| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:06 pm Post subject: Minolta 58/1.4 vs Helios 58/2 |
 |
|
revers wrote:
I am still trying to decide which lenses to take to a dimly lit show @ the end of the month. I used the Minolta Rokkor -PF 58/1.4 @ f2 last time & was pleased enough with the results. However, I got to wondering how the Helios 44-2 58/2 would compare, so I did a couple comparisons with both lenses this morning shooting both @ f2.
Critical focus on the flower.
1. Minolta
2. Helios
Critical focus on first lamp.
3. Minolta
4. Helios
Seems to me to be six of one & a half dozen of the other.
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
Seems pretty much a draw to me - but maybe crops show up some differences? I'd take the Minolta, though. It will give an extra stop, useful for either still more subject isolation or a higher shutter speed.
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ymmot
Joined: 24 Sep 2011
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ymmot wrote:
The minolta seems a bit smoother to me (maybe also a small color difference though, helios seems cooler).
There is a hint of circular bokeh effect from the Helios in the last picture, making the Minolta looking less fussy/easier to look at, but also less focussed on the central element.
Maybe to consider is that in the first two pictures one of the highlights in the window has a different shape: more circular for the minolta and more cat-eye like for the Helios.
So depending on the effect you are after, (smooth and easy to look at or more 'dynamic' and focussed on a subject in the center) this may be something to take into consideration, especially if the show you mentioned features any out of focus highlights and stage lights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
I'm bias, so Helios every time. Straight from the heart and not from the eyes.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eddieitman
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 1247
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eddieitman wrote:
I would say the helios for one reason they are both pretty much the same, but the helios weighs a lot less, meaning less body weight and leading to possibly sharper images my Minolta F1.4 is quite a weight.
_________________
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 |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
| eddieitman wrote: |
| I would say the helios for one reason they are both pretty much the same, but the helios weighs a lot less, meaning less body weight and leading to possibly sharper images my Minolta F1.4 is quite a weight. |
I had to check as I never really noticed a difference in weight. I weighed each with adapter & hood as I would be using them:
Helios 12.5 oz.
Minolta 14 oz.
Not a lot of difference but indeed the Helios is lighter.
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tervueren
Joined: 18 May 2011
Posts: 1177
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-08
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tervueren wrote:
Agree with you Ron, not a lot to choose between them on my monitor but I think I'd take the Rokkor, you might just need that extra stop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
| Tervueren wrote: |
| Agree with you Ron, not a lot to choose between them on my monitor but I think I'd take the Rokkor, you might just need that extra stop. |
I have shot this venue a few times before & used a couple f1.4 lenses always @ f2.0 & the ISO maxed out. Last time I shot a few frames with a Minolta 45/2 & was surprised @ how good it was, here is an example:
Minolta 45/2 wide open, ISO 3200, 1/50s
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 3669
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Bring both. 
_________________
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 |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
| Lightshow wrote: |
| Bring both. |
My plan is to take four lenses & two bodies. I will use one lens on a body & switch to a second @ the intermission, thus two lenses on each body. That way it will be easy to keep tract of what lens was used for any particular frame. I will be using a G1 & a GF1, so I will reserve the lighter lenses for the GF1 because it does not have a view finder. So, I am trying to short list what lenses to take. Every time I think I have "got it" I consider another lens for the mix.
It is the fault of this forum that I have so many to chose from. 
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
berraneck
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 972
Location: prague, czech republic
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
berraneck wrote:
for me it´s simple.. rokkor
imho helios is overrated lens..
_________________
equipment doesn´t count, good photographs do |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
| berraneck wrote: |
for me it´s simple.. rokkor
imho helios is overrated lens.. |
Laf, we have a divided camp here. Loyalties aside, we must try & be objective.
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 3437
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
| revers wrote: |
| Laf, we have a divided camp here. Loyalties aside, we must try & be objective. |
So don't ask me 
But I think that the Helios is a quite nice lens for what you have to pay for it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4572
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
I would choose the one I feel more comfortable with, scores with handling or practicality
from what I see probably the Minolta
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
berraneck
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 972
Location: prague, czech republic
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
berraneck wrote:
well simply pictures from minolta lens look better to me 
another is my opinion on helios - it isn´t bad lens, don´t get me bad. but when you take picture noone will judge it according to price of gear used, but picture quality itself. helios may deliver very nice results under specific circumstances, but isn´t a lens which can do all jobs. from this point of view I´d choose minolta.
_________________
equipment doesn´t count, good photographs do |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 2772
Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
Not a simple choice. Either one will do. By the way, I have more Helios than Rokkor but this year I plan to get few more Rokkor.
_________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaeger
Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Posts: 715
Location: Brier, Wash.
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
gaeger wrote:
Boy, that looks like a tough choice. I like your photo taken with the Minolta 45/2. I have one of those sitting on an old XGM body that is kaput. Maybe I should take it out and try it!
_________________
"Here's to the wonder" -- Alan Boyle
Nikkor/Nikon 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, 300, 400, 10-20, 18-35, 18-55, 28-50, 28-70, 24-85, 35-200, 50-300, 75-150, 80-200, 70-210, 70-300
Minolta Rokkor 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 58, 100, 135, 300
My most interesting images | Full photostream
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RTI
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Posts: 282
Location: Moldova, Chisinau
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
RTI wrote:
Rokkor, any day 
_________________
Cameras: Canon 5DIII, Zorki-4, Canon AE-1
MF:Rokkor 58/1.2, Rokkor MC 58/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.7, M39 Jupiter-9 (silver 1955), Zuiko 35-70/3.6
AF: Sigma Art 35/1.4, Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010
Posts: 574
Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
Thanks guys, It looks like the Minolta is the lens most favoured here.
_________________
Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
