| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:12 pm Post subject: Rokkor 1.4: 50 or 58? |
 |
|
enzodm wrote:
Like in subject, willing to explore Rokkors, where I start from? 50/1.4 or 58/1.4?
Thanks.
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011
Posts: 2201
Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
Speaking of Minolta MC Rokkors I've had both, and I found the 50 (PG) better for my taste. The 58 (PF) wasn't bad either, but the 50 had better contrast, it was sharper wide open, and had smoother bokeh, which I tend to like better.
Also, I found samples shot with the 50 quite similar in character to the ones from the rokkor 1.2/58 when stopped down a bit.
_________________
C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clockwork247
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: Rokkor 1.4: 50 or 58? |
|
|
clockwork247 wrote:
| enzodm wrote: |
Like in subject, willing to explore Rokkors, where I start from? 50/1.4 or 58/1.4?
Thanks. |
I think the 50 1.4 especially the later version are better than the 58 1.4, in fact I believe the design of the 50 1.4 is almost identical to the famous 58 1.2, while the 58 1.4 is not the same design as the 58 1.2...
I'm actually looking for a 58 1.4 because I already have a 50 1.4 haha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
My option is the pg 50/1.4
Till few days ago, had that lens. My copy was with fungus at the rear element.
Despite that, very sharp. Very good IQ.
The 58/1,4 have only 6 elements, we can wait for soft borders, I guess.
Horacio. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
Thank you all. I see there are some versions of 50/1.4: if not PG, is it ok?
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
The MC PG and the MD have the same optical scheme.
Though its weight , the MC PG is a joy to use. You really can focus precisely at f1.4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Layer-cake
Joined: 18 Mar 2013
Posts: 560
Location: Cape Town
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Layer-cake wrote:
I have to agree the 50mm pg is brilliant, I havnt tried the 58mm but I decided not to get it due to some reviews, no reviews where bad but it doesn't seem very usable wide open.
for a long time my Konica 50mm 1.4 was my favourite and indeed the Minolta is slightly less sharp at wider apertures, but overall I prefer the Minolta now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
May I ask you why do you prefer the Rokkor to the Hexanon ? Is it the bokeh ?
I am asking because I was thinking about buying the Hexanon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spokklocka
Joined: 14 Jan 2015
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spokklocka wrote:
I've not used the 50 1,4. Have the MD 50 1,2 and MC 58 1.4 and on a NEX my view is that the 58 1,4 is a little duller wide open although more "consistently dull" across the frame. The 50 1,2 seems to like a brighter background bokeh too. One click down, at f/2, it's a draw.
However: with the rj lens turbo the 58 1,4 works great*, even wide open, whereas the 50 1,2 becomes rather glowy and vague wide open**.
*Well I write great, and I suppose I mean 'great' anno 1970, but still(hope it's alright to put a picture here, please remove otherwise):
**So yes, since this was a bit vague and glowy(although to my eye likable), the 50 1,2 is noticably more so.
And since I don't much like 50mm on crop...well, the 50 1,2 feels at home on the XD7 for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 3669
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
There is just a different look to them(Rokkor vs Hexanon), not that one is better than the other, so it's just personal taste.
I prefer the Rokkor PG 50/1.4 because it's the same optical design as my favorite lens, the Rokkor PG 58/1.2
_________________
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eddieitman
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 1247
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
eddieitman wrote:
I own both, and for me it is the 50mm PG a brilliant lens
_________________
My web site www.digital-darkroom.weebly.com
Life is like a camera. Focus on what's important, capture the good times, develop from the negatives and if things don't work out, just take another shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Layer-cake
Joined: 18 Mar 2013
Posts: 560
Location: Cape Town
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Layer-cake wrote:
Agreed, it really will come to personal preference between them, the only other 50mm 1.4 lenses I have used is a Takumar 8 element 50mm 1.4 and a rikenon 55mm 1.4, I preferred the konica over those and didn't keep them.
I am not sure if this is true but I read somewhere that the japanese government used to use konica lenses as the threshold to test other lenses against, even if it's not true konica produces some amazing glass, the only thing I could comment on in a negative way is that they are a bit clinical, almost to good for what they are designed for and I feel the minolta has a bit more character which I was looking for in a fastish 50mm.
