View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bille
Joined: 03 Jan 2013 Posts: 381
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:59 am Post subject: Quick comparison Canon FD 50/1.2 L vs X-Fujinon EBC 50/1.2 |
|
|
Bille wrote:
Quick comparison Canon FD 50/1.2 L vs X-Fujinon EBC 50/1.2 on Sony NEX 7
f1.2 Performance
X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f1.2
X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f1.2 (Crop)
Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f1.2
Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f1.2 (Crop)
f4 Performance
X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f4
X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f4 (Crop)
Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f4
Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f4 (Crop)
"Bokeh"
X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f1.2
Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f1.2
X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f2.8
Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f2.8
Please draw your conclusions! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
qtmonster
Joined: 15 Jun 2011 Posts: 37 Location: Singapore
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
qtmonster wrote:
To my eyes, the FD50L seems warmer and resolves more details. The latter is apparent on the last 2 shots. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2201 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
The canon looks better wide open, but it's a bit hard to tell from small pics. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
inombrable
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
inombrable wrote:
Canon is looking better in this test to my eyes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 2877
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Yep, Canon is better, no surprises here. The obvious difference is less CA in Canon, aspherics rule. That's about 2 to 4x difference in price though _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Phenix jc
Joined: 19 Dec 2009 Posts: 398 Location: France
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Phenix jc wrote:
The L is better w o.
Fortunately...
The bokeh is very similar.
Thanks for sharing. _________________ "Plonger les choses dans la lumière, c'est les plonger dans l'infini" Léonard De Vinci
f/1.2 club Zuiko : 50/1.2, 55/1.2 Rokkor : 50/1.2, 58/1.2 Nikkor : 50/1.2, 55/1.2 Third Party : Porst(Fujinon-X) 50/1.2, Porst 55/1.2 Canon : S 50/1.2, nFD 50/1.2, FL 55/1.2, R 58/1.2, nFD 85/1.2 Hexanon : 57/1.2 Nokton : 50/1.1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57849 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
fermy wrote: |
Yep, Canon is better, no surprises here. The obvious difference is less CA in Canon, aspherics rule. That's about 2 to 4x difference in price though |
+1 _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bille
Joined: 03 Jan 2013 Posts: 381
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bille wrote:
I see a trace of higher resolution on the Fujinon, at the expense of contrast. Bokeh is smoother on the L.
Waiting for the rumored FD Speedbooster now ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lukias
Joined: 09 Jun 2011 Posts: 11 Location: NZ
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
lukias wrote:
Honestly, the Fujinon definitley resolves more detail WO(but with blooming and CA) and closed down.
Its pretty clear if you look beyond the hazyness. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Both are nice. Thanks for sharing. _________________ 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 |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
I don't have the Canon (I have a lot of other f1.2 lenses though) and it's hard to say from these samples but the X-Fujinon is surprisingly sharp at large apertures and the pictures turn out really nice after some post processing. Both lenses are expensive now, the Canon because it has always been expensive and the X-Fujinon because it is good and because it is extremely rare. X-Fujinons used to be cheap but since we got mirrorless cameras and adapters, the prices have skyrocketed. You can hardly find a X-Fujinon 50/1.2 and if you do, you will have to pay a collectors premium. _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bille
Joined: 03 Jan 2013 Posts: 381
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bille wrote:
Pontus wrote: |
You can hardly find a X-Fujinon 50/1.2 and if you do, you will have to pay a collectors premium. |
True. The insiders' tip is to find a PORST 50/1.2 which is in fact the same lens.
Click here to see on Ebay.de
But dont tell everyone... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
I think that the rokkor 58/1.2 has a bit better perform. Of the two fuji and canon, the last for me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
The main problem with the Fujinon is that wide open the spherical aberration diffuses the purple fringing (along with everything else) making it appear wider than it actually is. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
8310
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 Posts: 123
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
8310 wrote:
Bille wrote: |
Pontus wrote: |
You can hardly find a X-Fujinon 50/1.2 and if you do, you will have to pay a collectors premium. |
True. The insiders' tip is to find a PORST 50/1.2 which is in fact the same lens.
Click here to see on Ebay.de
But dont tell everyone... |
True, although the Porst's prices have gone up quite a bit as well recently... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
szpeter22
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 Posts: 1 Location: Budapest
|
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:50 pm Post subject: Quick comparison Canon FD 50/1.2 L vs X-Fujinon EBC 50/1.2 |
|
|
szpeter22 wrote:
To my eyes F1.2 crop photo of Fujinon shows better sharpness and contrast, but with obviously much worse CA. It would be nice to see the full resolution files. At F4 the Fujinon has again stronger contrast in the cropped image. I can see wrinkles on the forehead, or the lips in Fujinon image, which I can hardly detect in the Canon picture. Canon has smoother bokeh. Fujinon seems to have less shallow DOF, the background is less blurred. Fujinon colors are more realistic, but Canon's color looks more appaeling.
Fujinon EBC 50 1.2 is definitely not the same optical formula as Porst UMC 50 1.2. Physically the two lenses are identical outside, except the logo, of course. But Fujinon has a shorter focal distance (47-48 mm). In short distance test (portrait 2m) Porst has a bit better sharpness wide open, but definitely worse when closed down. Porst has a warmer color than Fujinon. Fujinon percieved sharpness is close to that of Contax at F1.7 and F2, but Contax is still better. (No F1.7 click on Fujinon, but you can set it easily for a test)
Test shots are here (Olympus OM 50 1.8 and Pentax SMC 50 1.2 included), 1.6x cropped by Canon 450D:
www.flickr.com/photos/69721502@N06/
Shots were taken on tripod, live view, 10x magnification for focusing and 2 sec delay for reducing camera shake.
