Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Overview 55mm f1.2 lenses?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i have Olympus OM 55mm 1.2, in daylight wide open it is prone to overexpose on my dSLR, so you have to correct exposure, but in dim lit situations it gives you results as if the lighting is regular. stopped down in daylight it gives sharp results


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
I have quickly compared Porst 1.2/55 and Pentax A 1.2/50. ...


Thanks. This shows what I have always said. The difference is not that big. The price difference is, though! Wink


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And try focussing in liveview with the loupe.
It might be a revelation.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blende8 wrote:
And try focussing in liveview with the loupe.
It might be a revelation.

I prefer split screen. When I do different comparison of my lenses, I often try to confirm focus point with LiveView. Most of the time, I do better with optical viewfinder than with LiveView.....maybe due to crappy LiveView implementation in GX20/K20D.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brunner,
I definitely want to go to your parties Very Happy

Great samples, thanks for sharing them.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
I prefer split screen.

Split screen only works well if you have lenses without focus shift.
Most very fast lenses have some focus shift.

In general I also prefer focussing via viewfinder if possible.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
blende8 wrote:
And try focussing in liveview with the loupe.
It might be a revelation.

I prefer split screen. When I do different comparison of my lenses, I often try to confirm focus point with LiveView. Most of the time, I do better with optical viewfinder than with LiveView.....maybe due to crappy LiveView implementation in GX20/K20D.


It might be another problem. It's much harder to keep your camera stable when you're using liveview compared to using the viewfinder. So part of the unsharp photos using liveview could be simple camera shake induced by yourself.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ivo wrote:
It might be another problem. It's much harder to keep your camera stable when you're using liveview compared to using the viewfinder. So part of the unsharp photos using liveview could be simple camera shake induced by yourself.

I use liveview exclusively on tripod. I don't even remember if I ever used liveview for normal shooting since I switched from compact camera to DSLR.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
Ivo wrote:
It might be another problem. It's much harder to keep your camera stable when you're using liveview compared to using the viewfinder. So part of the unsharp photos using liveview could be simple camera shake induced by yourself.

I use liveview exclusively on tripod. I don't even remember if I ever used liveview for normal shooting since I switched from compact camera to DSLR.


Indeed, that rules out the camera-shake. Liveview for me is a non-option, I don't like it. So I can't comment on the liveview quality of the K20D.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The porst looks good in the last pic. Difficult to judge its sharpness though on screen. Is it usable wide open for 8x12 prints?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whereas PORST PK is known to include lemons, that doesn't happen with PORST Fujica-X which is better built. Is it of the same optical design?

And don't forget about lovely REVUENON PK 1.2/55mm. I think it matches the quality of "real" Tomiokas in every aspect.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
Whereas PORST PK is known to include lemons, that doesn't happen with PORST Fujica-X which is better built. Is it of the same optical design?


Basically, yes. But there is a difference, since the Fujica-mount Porsts are 1.2/50, aren't they?

Pancolart wrote:

And don't forget about lovely REVUENON PK 1.2/55mm. I think it matches the quality of "real" Tomiokas in every aspect.


This surprised me, since I have heard that these lenses are absolutely similar.

I guess, it is as it is always is: some lemons are in the wild and ruin the reputation of a whole lens series!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was in a shop with my friend yesterday and we looked at those f1.2 lenses. The shop owner had several of them. We could convince him that the prices he was asking (200 €) were way too high. Off we went with two Revuenon 55/1.2 for 85 € each. I took one, too, because I wanted to test it, and it looked good mechanically and is like new.
The dealer was quite knowledgeable and he also showed us some Porsts. These where clearly inferior mechanically. But then he showed us another Porst, which was labeled UMC and this one was better, like the Revuenons, but it was a 50mm lens.

Today I did a small test.
I compared the Revuenon 55/1.2 with the Pentax FA50/1.4.
One should expect the Revuenon to be half a stop brighter.
This is not the case.

ISO 200, fully open, 1/60 s
Both give about the same histogram, i.e. the same brightness of the image.
If I go up to 1/90 s for the Revuenon, the image is clearly darker.

I checked the images in Adobe Camera RAW where you can shift the exposure very acurately and I would say that the Revuenon is perhaps about 0,15 EV or 1/6 stop brighter.

This is what I expected: These no-name f1.2 lenses are just pretending to be fast, but losing light due to cheapo lens coating or whatever.

The only advantage of the 55mm is the slightly larger focal length. This is visible in the photos.
Just for the record I repeated the test with the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4, which gave the same result. Btw. the contrast of the Nokton is significantly better. Sharpness is excellent of all three lenses. No softness here.

Tomorrow I will check for possible DoF differences.

Here is the lens:







Last edited by blende8 on Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you're right. The coating (light transmittance) can have higher impact than speed. It was also quite common, that the values were rounded - e.g. it could be in fact a f/1.25 design...

Anyway, if the problem is caused only by coating, depth of field shouldn't be affected.

The old (non UMC) Porsts 55/1.2 are based on the old optical design invented by Tomioka. I compared this porst to original Tomioka and I found, that it's multi-coating is less effective than the old Tomiokas single coating in terms of contrast.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 1:1.2/50mm UMC 55ø X-M G PORST COLOR REFLEX is exactly an EBC X-Fujinon 50/1.2, except the filter ring (55mm)
http://www.pentax-manuals.com/fujica/fujica.htm
(FUJICA-X)
Focal Length 50mm
Max aperture/Min aperture 1.2 16
Groups/Elements 7 7
Min Focus Meter/Feet 0.45 1.5
Filter (mm) 49

Is there a relationship with the Tomioka, that's another story...

