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

Porst Color Reflex 55/1.2 [135USD]
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://search.pbase.com/search?q=porst+55mm+f1.2
not much Noktonish to see there or flickr


PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I get it, a really cleans lens, there a few dust in it but no problem I guess. My Pentax adapter will be here 2 weeks later but I guess the mirror will definitely touch the rear metal parts of the lens as there is a few mm longer part than the rest of the mount.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have three of these. Watch http://fotist.com and one will be there soon. I could remove all the parts that stick out, because they don't do anything for us.

Actually two out of three do not have working diaphragms. I hope I don't have to pay $100-$125 for that fix on each.

Other 50/55's come very close to the mirror. These may have to have a lump ground off as well as clipping the aperture pin. That would mean grinding close to the glass. I will try to test it against a pancolar 50, and fix the Porst to focus to infinity on my Sigma SD14.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yalcinaydin wrote:
I get it, a really cleans lens, there a few dust in it but no problem I guess. My Pentax adapter will be here 2 weeks later but I guess the mirror will definitely touch the rear metal parts of the lens as there is a few mm longer part than the rest of the mount.

Yes, the rear part of the lens (auto diaph lever) will touch the 5D's mirror. That, for all PK mount lenses Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flor27 wrote:

Yes, the rear part of the lens (auto diaph lever) will touch the 5D's mirror. That, for all PK mount lenses Crying or Very sad

I've just removed the 3 screws and released the back metal part, nothing touches anything at the moment so no hardcore work is needed to work with my 5D but infinity focus is problematic with the mirror as usual Sad

But I didn't like it's performance at f:1.2. It's "SoftLens" at f:1.2 even in the center and everything is blurry. I haven't used anything wider than f:1.4 so my question is there somthing that I must do or is there a trick. Now I'm really sorry for selling my Super Takumar 50/1.4 but I've givven it to my friend so it won't be a problem taking it back I guess.

Here are the results at 1.2, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6 at ISO200. 5D is on tripod.
It's soft untill f:2.8, ultra-soft blurry results at f:1.2. Really dissapointment Crying or Very sad My Rollei Planar 50/1.8 performs clearly better for just 1/4 price...

100% crop @f:1.2:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/2978492013/

@f:2 it's much better but still soft on the center.
I'm uploading the original files at the moment I'll give the link when it finishes.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can this be the cause? I removed the black metal from back of the lens.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry Brew
It's time to make lemonade Sad


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe this glare is mostly caused by sensor reflections. The optical design seems to be good (text is not blurred, but the glare only removed all contrast). This is why many manufacturers highlight importance of special MC layers for digital cameras, esp. for fast lenses. From all M42 lenses I have tried, S-M-C from Asahi resisted sensor reflections best. Thats why i prefer good MC layers to sharpness for fast lenses...


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whole set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/72157608422358642/
@F16SUNSHINE
I'm really sad to hear that, does this mean that I've a bad copy or a common problem? I need to know this cause I will give a sale ad tomorrow.

@no-X
This is also MC: PORST COLOR REFLEX MC AUTO 1.1.2/55mm Nr.002368


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, but there are big differences in MC quality between various manufacturers. I already posted this:

f/1.8 - MC Pancolar / SMC Takumar:



Pancolar is sharper, but its MC is not effective agains sensor reflections, which caused glare and lack of contrast around the text and edges. Takumar is not as sharp, but SMC works and suppresses most of them.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Takumar is clearly better.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the sample that is enough to curse the lens:
1-Porst 1.2/55@1.2, center 100% crop
2-Porst 1.2/55@1.8 (roughly), center 100% crop
3-Porst 1.2/55@2, center 100% crop
4-Canon Ef 1.8/50 II@1.8, center 100% crop


the suspicious thing is I see from the image much more cleaner on the optical visor but there is something else messing around. I'll try it with K100D super before judging the seller. If it's faulty then I'll give it back to the seller and request my money back.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It could be copy variation or it could be the simple personality of the lens or even a potential problem.
If it does become sharp eventually. Likely it is not a mis-aligned element.
The internal reflection problem is not usually so pronounced in low light.
Anytime you have a big flat rear element you can get reflections from it.
When I use the 1.4/55 Tomioka or 1.2/55 Tomioka this can come up.
It rarely is so troublesome as your samples.
I think this is simply the personality of the lens.
Fast f.1.2 lenses can be like this. The shots remind me of the Canon 50mm .95 that I had a few years ago.
It gathered lots of light but was glowing until f2.
My honest advise is. Try using the lens on a real subject in the way it is intended.
Go out tonight and shoot at some subject in minimal light and with varying distances.
Don't be too disappointed Yalcin. It will be easy to sell if you don't love it. Cool
People love fast lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yalcinaydin wrote:
the suspicious thing is I see from the image much more cleaner on the optical visor but there is something else messing around.

