cogitech wrote:
OK. Here's the first of a few different tests I did. I went without the tripod because the wife is still out, but you'll get the drift:
I think the Rokkor 58/1.2 has suffered from so much hype that people often tend to assume that it is only just hype. I am to blame as much as anyone else for this hype (much more so, indeed).
So, there has been a bit of a backlash of sorts. People who simply refuse to believe for one reason or the other that there is something very special about this lens.
I am happy to let the samples above speak for themselves. The only lenses I have seen in direct comparison that come close to the Rokkor 58/1.2 are the Hexanon 57/1.2 and the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2.
So, while most Rokkors are very nice lenses and generally have nice bokeh, I think it has been shown that the 58/1.2 is in a class of its own, regardless of hype.
It's interesting though how well behaved it looks in those shots. My impression of the Rokkor is that it's really wild when it comes to bokeh. Not harsh but very lively.
These were not intended as comparison shots but of the same general subject..
Your sample is wide open, which is exactly in line with what I have been saying. The Rokkor 58/1.2 is versatile precisely because it can be funky, lively, or various other adjectives when wide open, but stop it down to even just f1.7 and it becomes a cream machine (as seen in my samples).
Your sample is wide open, which is exactly in line with what I have been saying. The Rokkor 58/1.2 is versatile precisely because it can be funky, lively, or various other adjectives when wide open, but stop it down to even just f1.7 and it becomes a cream machine (as seen in my samples).
Interesting observation - I have almost always used it wide open. I'll have to experiment some more with it.
cogitech wrote:
The FD 50/1.4 was stopped down in the samples, because I wanted all the samples to be shot at f1.7-1.8, to keep the playing field even.
I suppose I could do some more testing tomorrow at f2 so that all the lenses are stopped down to a certain extent...
Cool! And thanks for the ones you already did! It's nagging me to do the same with the 50's I have.
I really appreciate all of the input and those comparisons are very nice Paul - those should be in a sticky thread here!!
Bifurcator wrote:
That's more along the lines of what I was remembering. And yeah, "lively", "painterly", what's in an adjective...
Agreed, which is what I like about the bokeh in this thread. I've got a Sigma 50 1.4 which does creamy more than any 50 I've ever used but I'm looking for a 50 that is "painterly", as you say, like this image (this bokeh is incredibly lively and really makes the image come alive)...
Indeed. That image is very solid, and the bokeh is a very important factor. The 58/1.2 can do this, but not so readily as the 50/1.2. If that's what you are after, the 50/1.2 is the lens to get.
michael49 wrote:
Agreed, which is what I like about the bokeh in this thread. I've got a Sigma 50 1.4 which does creamy more than any 50 I've ever used but I'm looking for a 50 that is "painterly", as you say, like this image (this bokeh is incredibly lively and really makes the image come alive)...
if you'd like a cheap lens that has very similar bokeh to the MD 50mm f/1.2, i would recommend the MD 50mm f/1.7. i find them to be more similar than any of the other rokkors i have looked at. the only problem is of course that it is a stop lower so it produces less blur. it should balance better on a mirrorless camera than f/1.2 though and it has considerably less loCA wide open.
paul - thanks for that comparison, it's quite illuminating. the 58/1.2 seems to blur everything much more than any of the other lenses like it has a much narrower dof than the other lenses, despite the in focus area looking to be the same size.
to continue my budget recommendations i'll say that the MC 50mm f/1.4 has the smoothest bokeh of the rokkors i've owned and seems to me to draw more similarly to the 58/1.2 than to the 50/1.2. according to the rokkor files it is the same optical design as the 58/1.2, but given the difference in focal length i wouldn't read too much into that.