For these 55/1.2 we are now considering that all the PK mount with MC, COSINON, REVUENON, RIKENON, VIVITAR, PORST + YASHICA ML mount, are coming from the old M42'S TOMIOKA sheme with no MC, CHINON, TOMINON, Revuenon, Cosinon, YASHINON

(NB : minimum aperture do vary between f16 & f22, and mfd too)

My first impression is to prefer the old Tomioka, when I see pictures on the net, but I didn't find a direct comparison with the same subject...[/u]


Last edited by Phenix jc on Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have 4 50-58mm f1.2.
Gotta get rid of'em!!!!!!


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before you sell them, could you please make photos of them and post them here with all additional info you have?

Perhaps someone who has an UMC Porst could test it the way I did above?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blende8 wrote:

Perhaps someone who has an UMC Porst could test it the way I did above?

Just some samples ; The lens is very sharp
http://forum.mflenses.com/so-i-got-this-from-a-2nd-hand-site-porst-55-1-2-t22842,start,60.html#203474
If you're selling yourself your Revuenon, please, think to me Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found PK Revuenon better then PK PORST in terms of optics, mechanics and aesthetics. Thus (and since i have 5 PORST samples) i dared to replace PK mount with EOS on one PORST recently. Much work was required to connect aperture ring directly to aperture blades mover skipping all those complicated springs and connections constituting auto PK function. Anyway i am pleased with results. Here a bit post-produced photos. Canon 5DMkII. ISO 800, 1/8000s (first photo), low rainy afternoon light outside, aperture probably not fully open (i made first f-stops closing with smaller grades so instead of 1:2.0 more like 1:1.3 Smile .

Sculptoring


Nostalghia


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used to own a Rikenon 55/1.2. It was pretty good, not even disappointing wide open. Performance comparable to S-M-C Tak 50/1.4. However, I hardly ever need an aperture of f/1.2, so I sticked to the Takumar, which build quality is a bit better.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:14 pm    Post subject: Porst 55mm f1.2 Reply with quote

I am the proud owner of a Porst 55mm f1.2 and have read lots of information on these f1.2 lenses. I think there is a steep learning curve to deal with the thin dof, but the lens is great for some creative work. I look forward to using it. I have found that using ND filters and CPL would reduce the fstops and allow to use it in bright sun light. The lens is ideal for indoor and night shots without flash. I do have a question for those who like to modify lenses. I got the lens from someone in Germany, it is a Pk mount. However, when I placed it on the Pentax Kx, it did not behave as a Pk, it does not need to be stopped down via green button or AV+/- button. You just chose the fstop using the fstop ring, focus and shoot. I wonder if the previous owner did any surgery to it. I look forward to discussing this lens some more.



Hibisco by Palenquero, on Flickr



Portrait by Palenquero, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Porst 55mm f1.2 Reply with quote

Idilio Eterno wrote:
I am the proud owner of a Porst 55mm f1.2 and have read lots of information on these f1.2 lenses. I think there is a steep learning curve to deal with the thin dof, but the lens is great for some creative work. I look forward to using it. I have found that using ND filters and CPL would reduce the fstops and allow to use it in bright sun light. The lens is ideal for indoor and night shots without flash. I do have a question for those who like to modify lenses. I got the lens from someone in Germany, it is a Pk mount. However, when I placed it on the Pentax Kx, it did not behave as a Pk, it does not need to be stopped down via green button or AV+/- button. You just chose the fstop using the fstop ring, focus and shoot. I wonder if the previous owner did any surgery to it. I look forward to discussing this lens some more.



Hibisco by Palenquero, on Flickr



Portrait by Palenquero, on Flickr




Welcome-I am sure someone here can share their experience/knowledge about the Porst with you. #2 is beautiful. Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. I wonder why my photos do not show in my message, but they show when quoted. Interesting.



Esomeliae by Palenquero, on Flickr


Last edited by Idilio Eterno on Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Idilio Eterno wrote:
Thank you. I wonder why my photos do not show in my message, but they show when quoted. Interesting.


That was your first post-and I believe its a spam prevention measure. It will show up hereon. Regardless have fun.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you will find that the best 55mm f1.2 lenses are all made by Canon...The 1960's vintage Canon FL 55mm f1.2 is excellent. So good in fact that the same lens design was carried over into the first FD version into the 1970's, with the only difference being pehaps the addition of an extra lens coating (?)...Sharper than the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 wide open but with similar lovely smooth bokeh.
Later FD versions like the uber expensive Asperical SSC had a different optical formula and arguably have poorer bokeh quality and OOF highlight quality as a result. (Onion ring OOF highlights).
The Nikon versions (Ai and AiS) have really wacky and busy "marmite" bokeh (You either love it or loathe it)...Personally I dont like it, although I am a big fan of Nikon AiS lenses.
The Olympus version is softer than the Nikon but shares its iffy bokeh quality.
Porst and Tomioka versions are generally not considered as good as Canon, Nikon, Minolta or Oly versions but still fetch high prices, purely down to their f1.2 WO aperture. The Canon FL 55mm f1.2 can still sometimes be found at bargain prices but the Rokkor almost always fetches the highest second hand prices.
Sometimes you can get three really good 55mm f1.2 lenses for less than the average price of a single Rokkor! (about $600):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-nFD-50mm-f1-2-FL-55mm-f1-2-Nikon-55mm-f1-2-/250831780004?pt=Camera_Lenses