Don't get me wrong, I will never part with my konica  but really like the PG 50mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spokklocka
Joined: 14 Jan 2015
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spokklocka wrote:
One of the quotes on the Artaphot page dedicated to the various 50 1,4s is
| Quote: |
| "Das ältere MC Rokkor-PF 1:1,4/58 mm ist "charaktervoller". Sein Nachfolger, das MC Rokkor-PG 1:1,4/50 mm, ist schärfer und kontrastreicher, dafür nicht mehr so "schön" im Bokeh und in der Schattenzeichnung. Zwischen diesen beiden -- sowohl hinsichtlich des Datums der Markteinführung als auch hinsichtlich "Charakter" und Leistung -- liegt das berühmte MC Rokkor-PG 1:1,2/58 mm." |
Which might be something like
| Quote: |
"The older MC Rokkor-PF 1: 1,4/58 mm is"full of character"." Its successor, the MC Rokkor PG 1: 1.4/50 mm, is sharper and richer in contrast, therefore not as "nice" in the Bokeh and the shadow drawing. Between these two - with regard to the date of the launch, as well as in terms of"Character"and performance - is the famous MC Rokkor PG 1: 1.2/58 mm." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
In my opinion the MC PG is sharp enough wide open. A recent portrait ( sorry for the highlight with some CA on the top of the hair).
It has nice colour and contrast.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davev8app
Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 134
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
davev8app wrote:
use full test of all the rokkor standard primes http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s1.htm
_________________
nex-3c MD f3.5 35-70mm macro.. rokkor 50-135 F3.5 FDn 50mm 1.4.. black jupiter 11 135 F4..big list of 28mm 35mm 50mm 135mm to see what are keepers 5D,40D ,20D, MF Tamron SP 90 F2.5 Macro, Canon 17-35 F2.8L, Canon 80-200 F2.8L Magic drainpipe, Tokina ATX 28-70 F2.6-F2.8 Pro11, Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS The slow one Canon 100-300 F5.6L. Lens i wish i never sold>> Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180 mm f2.8< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1658
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
| Lightshow wrote: |
There is just a different look to them(Rokkor vs Hexanon), not that one is better than the other, so it's just personal taste.
I prefer the Rokkor PG 50/1.4 because it's the same optical design as my favorite lens, the Rokkor PG 58/1.2 |
Yes, both have the same design, but the 50/1,4 have (at least in my copy) more strong CA at f/2 and f/2,8 than his big brother the 1,2/58 and the last is a bit sharper at f/5,6. (the best f/ in both lenses). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
Well, one arrived at home, good price but... free fungus included 
Seller knew and did not write, so already offered refund. It is a pity because to buy this one I let go one just few euros more... and those I see now on Ebay are more expensive.
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
This is the output (ISO3200)... even infected, seems not bad.
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
In the Minolta MF Lens test section there's an comparison different lenses at f=50mm:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche
Seven classical Zeiss / Leitz lenses (Elmar, Summarit, CZJ Tessar f2.8, CZJ Sonnar f1.5, CZJ Biotar f2, ZM Planar, ZM Sonnar):
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/320-nex-5n-und-klassische-50mm-zeiss-leitz-objektive
Seven early Minolta MC Rokkors (1.8/55 AR, 1.4/58 MC-I, 1.4/58 MC-II, 1.7/55 MC-I, 1.7/55 MC-II, 1.2/58 MC-II, 3.5/50 MC-II):
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/321-nex-5n-und-minolta-50mm-objektive-teil-i
Eleven late MC-X and MD Rokkors:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/322-nex-5n-und-minolta-50mm-objektive-teil-ii
Five Minolta MD Zooms at f=50mm:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/323-nex-5n-und-minolta-md-zooms-bei-50mm-teil-iii
All tests performed on NEX-5N (16MP APS-C)!
MD-III 1.2/50mm was missing in 2012 when i did the test; the 1.2/50mm is certainly not worse than the 1.2/58mm (checked using the NEX-5N and the A7II 24MP Full Frame).
Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 393
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
| memetph wrote: |
The MC PG and the MD have the same optical scheme.
Though its weight , the MC PG is a joy to use. You really can focus precisely at f1.4. |
Minolta switched from a 5/7 desgin ("PG") to a 6/7 in the later MDs (the MD50/1.2 is 6/7 too).
I compared my MC-X 50/1.4 to a MD-III 50/1.4, the MC seemed very slightly ahead in sharpness but the MD had visibly more contrast at f/1.4 (newer coatings?).
I love my PG's but the low weight of the MD-II lenses has it's advantages too...
On topic: My vote would go to the 50/1.4, I wasn't too impressed with the 58/1.4 I once had. The FL (equiv. 89mm) is nice on APS-C, though...
_________________
Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VLR
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLR wrote:
I'd support the opinion that the MC Rokkor-PG 50 mm f/1.4 is "the best choice". Slightly higher resolution / central sharpness wide open than the 50 mm MDs and better overall than the MC 58 mm f/1.4 up to f/4. Only downside: My copy of the MC Rokkor-PG has very small lateral CAs that are better corrected in my 50 mm MDs and (!) the 58 mm.
Shameless self-promotion:
58 mm review fresh out of the press
Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58 mm f/1.4
50 mm reviews
Minolta MC Rokkor-PG 50 mm f/1.4
Minolta MD Rokkor 50 mm f/1.4 (55 mm)
Minolta MD Rokkor 50 mm f/1.2
If you want real-life impression of the lenses, I can highly recommend Steve's reviews at artaphot.ch !
_________________
http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 393
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
No need for shame and well done on the reviews!
Just one little quibble in the MD50/1.2 review, you write:
| Quote: |
| The MD Rokkor 50 mm f/1.2 is the successor of the legendary MC Rokkor-PG 58 mm f/1.2, a.k.a. the “bokeh king”. It uses fewer lens elements, is smaller and lighter. |
The MD50/1.2 has 7 lenses in 6 groups, the 58/1.2 has 7 lenses in 5 groups
_________________
Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VLR
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLR wrote:
| Boris_Akunin wrote: |
No need for shame and well done on the reviews!
Just one little quibble in the MD50/1.2 review, you write:
| Quote: |
| The MD Rokkor 50 mm f/1.2 is the successor of the legendary MC Rokkor-PG 58 mm f/1.2, a.k.a. the “bokeh king”. It uses fewer lens elements, is smaller and lighter. |
The MD50/1.2 has 7 lenses in 6 groups, the 58/1.2 has 7 lenses in 5 groups |
Now, why would I write such nonsense?
(Thanks! Corrected it immediately.)
_________________
http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radissimo77
Joined: 20 May 2011
Posts: 111
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
radissimo77 wrote:
from my experience with 58/1.4 was that I liked the bokeh (very slightly longer focal lenght?) but could not live with 0.6m minimal focal distance, aslo I prefer rubber focusing rings- 50/1.4 Rokkor-PG is just joy to use.
I also have/had Auto rokkor 58/1.4 with a small lever (pain ) to close the aperture-the newer is MC rokkor 58/1.4.
in my head to head battle Hexanon 57/1.4 vs MC Rokkor 58/1.4 -Hexanon won (only bokeh was slightly better with Rokkor)
p.s never had a Minolta lens with bad handling, Hexanon are bit worse in this department...)
later Hexanon lost to Topcor 57/1.4 but thats different story... 
_________________
Sony A7 ,A7s, 5T, Ricoh GR,Pana LX100, Canon G7x...& too many MF lenses to list |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Posts: 1364
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
I only have the newer (newest?) MD model of 50/1.4 with 49mm filter. It's like two lenses in one. Wide open it's hazy and glowy and not very sharp. At f/2 it improves, but only very little. But then at f/2.8 it becomes a completely different lens. Very sharp and contrasty across the frame with no haze or glow. I only use it sometimes for general purposes slightly stopped down a bit. I don't like to use it at f/1.4 or f/2 even for portraits because it's too hazy for my liking. But then at f/2.8 the bokeh circles turn to hexagons...
_________________
my flickr stream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
