Rokkor 1.4: 50 or 58?

wildlight images · Joined: 27 Aug 2013 Posts: 56

I would like to stick my 2 cents in on the MC Rokkor-PF 58 1.4;

It is the proverbial unwanted bastard step-child throughout MFL and little is offered in praise

Please send these useless lenses in c/o Old Man United States .....

They have that soft focus 100mm for $377 here, why not have them send you their Rokkor-PF 58/1.4 they have devalued because at 1.4 you'll get the same dreamy effect and even better on a m4/3's ....

It's soft wide open because it's supposed to be, but it's not really soft and has more to do with an optical illusion that certain types of people could never see even if they were told it first

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

I like the 58mm 1.4, maybe not MORE than the 50mm 1.4, but I find them different enough that I will use them in different situations for a specific feel. I have 2 I think of the 50mm 1.4 and at least a half dozen of the 58mm 1.4 (speculating in the antique lens futures market, he he)

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I have both the 1.4/50 and 1.4/58 and my feeling is the 1.4/50 is a technically better lens as it has multicoating and will give you a more modern look with colours that pop out and lots of microcontrast, however, the 1.4/58 has more character, flares more, has lower contrast, less saturated colours, a slight diffuse glow at wide aperture settings.

So it depends what aesthetic you are after in your images, if you want character, the 1.4/58, if you want technically great, go for the 1.4/50.

Same applies for the 1.4/50 and 1.4/57 Hexanons, which I also have.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

Interestingly, people often speak/write about "the" MC 1.4/58mm.
In fact, the MC-I lens is quite different from the MC-II lens, even if they share a similar lens section.

The MC-II 1.4/58mm perfoms as good as the later MC-X 1.4/50mm; the 1.4/58mm's six lens design is sufficient for its smaller image circle (in fact, it's basically a 1.4/60mm lens).

Stephan

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Why would it have a smaller image circle? How would you even be able to discern the size of it's image circle when using it on a 35mm camera?

A double gauss 50mm lens is likely to have a smaller image circle than a 58mm double gauss lens.

35mm has a 43.2mm diagonal so as long as the image circle is 45mm or greater, I don't see how you would ever notice, unless you were obsessively looking at the very outer corners at full aperture for light falloff.

Nothing unusual about a lens being slightly different in focal length from what it is marked, the Hexanon 1.8/40 is actually 43.2mm, the Rokkor 2/45 is also 43.2mm, Konica rounded down, Minolta rounded up.

gmatkin · Joined: 23 Sep 2017 Posts: 2

I have a small collection of Min 50-58s, including the 50 1.4, 50 1.7, 55 1.8, 58 1.4. I've made a little test video that might interest some of you.

https://youtu.be/48busbCprew

Gavin

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Cheers, that makes sense. I suppose I could measure the image circles by holding them in front of my speed graphic and focusing the bellows to infinity, but I am sure all we would learn is that the 50mm has an image circle of close to 50mm and the 58mm close to a 58mm image circle.

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

I have a MD1 50 f1.4 and a MC PG 58mm f1.2. I suppose this makes the 58mm f1.4 irrelevant (?)

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

The MC 1.4/58mm is in fact in between the 1.2/58mm and the MD-III 1.4/50mm. Due to its relatively lonf focal length (about 60mm in fact!) ist bokeh is closer to the 1.2/58mm than to the 1.4/50mm. The MC 1.4/58mm is a good cheap walkaround lens whenever the 1.2/58mm feels too heavy or too expensive.

Stephan