Believe me. It's caused by sensor reflctions. When you look through viewfinder, you won't see them, because they arise not until the mirror is tilted and the light lightens the sensor. Thats why you cannot see it through the viewfinder - it's another optical way, where these reflections doesn't exist. Try the lens on film - it will be much better.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My copy was excellent.
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/japenese/othermaker/ports_55mm_f1_2/


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What body did you use?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olympus E-1 or Olympus E-300


PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

F16SUNSHINE wrote:

Go out tonight and shoot at some subject in minimal light and with varying distances.
Don't be too disappointed Yalcin. It will be easy to sell if you don't love it. Cool
People love fast lenses.

I've listened you and got out although it was 00:15 and shoot at our park which has a some flora and a lot of green, I've used ISO800 and ISO1600 and lot's of f:1.2. I can say that this one is a 'dreamy' lens if not a 'dream' lens Smile It has some interesting characteristics but I don't know if this worths 135USD Rolling Eyes

I'm uploading them as early samples before sleeping, all @f:1.2:








PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Works for me - I would keep it


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/72157608422358642/


PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very pleasant bokeh.

Anyway, is there any comparision test between Tomioka 55/1.2 (M42), Porst 55/1.2 (PK, Cosina made) and Revueonon 55/1.2 (PK, Cosina made)? Or at least their optical designs?

As for Tomioka 55/1.2 (Yashinon pre-DS-M):


(Ultron with specific rear-part?)


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I'm selling it Smile
I guess this one will perform better on a Pentax body.






PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the exactly same lens, and got adapter PK->EF. But EOS_5D mirrors
hits the rear of the lens (I have not done the shaving of 5D mirror yet).

I am going to use it with 350D for the time being. I will put up the results
if there is any presentable in here. Laughing


PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 5:03 pm    Post subject: 1.2 PORST Reply with quote

I have a theory about this lens. I have 6 samples. There are two versions: GOLD and BLUE coated. I made comparable tests and will submit results soon. I can already say that the small difference exists. Both are beautiful lenses for sure.

But what i wanted to point here is this: it seems to me that Pentax K10D when it automatically presses the lens aperture pin it also moves focusing mechanism a bit. So it plays with your adjustment physically. I didn't remove that pin yet. Does anyone have similar experience?

Anyway, Yaltsin there has a lemon.

Here is is sample photo, but the aparture i think was on 1:2. Colors adjusted of course and some other corrections too.



PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ancient thread, but Google likes it. I have to say that when I read "I can finance it by selling my 2nd Rollei Planar 50/1.8 and Super Takumar 50/1.4" I thought that the original poster had made a horrible mistake; I have a Takumar 50 f/1.4 and a Porst Color Reflex, and the former is far better than the latter. The only fly in the ointment is that the Takumar cannot be modified to work properly on a Canon 5D, whereas the Porst can.

The problem is that the Porst is too characterful at f/1.2 for general use, and at f/2.0 it is no sharper than the Takumar (or my Yashinon 50mm f/1.4) at f/1.4, which means that it is essentially pointless except for the novelty of having an f/1.2 lens. It reminds me of the things I have read about Canon's EF 50mm f/1.0, which was very expensive but soft wide open and no sharper than the f/1.4 stopped down.

The extra light sensitivity and narrower depth of field are lost in the softness and haze. It would only be useful in low light if you could not get the shot at f/1.4 and ISO 3200 with an f/1.4 lens, at a slow shutter speed, braced against something.

"Too characterful" is a euphemism.

Having said that, I have found that at f/2.0 it is a useful soft focus portrait lens, e.g:


The soft effect is nice, and I keep the lens for that reason. It is my secret weapon. However the effect can be duplicated easily with Photoshop, and it is good form to start with a plain image and add effects later on, rather than start with an image that already has an effect built-in.

In practice I tend to use my Takumar 55 f/2.0 rather than any of the above, because it works fine on a Canon 5D and it's small and sharp.


Last edited by Ashley Pomeroy on Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:58 pm; edited 1 time in total