Sebboh, love that snow falling wide open shot!
Jim, excellent contrast and sharpness on the cat wide open.
Trademark Rokkor slightly nervous bokeh rendered in the grass.
Tri, nice garden shots, I like #4 the best. Nice dreamy bokeh.
I thought I might get more grief from my comment than I did. The 58/1.2 does provide for some wonderful bokeh wide open, it's just that it seems people are a bit over doing it. Bokeh is but one aspect of making a photo great; getting the right depth of field is another. The cat shot and the snow shot are both wonderful in my opinion and wide open seemed to have worked well with them. Others might have looked better with more sharpness and less blown out background. And I don't understand taking a picture at infinity and f/1.2 if the light is bright enough to stop down more. A lens is like a power tool with multi-speeds; you don't always run it at full speed if the material is better suited for a lower speed. I guess at some point we all get enough of lens' certain characteristics and then get back to photography, which is a decision process involving several factors and picking the best combinatin for any given subject. On a side note, my brother recently shared a narrow focus gallery of mine with a friend - a point and shoot guy - who commented that I should get a lens with better depth of field. Not everyone understands or appreciates.
I totally agree woodrim. I am not saying I do not over use shallow dof, as I know I often do. But I do also agree that its something that you need to get out of your system as it can be a lazy approach to photography. This topic does float around the forums a lot and is nothing new. But I do get a little tired of seeing close up flower shots etc taken wide open
I agree that it can become boring to see obsessive shallow dof behaviour, but this shot works for me just because of this 'accident'. michael49, I would like to see more of your photo accidents!
As we know that the Rokkor 58/1.2 is well-known or famous for it's rendering at wide open, and Rokkor lens is famous for it's bokeh too, I think the wide open shots still deserved to be uploaded
But .. yes, I feel the same too. Lately I am also get bored looking at my own wide open shots myself
It is because almost this whole year I explore lots of super fast lens, and yes I overused it.
Some shots I took to test the performance at wide open, and some other shots I took because I was amazed by the rendering.
And it also maybe because the previous years I shot mostly at f11-f16 (landscape shots) and was 'shocked' when suddenly switched to super shallow DOF images which is very hipnotizing
But now I am trying and learning to be wiser using them. Just saw some Steve McCurry photo gallery on Youtube last night and try to learn something on that gallery how to or when to fully isolate subject at wide open and how to include the background more to strengthen the concept and the drama.
I am learning from your shots too guys .. so keep posting your shots
Above three pictures very nice. I just realized, the 58/1.2 has what, six blades to the diaphragm? So if you stop down even a little, the OOF specular highlights will take its shape. Too bad, more reason to like those multi-bladed lenses with round irises.
The Flek shot, althoug in the wrong thread, shows that lens' capabilities well, but what is it that is enhanced by having been taken at f/2.4? How could anyone even know that without being told?
nixland wrote:
As we know that the Rokkor 58/1.2 is well-known or famous for it's rendering at wide open, and Rokkor lens is famous for it's bokeh too, I think the wide open shots still deserved to be uploaded
But .. yes, I feel the same too. Lately I am also get bored looking at my own wide open shots myself
It is because almost this whole year I explore lots of super fast lens, and yes I overused it.
Some shots I took to test the performance at wide open, and some other shots I took because I was amazed by the rendering.
And it also maybe because the previous years I shot mostly at f11-f16 (landscape shots) and was 'shocked' when suddenly switched to super shallow DOF images which is very hipnotizing
But now I am trying and learning to be wiser using them. Just saw some Steve McCurry photo gallery on Youtube last night and try to learn something on that gallery how to or when to fully isolate subject at wide open and how to include the background more to strengthen the concept and the drama.
I am learning from your shots too guys .. so keep posting your shots ...Show more →
Good post, Nixland. I'm not being as critical of 1.2 shots as it might sound, just encouraging folks to broaden their approaches. I think it's natural to overuse at first something that is special, or a special feature of something. Actually my Rokkor use right now is much the same as these narrow focus shots. Until I get a NEX I can only use my Rokkors as close-up lenses, thus relatively shallow depth even when stopped down. The following are examples; the first from MC Rokkor PG 50mm f/1.4 and the second from MC Rokkor-X PF 50mm f/1.7. I don't think I posted these already, but if I did, please forgive. As they say, the memory is the second thing to go.
I'm also a fan of the Cyclop 85/1.5. And I wonder, which has a more shallow DOF, the 58/1.2 or an 85/1.5?
woodrim wrote:
I thought I might get more grief from my comment than I did. The 58/1.2 does provide for some wonderful bokeh wide open, it's just that it seems people are a bit over doing it. Bokeh is but one aspect of making a photo great; getting the right depth of field is another. The cat shot and the snow shot are both wonderful in my opinion and wide open seemed to have worked well with them. Others might have looked better with more sharpness and less blown out background. And I don't understand taking a picture at infinity and f/1.2 if the light is bright enough to stop down more. A lens is like a power tool with multi-speeds; you don't always run it at full speed if the material is better suited for a lower speed. I guess at some point we all get enough of lens' certain characteristics and then get back to photography, which is a decision process involving several factors and picking the best combinatin for any given subject. On a side note, my brother recently shared a narrow focus gallery of mine with a friend - a point and shoot guy - who commented that I should get a lens with better depth of field. Not everyone understands or appreciates....Show more →
I appreciate your comments and agree with what you are saying, but i think that most who buy the Rokkor do so because they want a fast 50 with great bokeh and the Rokkor delivers in buckets.We have other lenses for stopping down when needed and of course the Rokkor does just fine stopped down, but its magical in the WO position
-Jim
woodrim wrote:
Until I get a NEX I can only use my Rokkors as close-up lenses, thus relatively shallow depth even when stopped down. The following are examples; the first from MC Rokkor PG 50mm f/1.4 and the second from MC Rokkor-X PF 50mm f/1.7.
you can always get them converted to sony mount if you want, though those are some of the more difficult ones to convert.
woodrim wrote:
Thanks, but still, round is nicer than octagonal.
sadly a lot of modern "round" 7 blade apertures still produce heptagons. i actually just pulled an 8 blade aperture out of auto rokkor 58/1.4 and it looks like it might actually fit alright in my MC PG 50/1.4 with a some minor modding. if anybody knows of a cheep russian lens with aperture wide enough for 50/1.4, i'd love to go even further and stick 12 blades in there?
Jim Schemel wrote
I appreciate your comments and agree with what you are saying, but i think that most who buy the Rokkor do so because they want a fast 50 with great bokeh and the Rokkor delivers in buckets.We have other lenses for stopping down when needed and of course the Rokkor does just fine stopped down, but its magical in the WO position
-Jim
i have to kinda disagree. while it is magical wide open, i find it to be most magical in the f/2-f/4 region. paul (cogitech) did a comparison earlier in this thread showing that it has abnormally smooth bokeh stopped down a bit.
sebboh wrote:
i have to kinda disagree. while it is magical wide open, i find it to be most magical in the f/2-f/4 region. paul (cogitech) did a comparison earlier in this thread showing that it has abnormally smooth bokeh stopped down a bit.
I'll have to take some shots in the f2-4 range and see how it does
-Jim