Checking with the target Fujinon colors seem to be the truest, however Contax looks nicer (warmer). Bokeh is the smoothest on Pentax, but at the cost of weaker general sharpness. When light spots are in the image stopping down Porst and Fujinon 6 blade aperture becomes obvious, Contax keeps up pretty well. Pentax is of course the best with its 8 aperture blades.
Pentax costs about the same as Fujinon, but this latter is very difficult to find. Fujinon costs 3x the Contax and double the Porst. Fujinon and Porst is small, 298 grams only, Contax is only 190 grams.
Fujinon is very sharp and contrasty from F2.8 in any terms and especially for a F1.2 lens. It is sharper in every position than Pentax SMC 50 1.2 by a clear margin and on RAW files it is a bit sharper and contrastier than the Contax.
The best buy, I think, is Contax, cheap, lightweight, sharp and contrasty from F1.7, bokeh is smooth, colors are typical Zeiss T*. It is easy to manually focus due to high contrast wide open and the mechanical perfection.
Porst is very good wide open in the centre, but soft everywhere else compared to the competition here (the test is not on FF camera!) Stopping down it remains only average in the centre and even worse away from the centre.
One more note: the sharpness of F1.2 manual focusing lenses is first of all in your ability to focus properly. I have made 2-4 test shots in each position and could find difference in sharpness in many cases. Using these lenses in real life typically does not allow so much preparation. And lens copies can vary a lot, too. The observations above only apply to my copies.
Last edited by szpeter22 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6943 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Not a great deal in it, but the Canon wins on sharpness, CA & bokeh IMO. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shapencolour
Joined: 03 Oct 2013 Posts: 270
|
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shapencolour wrote:
In my eyes Porst is sharper and contrastier than Canon at f4,save chromatic aberrations that are more pronounced at f 1.2 (The Canon has an aspherical edge to be seen).
What I experienced so far was that Porst 50/1.2 (not the 55/1.2 made by Cosina,very good,but different 6/4 optical design) and EBC Fujinon 50/1.2 were of identical performance on the NEX5N/7- no wonder ,the same 7/7 optical construction and coatings - Fuji made. _________________ shapencolour |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rafa1981
Joined: 15 Jul 2010 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rafa1981 wrote:
I am owner of the Porst UMC-X too and I know the lens rendering well. Looking at the pics posted on the internet using the Fuji branded version I can say that I'm almost sure that optically is the same lens as its Fuji counterpart. Just that the Fuji is rarest, so it has the usual collector's fee.
In my opinion this lens is best used at f2 and f2.8 where the image quality is hard to believe for such a low pedigree lens. This lens was sharp enough to be used at f1.2 in 4/3 (E620 with 12MPx) given dark subjects and controlled light (otherwise the spherical aberration shows up). I think that the center can outresolve a 36MPx FF sensor at f2, but take it with a grain of salt, as I have never tested it.
The "flaws" of this lens, or at least my copy that the aberrations above f4 are a little below the performance that the slower 50mm lenses use to have and the strong green/magenta bokeh/OOF areas aberration. _________________ My flickr.
Gear: Constantly evolving. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fujinonuser
Joined: 06 Jan 2011 Posts: 128 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fujinonuser wrote:
@szpeter22
I have owned several different copies of the Fujinon and the Porst 1.2 / 50mm lenses and I cannot confirm that both lenses are different. The Porst is a re-branded Fujinon in all respects. We must not forget that we speak here of photographic gear that left the factory about thirty years ago. When you compare Fujinon lenses of the same speed and focal length, you will notice that there are slight differences within the same focal length. Apparently, those lenses were manufactured and coated at different times, meeting the overall quality standards of Fujinon lenses. Personally, I cannot remember the Fujinon or Porst lenses to be as foggy WO as shown in the sample pics. The EBC coating usually eliminates ghosting to a higher degree than with other much better known brands. Color fringing (CA) was not to be seen in pictures taken on film, but it may become visible in certain conditions in digital photography. Its visibility also depends on the camera used. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bille
Joined: 03 Jan 2013 Posts: 381
|
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bille wrote:
Fujinonuser wrote: |
. Personally, I cannot remember the Fujinon or Porst lenses to be as foggy WO as shown in the sample pics. |
I dont remember exactly if there was a filter on the lens affecting results. I may do a retest with the A7 at a later stage. However, I owned several copies of the 50/1.2 and found them to be equally "dreamy" at f1.2.
I have not used any of the Fujinons for the last few months but the A7 will certainly spark new interest. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pengbai
Joined: 16 May 2013 Posts: 25
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pengbai wrote:
Bille wrote: |
Pontus wrote: |
You can hardly find a X-Fujinon 50/1.2 and if you do, you will have to pay a collectors premium. |
True. The insiders' tip is to find a PORST 50/1.2 which is in fact the same lens.
Click here to see on Ebay.de
But dont tell everyone... |
Haha! Nice one! _________________ Pentax User |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fujinonuser
Joined: 06 Jan 2011 Posts: 128 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fujinonuser wrote:
@Bille
I must admit that my experience with the 1.2 Fujinons and Porsts was with analog film cameras and high-resolution film. I guess that there are also differences among different manufacturers of digital cameras. Nevertheless, some coma with an ultra-fast lens would not be surprising. In digital photography, if you stop down an ultra-fast lens and compare it to a standard lens at the same aperture stop, you may encounter some astonishing results due to the wider rear element of the ultra-fast lens. That's only my personal two cents, of course. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|