decidedly busier, harsher bokeh than the 58/1.2 shots. There is a distinct difference and it shows up in any direct, shot-to-shot comparison. If you cannot see it, then I fear you are either in denial or you have vision problems
You can only compare exact shots taken with two lenses, as shown on the Rokkorfiles site. The comparisons you make above are meaningless.
Every 58/1.2 shot above, if taken with the 50/1.2, would be much harsher. It is a simple fact, not an opinion. Likewise, any 50/1.2 shot in this thread that appears creamy would appear even more creamy if taken with the 58/1.2. It really is as simple as that.
Bifurcator wrote:
Oh sure... tell me to go through this thread and see for myself and then when I do you call it meaningless because it shows *my* point. Hehehehe....
No, if you go through the entire thread and take account of which images are generally more edgy or busy, you will see that more often than not it is the 50/1.2 shots, and if you were able to take the same shots with both lenses, the results would show with undeniable certainly that the 58/1.2 has much better (smoother) bokeh. Like I said, it is a fact, not an opinion.
BTW, there is nothing busy about my log shot with the 58/1.2.
Just because you call something a fact doesn't make it a fact but OK, so there's one 50/1.2 that's a tiny tiny bit edgier - it's the edgiest one of the group vrs. the smoothest one of the group - so they have the most differences between them. How many Rokkor normals are there? 20? 30? There's a buttload of them and they are all closer to each other than others outside the set. My 55/1.8 looks identical to the 58/1.2 in almost all circumstances. The 45/2 follows right along for the ride too. Even my 35mm and 28mm Rokkors share extremely similar properties of bokeh with the very large set of Rokkor normals.
Go ahead and take your Rokkor normals and do a controlled test, shooting the same shots with the same framing, lighting, apertures, etc. You will see for yourself that what I am saying is true. The comparison at Rokkorfiles is not an exception, it is precisely illustrative of the true difference between the two lenses' bokeh. In every situation, all things being equal, the 58/1.2 will render more pleasing bokeh. It isn't a fact just because I say it is, of course, yet it is a fact and it is easily provable if you have copies of both lenses.
This is not to say that the 50/1.2 has "bad" bokeh, or that it is impossible to have smooth/good bokeh with the 50/1.2. Any lens can have good/smooth bokeh when the right technique is employed.
Instead of leaving it up to you, Bif, I decided to put my camera where my mouth is and do a qick test of my own. The only functioning Rokkor normal I have right now besides my 58/1.2 is the MC 50/1.7, so that's what I chose for the comparison. I have a 45/2 that is in pieces in a box somewhere, so it isn't suitable for any testing.
Here are the shots. Need I bother saying which is which? Both shots are at f1.7 (Rokkor backed off from f2 ever so slightly):
Nice comparison! That's about what I expected. The 50/1.7 looks a tiny tiny bit edgier than I would have guessed. I think our differences here are that you look at the differences between those two and I look at the similarities between them. If we were to compare a Nikkor, a Canon, a Zeiss, and an Olympus with those we would really see just how similar those two are. I'm not saying there are no differences at all you know. I'm saying that if you want (about) the same creamy painterly bokeh any of the Rokkor normals do it with ease.
FYI and others reading, the bottom one classifies as painterly and creamy while the top one classifies as almost only creamy as I define things.
The bottom one IMO will produce a more interesting/pleasing bokeh in low contrast shots and portraits - but that falls to the personal preference thingy again.
Remember, the original question was: "Do all the Rokkor 50's have cool bokeh like this?" and he showed a a sample of a 50/1.2
I have a few other fifties I can compare, to test your theory. If I have time later, I'll get out the EF 50/1.8, EF 50/2.5 CM, FD 50/1.4, and Macro-Tak 50/4. My wife just left with the tripod, but I'll see what I can do later.
I think what we will find is that most of the standard double-gauss 50s will draw similarly busy bokeh due to a tendency toward over-correction of spherical aberration. I predict that there will remain a distinct difference between the 58/1.2 and the rest of the pack. I could be wrong. It has happened before
For the record, I find the differences between the above two shots to be very striking, and I would never choose the second image over the first image. Subjective, of course, but I prefer an image where the subject does not fight for attention with the bokeh. Sometimes the subject is the bokeh, but that is rarely the look that I am after.
Bifurcator wrote:
Remember, the original question was: "Do all the Rokkor 50's have cool bokeh like this?" and he showed a a sample of a 50/1.2
And I agree with U.C.'s response above, with the exception that the 58/1.2 can be "cool" like this when shot wide open in certain circumstances. It is just not nearly as like to be "cool" as the others.
And that's where we disagree. All the Rokkor normals are more similar than different and all the one's I've seen (without exception!) have that "cool" painterly/creamy bokeh. It's a signature Rokkor look and the closest non-rokkor I've seen are the Takumars, followed by the Zuikos.
It would be super cool to see your brand comparisons! If you can, do it in daylight with a branchy tree or looooog thin grass in the OOF BG. Long thin non-parallel lines in the BG (not unlike your shots above) are very revealing. A cluttered street with lots of wires and sign-boards can be as well.
At some distances different ones will look slightly different like Cogi is saying and linked to, but it's usually the exception. Mostly they all produce creamy almost painterly lens blur.
Page two starts off with a very nice set of all different Rokkor normals showing very very similar properties shared between them: