| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
motleypixel
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 135
Location: Austin, TX USA
|
 Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject: Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 OR Rokkor 58mm 1.4? |
 |
|
motleypixel wrote:
Hey gang,
Just a few post in here on this forum...looking forward to spending some time here. I've caught the “cult MF lens bug” after picking up an OM Oly G-Zuiko 50 1.4 and slapping it on my 5DMK2...very fun! Now I'm on a hunt for a decent ~50mm 1.4/1.2 that will take both good stills and video.
I'm still looking because the wide open setting of the Oly I mentioned just doesn't seem sharp enough across enough of the center of frame and the focus ring has about a 1mm lag before it begins to engage the helicoid to focus (not precise enough for follow focus usage). Also the damn thing is small...almost too small to use with a follow focus system which I have…I need more meat/glass in a lens.
Now, here's the situation:
I bought a used Minolta Rokkor-PF 58mm f/1.4 used at a garage sale for $5...it had oil on the aperture and it was stuck wide open. I completely broke down the lens (front and back) and managed to clean the aperture blades with q-tips and Napthalene (Naptha) which evaporate quickly and it safe with a lot of plastics etc. What's recommended to clean apertures any way? Now the lens is back together and it's all dry and snappy and the glass hasn't one spec of dust inside it. Only issue is the mount I want to use from Jim Buchanan is a bit costly but worth it due to its precise machining.
Which would be better...keep and use the Rokkor and ditch it and get the Takumar? I need to also find out how big the Takumar is compared to the Rokkor...I love the size and fell of the Rokkor...plenty of circumference and focus ring to attach a follow focus gear.
Thanks!
_________________
-Roy
T h e M o t l e y P i x e l |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FernandoB12
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 231
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FernandoB12 wrote:
Hey Roy,
Well come.
To get infinite focus with a MD/MC mount in a Canon body, you will need a adaptor with glass. It happens because the focal distance in MD/MC is smaller than the Canon one.
If I were you I would run to M42 lenses. They are cheap and good. I have the Takumar 50mm 1.4 that is my fave lens, the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 is realy good too. Both can be used in the Canon body with cheap adapters.
There are a lot of guys with much more experiense than me in the MF forum that will give you more acurated infos.
Take care
_________________
Camera: Nikon D80 Canon 20D Pentax Spotmatic
Manual Lens: Nikkor 24mm f/2.8; Nikkor Ai 50mm f/1.4; Nikkor 50mm f/2.0; Nikkor Micro AI 55mm f/3.5; Nikkor H 85mm f/1.8; Nikkor P.C 105mm f/2.5; Nikkor Q 135mm f/2.8; Nikkor P 180mm f/2.8; Nikon Series E 75~150mm f/3.5;
SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4; SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8; Super Takumar 85mm f/1.9; Takumar S-M-C 120mm f/2.8; Takumar S-M-C 200mm f/4; Tele Takumar 300mm f/6.3
Vivitar Series 1 Macro 105mm 2.5
Helios M44-4 58mm f/2; Soligor 350mm f/5.6; Soligor 135mm f/2.8;
AF Lens: AF-S Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED; AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6; |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 3439
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
I like the Rokkor, but I agree with Fernando because of the need for an adapter with glass (I have one, gives me softfocus with the fast standard Rokkors). I have a Super Takumar 50/1.4 and it is a nice, somewhat smaller lens. Only trouble is that they can get yellow a bit, to cure by using and bathing in UV light. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motleypixel
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 135
Location: Austin, TX USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
motleypixel wrote:
Very good guys...hummm...seems the local ebay Tak 50 1.4's are landing around $100...I can live with just a standard adapter on the Rokkor and sacrifice infinity focus because of mirror/lens interference. I just wan't a solid look/feel lens with good IQ wide open.
hummm...."by using and bathing in UV light" so there's a procedure for curing a yellow colored lens?
Thanks!
_________________
-Roy
T h e M o t l e y P i x e l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| motleypixel wrote: |
Very good guys...hummm...seems the local ebay Tak 50 1.4's are landing around $100...I can live with just a standard adapter on the Rokkor and sacrifice infinity focus because of mirror/lens interference. I just wan't a solid look/feel lens with good IQ wide open.
hummm...."by using and bathing in UV light" so there's a procedure for curing a yellow colored lens?
Thanks! |
Hi.
1- Let me say that the SMC is a bit better lens than the Super Takumar, for me of course.
2- The first 8 elements super takumar 1,4/50 (say super takumar at the front and at the aperture ring between F/1,4 and F/2 the space is the same than between F/2 and F/2, , has a different sharpness. If I can say in this way, this lens is more pictorial rendering. Very interesant and fewer made of the three 1,4/50 takumars.
Good luck.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 488
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
First of all, WHICH Minolta Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4 do you have?
