Overview 55mm f1.2 lenses?

blende8 · Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 260 Location: Bremen, Germany

A friend asked me if I know anything about the 55/1.2 lenses always popping up on ebay. He wants one. Wink

I don't know much about this topic, but even though I think that f1.4 is enough for anybody, I thought that if there is any expert on these lenses, it must be here. Wink

So I ask:
1. What different ones are out there?
I noticed different number of aperture blades and different filter sizes already.

2. Are there any lens diagrams for these lenses online?

3. What to stay away from?
I once had a so called "Color Reflex MC Auto" and that was bad, both mechanically and optically.

Or possibly there is some overview thread already somewhere?

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

blende8 · Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 260 Location: Bremen, Germany

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

If I remember correctly there was a first version designed by Tomioka and a second version designed by Cosina.
This could explain differences like the front glass size and the number of elements.

no-X · Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:31 pm Post subject:

There are at least two Porst 55/1.2 lenses for K-mount. One is based on the old Tomiokas 55/1.2 desing (manufactured probably by Cosina) and the other one is based likely on Fuji design. Maybe there are more models...

None of those 55/1.2 lenses is based on 6 elements. That's just an urban legend which arised from the letter marking on manufacturers ring (the letter sometimes adequate to the number of elements, sometimes it to the number of optical groups, sometimes to then number of air-glass surfaces...).

Arkku · Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland

Minolta has at various versions of 58mm f/1.2 (best bokeh, reputedly not as sharp in the edges as 50mm, radioactive) and 50mm f/1.2. The 58mm f/1.2 is worthy of its reputation.

In Canon FL there are 58mm f/1.2 (radioactive) and 55mm f/1.2 (not radioactive). I don't have experience with the 58mm but the 55mm f/1.2 is very nice. Bokeh a bit unpredictable but it has interesting character.

In Canon FD I think there are several different 50mm and 55mm f/1.2 lenses. I don't have experience with any of them.

Nikon, too, has various 50mm, 55mm, and 58mm f/1.2 Nikkors. The most famous, as mentioned earlier, is the 58mm f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor but it's ridiculously expensive. (Some sellers may try to sell other f/1.2 Nikkors as the Noct-Nikkor but the actual lens has the 'Noct” written on it.)

In Olympus OM there are 50mm and 55mm f/1.2 Zuikos. The 50mm is reportedly sharper but I have no experience with either.

Edit: Oh, the ones I have, Rokkor-PG 58mm f/1.2 and Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 both have 8 aperture blades. Optical formulas:

Canon FL 55mm f/1.2

Minolta MC Rokkor-PG 58mm f/1.2

Apparently I also have the Canon FL 58mm f/1.2 diagram around:

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

blende8 · Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 260 Location: Bremen, Germany

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

blende8 · Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 260 Location: Bremen, Germany

no-X · Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:56 pm Post subject:

Yes, these lenses has at least 7 elements.

There was a long discussion about 55/1.2 and 6 elements here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/so-i-got-this-from-a-2nd-hand-site-porst-55-1-2-t22842.html

and member Gabriel opened his lens and proved, that the "6-elements theory" is wrong - here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/tomioka-zeiss-mamiya-and-55-1-4-design-t22661,start,15.html

I'm 99% sure, that the old Cosina made Porst 55/1.2 is based on the old Tomiokas 55/1.2 design. Tomioka had a better optical design at the time, so it's possible, that they licenced or sold their older designs to Cosina, which built many lenses on them (I think the same could be true for the Tomioka 55/1.4 design, which was later adopted by many Japanese brands).

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I had 4 of them Nikkor, Pentax, Konica and Porst. I like first three, Porst was many step behind them. I still have Konica and Pentax , I sold only Nikon because I can't afford to keep all. In my opinion not really 1.2 or 1.4 is interesting, this lenses are flagship of manufacturer so they quality is usually better than 1.4 cheaper sisters. Quality difference is also very subjective , so easy to decide what should you do. If you can afford it buy a higher priced one and test by your self. If you think this lens not give you more than 1.4 version sell it. Very easy to sell them, due rarity and curious people. I rare shoot in low light environment so don't need me really, but nice to have it Laughing

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Ah, OK. I was thinking it was about groups, confusing the terms. Well... anyway.

These non-OEM lenses are not too bad, really.
They do not show the same performance as the OEM ones, right, but you get them for 1/3 of the price!
So, perhaps it's worth a try. As I said, I have seen pictures with a PORST that really impressed me.

Ivo · Joined: 07 Oct 2007 Posts: 109 Location: Maastricht

I've used the Porst for a while but hardly use it nowadays. Mainly for the bokeh which is not that nice wide-open. Due to it's size compared to the slightly slower 50mm's I have I only used it during occasions where I was planning to use it wide-open (like concerts). At 1.2 the depth-of-field is a bit short for concertwork. (Might be great for portraits.)

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

I have quickly compared Porst 1.2/55 and Pentax A 1.2/50. I wanted to know if the Pentax is so much better (I had the opportunity to buy it for very reasonable price). But I don't think so.
Sharpness wide open is almost the same. Pentax has slightly more contrast, Porst seems shlightly sharper in center, with lover CAs.
They are very close in bokeh rendering in my eyes. Both can produce very distracting or very smooth bokeh, depends on background and distance from main subject to background (as with other lenses).
The only thing I don't like about Porst is slight brown cast. Pentax offers better and colder colors. But not worth of 4x price for me.
If you want to try f1.2 at "cheap", go for Porst. But beware, the DOF @f1.2 is razor thin... most conclusions about unsharpness come from badly focused pictures... most parts of faces in close portraits are just out of focus plane.
And try to stop it down, it gains lot of contrast at f2 and onwards.

Pentax-A 1.2/50 @ f1.2

Porst Color Reflex 1.2/55 @ f1.2 sorry, this shot is missfocused, but it´s not so important in this bokeh comparison

On the other side, Porst can produce very pleasing bokeh @ f1.2 too

And with some postprocessing, lovely results (at least to my eyes Wink

)
Porst Color Reflex 1.2/55 @ f1.2 this is not any "studio" shot, just quick portrait at party in dim light.

WolverineX · Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:13 pm Post subject:

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

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

blende8 · Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 260 Location: Bremen, Germany

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

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

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

Great samples, thanks for sharing them.

blende8 · Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 260 Location: Bremen, Germany

Ivo · Joined: 07 Oct 2007 Posts: 109 Location: Maastricht

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

Ivo · Joined: 07 Oct 2007 Posts: 109 Location: Maastricht

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

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