There is the Minolta Auto Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4 with the lever on the side.
Then there is the Minolta Auto Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4 without the lever.
And then there is the Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4
I have the first and the last. The last type (MC Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4) is superior to the Auto Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4
I also have a Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4, the Takumar S-M-C 50mm F1.4, Takumar SMC 50mm F1.4
I've tested 3 of those lenses against each other, but not the Takumar S-M-C or the Takumar SMC.
Of those three:
Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4 (I have two of these, one is excellent, one is very good)
Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 (good)
Minolta Auto Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4 (only just average) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
I like the size and feel of the MC Rokkor 58/1.4 too but I think if you only want to use it on a 5D you would be better off selling it and putting the money towards a lens which doesn't need converting.
I'm a fan of Takumars but I think they are unsuitable for you - they're very compact compared to the Rokkor (49mm diameter filter v. 55mm) and every version of the Tak 50/1.4 will hit the 5D mirror at infinity as far as I know.
I think you would be better off getting a simple adapter and a Nikkor or a Zeiss Planar maybe. Amongst M42 lenses the CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 is fairly chunky and quite good wide open, or you could look at Yashica or Chinon 50/1.4s. If you want a really big and heavy 50mm then the Volna 9 50/2.8 might tempt you  but it's a bit soft wide open.
http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_volna-9.html
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motleypixel
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 135
Location: Austin, TX USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
motleypixel wrote:
dnas,
I have the MC ROKKOR-PF 58MM 1.4 SN 5524976 and another coming in of the same that has excessive oil on it's iris that I will dismantle and use as a factory setting judgment for the adjustment of my current one and to canabolize the best components and combine them to make the best lens possible.
Is it okay to switch elements between two of the same lenses?
peterqd,
Right off the bat I just feel turned off at lenses of 49mm filter size...it just makes the use of them on a shoulder rail mount with a rail mount follow focus very difficult...55mm would be the min. and 72mm would be ideal. On the other hand lighter is better with filming since the rig can get really heavy quick.
What's M42 anyway? I've seen this type mount mentioned a lot...so this mount is easy to adapt to EOS EF with a simple adapter right? How does the CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 or Yashica 50/1.4 compare to the MC-Rokkor 58/1.4 or even better perhaps the 58/1.2?
I know the Rokkor will hit my mirror at infinity but I didn't know the Takumars would do this too...for me I would adjust the helicoid and/or file some of the rear element housing if necessary and just adjust toward infinity position until just before hitting the mirror and thus rendering the lens unable to focus at true infinity since I really only intend to focus closer.
Thanks for the help guys!
_________________
-Roy
T h e M o t l e y P i x e l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan Lee
Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
|
| Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ivan Lee wrote:
I have both lenses, a SMC Takumar 50/1.4 and a Auto Rokkor 58/1.4
I also have a 50/1.4 Rokkor PG
The SMC is sharper than the Auto Rokkor 58/1.4, and just a little bit sharper than the 50/1.4 Rokkor
I think the Rokkor bokeh is a little better, but that's subjective...
Ask me if you want any samples!
_________________
Ivan Lee Barcellos - Director of Photography
www.planoconjunto.com.br
Sony A7s
Lumix GH3
Minolta MC: Minolta MC 24/2.8 - Minolta MD 28/2 - Minolta MC 35/1.8 - Minolta MC 35/2.8 - Minolta MD 50/1.2 - Minolta MD Macro 50/3.5 - Minolta MD 100/2.5
Konica AR: Hexanon 28/3.5 - Hexanon 50/1.7 - Hexanon 57/1.4
M42: Industar 50-2 - CZ Pancolar 50/1.8
Olympus OM: Zuiko Auto-Macro 50/3.5 - Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motleypixel
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 135
Location: Austin, TX USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
motleypixel wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing side-by-side of the SMC vs the MC-ROKKOR 50/1.4 I wonder how it would stack up the the MC-ROKKOR 58/1.4?
Thanks!
_________________
-Roy
T h e M o t l e y P i x e l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
If you can, Rokkor 58/1.2. I had Takumar, I stay for ever with the Rokkor 58/1.2 or 1.4.-
Greetings
http://forum.mflenses.com/rokkor-mc-58-1-2-first-impression-t27942.html
_________________
Canon 5D II-Sony nex 6
Canon L 80-200 f 2.8 - Canon L 135 f2 - Canon FD 135/2.5 convert to EOS - Yashica 50 1.4 ML - Canon FD 50 1.2 - Distagon 35mm 2.8 T AEJ - Minolta MC 24mm f 2.8 - Canon LTM 85 1.9- Canon LTM 85mm 1.9 convert to EOS - Rodenstock Heligon 50 1.9 - Color Skopar 50 2.8 & MAte Box & filters 4X4
Contax RTS II y Minolta SRT 303 - 28-135 3.6 Tokina - Minolta MD 45 f2.0 - Minolta Zoom 80 200 4.5 (Leica)
www.isgleasphoto.com
The life is more easy with this forum .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
Rokkor 58/1.2 wide open - Yes, at f 1.2 - 1000 asas - without post processing -
Excuse me, between this lens and me, there is love.  
_________________
Canon 5D II-Sony nex 6
Canon L 80-200 f 2.8 - Canon L 135 f2 - Canon FD 135/2.5 convert to EOS - Yashica 50 1.4 ML - Canon FD 50 1.2 - Distagon 35mm 2.8 T AEJ - Minolta MC 24mm f 2.8 - Canon LTM 85 1.9- Canon LTM 85mm 1.9 convert to EOS - Rodenstock Heligon 50 1.9 - Color Skopar 50 2.8 & MAte Box & filters 4X4
Contax RTS II y Minolta SRT 303 - 28-135 3.6 Tokina - Minolta MD 45 f2.0 - Minolta Zoom 80 200 4.5 (Leica)
www.isgleasphoto.com
The life is more easy with this forum .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 488
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
| motleypixel wrote: |
I wouldn't mind seeing side-by-side of the SMC vs the MC-ROKKOR 50/1.4 I wonder how it would stack up the the MC-ROKKOR 58/1.4?
Thanks! |
Ok, I've done some tests, and I'll post the ACTUAL crops later, but so far as the SMC Takumar, MC Rokkor 50mm and MC Rokkor 58mm (all F1.4) go, here are some prelim observations wide open, and on a 4/3 sensor (Panasonic G1):
All three show about the same resolution & contrast in the centre.
The MC Rokkor 50mm shows the best corner resolution, followed by MC Rokkor 58mm, then SMC Takumar, then Super-Takumar.
Both Takumars show the most CA in the corners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motleypixel
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 135
Location: Austin, TX USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
motleypixel wrote:
| dnas wrote: |
| motleypixel wrote: |
I wouldn't mind seeing side-by-side of the SMC vs the MC-ROKKOR 50/1.4 I wonder how it would stack up the the MC-ROKKOR 58/1.4?
Thanks! |
All three show about the same resolution & contrast in the centre.
The MC Rokkor 50mm shows the best corner resolution, followed by MC Rokkor 58mm, then SMC Takumar, then Super-Takumar.
Both Takumars show the most CA in the corners. |
You're making sense based off of the general consensus on the web. Humm, the MC-Rokkor 50 vs 58 is interesting...assuming the center resolution and CA is the same? I'll have to find a MC-Rokkor 50/1.4 then
Awaiting those samples...thanks!
_________________
-Roy
T h e M o t l e y P i x e l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 488
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
Ok here are the test results.
First is the setup. I've put the test sheets on the window, so that they are back lit, to test out the contrast a bit. This is quite tough, but gives a reasonable indication of contrast performance, and there's enough contrast to see some CA if it's there. All shot wide open at F1.4
All of the centre images are lined up with the centre circle, and the 100% crop shows a little towards the left of the circle as well, so you can see the thick lines.
MC Rokkor 58mm F1.4
MC Rokkor 50mm F1.4
Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4
SMCTakumar 50mm F1.4
Resolution about the same, contrast is better on the Takumars!!!!
And:
MD Rokkor 50mm F1.4
Olympus OM 50mm F1.4
Nikkor 50mm F1.4
Canon SSC 50mm F1.4
Konica Hexanon 57mm F1.4
I'm not sure about you, but I think the best one looks like the Canon SSC 50mm F1.4, maybe the SMC Takumar second?
Next post is the corner!!!
Last edited by dnas on Sat May 15, 2010 9:33 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 488
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
And now the corners. (bottom left corner of the main shot)
This is a REAL eye opener!!!!!!!!
MC Rokkor 58mm F1.4
MC Rokkor 50mm F1.4
Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4
SMCTakumar 50mm F1.4
MD Rokkor 50mm F1.4
Olympus OM 50mm F1.4
Nikkor 50mm F1.4
Canon SSC 50mm F1.4
Konica Hexanon 57mm F1.4
The absolute stand out is the Canon SSC 50mm F1.4 It is sharp, sharp, sharp, with a touch of CA.
The Olympus is second, and then mainly the Rokkors and the Nikon!!!!
The Takumars are not sharp and have a lot of CA, but contrast is good.
The Rokkors have lower contrast, but pretty much no CA
The Hexanon is the worst of them, but I have to say, the Konica Hexanon 50mm F1.7 is a gem, and very sharp. (I've test that before)
Another one that also great is the Olympus OM Auto-s 50mm F1.8 Not as sharp in the corners, but brilliant contrast!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Dnas. Thanks for sharing.
It's excelent.
Perhaps could be nice to see the F/4 or 5,6 test. I said nice, 'cos that new test should let to us have a better idea of each lens (very good at F/1,4 and not so at F/5,6 ?).
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motleypixel
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 135
Location: Austin, TX USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
motleypixel wrote:
Awesome dnas, thanks a million! What body were you using, just out of curiosity I don't you used the same body so it's apples-to-apples comparison.
For the corners I feel too the Canon wins but the Rokkor 58/1.4 comes in second for sure. Know I know when I use video on my 5DMK2 to bump contrast up a bit...but wow the corners for the others are meek in comparison to the Canon and Rokkor 58/1.4.
Awesome test...really appreciate it!
_________________
-Roy
T h e M o t l e y P i x e l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 488
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
I used a Panasonic G1.
Because of that, you have to realise that on your Canon 5D MkII, the 2x crop factor of the G1 will crop out much of the corner softness!!!!!
In other words, the corners will be even softer on your Canon 5D MkII, so these test will enable you to weed out lenses that will not be much good on the 5D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motleypixel
Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 135
Location: Austin, TX USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
motleypixel wrote:
| dnas wrote: |
I used a Panasonic G1.
Because of that, you have to realise that on your Canon 5D MkII, the 2x crop factor of the G1 will crop out much of the corner softness!!!!!
In other words, the corners will be even softer on your Canon 5D MkII, so these test will enable you to weed out lenses that will not be much good on the 5D. |
Yep got two MC Rokkor 58/1.4's and now I want a Canon SSC 50mm F1.4 (will this canon adapt easily to a 5DMK2?).
Thanks again!
Roy
_________________
-Roy
T h e M o t l e y P i x e l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 488
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
| motleypixel wrote: |
| dnas wrote: |
I used a Panasonic G1.
Because of that, you have to realise that on your Canon 5D MkII, the 2x crop factor of the G1 will crop out much of the corner softness!!!!!
In other words, the corners will be even softer on your Canon 5D MkII, so these test will enable you to weed out lenses that will not be much good on the 5D. |
Yep got two MC Rokkor 58/1.4's and now I want a Canon SSC 50mm F1.4 (will this canon adapt easily to a 5DMK2?).
Thanks again!
Roy |
The Canon SSC 50mm F1.4 will not easily adapt. Because of the register distance(42mm, Canon EF is 44mm) and the breech-lock mount(which effectively takes away another 2mm of room), you can't get the lens elements close enough to any DSLR's sensor for infinity focus, by placing an adapter in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 488
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
Dnas. Thanks for sharing.
It's excelent.
Perhaps could be nice to see the F/4 or 5,6 test. I said nice, 'cos that new test should let to us have a better idea of each lens (very good at F/1,4 and not so at F/5,6 ?).
Rino. |
Ok, here SOME!!!!!
Here's the SMC Takumar again, in the lower left corner:
SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4
SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F2
SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F2.8
SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 @ F4
You can see how the image is improved by stopping down. For these tests on a micro 4/3 sensor, the diffractive limit is reached around F8, where the resolution will start to decline (in the Canon 5D MkII, it will be around F16)
And the best of the rest:
Canon SSC 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4
Canon SSC 50mm F1.4 @ F4
MC Rokkor 58mm F1.4 @F1.4
MC Rokkor 58mm F1.4 @F4
The Takumar is a lot better in the corner at F4 than at F1.4, but still not even as good as the Canon SSC F1.4 @ F1.4 !!!!!!
The MC Rokkor 58mm F1.4 @ F4 is BETTER than the Canon SSC 50mm F1.4 @ F4, with no visible CA at all !!!!!! It's a great lens, but not as good as the Canon SSC 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4
Last edited by dnas on Sun May 16, 2010 12:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Great Dnas. ANother very good job.
Thanks for sharing again.
Rinol
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1344
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
Thanks for the great test, Dnas. You are making my LAS act up- again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
francotirador
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Posts: 894
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
francotirador wrote:
Great work, congratulations. For these things I got rid of my takumar and Pentax.
Greetings.
_________________
Canon 5D II-Sony nex 6
Canon L 80-200 f 2.8 - Canon L 135 f2 - Canon FD 135/2.5 convert to EOS - Yashica 50 1.4 ML - Canon FD 50 1.2 - Distagon 35mm 2.8 T AEJ - Minolta MC 24mm f 2.8 - Canon LTM 85 1.9- Canon LTM 85mm 1.9 convert to EOS - Rodenstock Heligon 50 1.9 - Color Skopar 50 2.8 & MAte Box & filters 4X4
Contax RTS II y Minolta SRT 303 - 28-135 3.6 Tokina - Minolta MD 45 f2.0 - Minolta Zoom 80 200 4.5 (Leica)
www.isgleasphoto.com
The life is more easy with this forum .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
