Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A good 1.4? here's my list
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Considering the Meyer Oreston 1.8/50 or the Pentacon 1.8/50 can both be had very cheaply (less than 20 euros, maybe only 10) it is definitely worth getting one, very good lens, very good bokeh and colours, decent contrast, good for macro work, I like them on bellows.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Regarding avoiding thoriated lenses: I think it is, or can be perfectly reasonable. Most important for me is that I don't want to deal with the yellowing (buying UV flashlights or leaving it in the sun for weeks). From what I've heard it often (never?) clears up 100% and I'd prefer a more colour neutral lens over one that warms up the WB and transmits less blue. Sure, a yellow cast can be removed in PP, but the blue light that didn't make it to the sensor cannot be brought back.

I will soon ( very probably) put my CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 for sale here for a reasonable price. Great sharpness stopped down with this lens on a 5D. Nice 30cm min. focus distance too, which is quite unique.

I think the Pentax-M 50/1.4 should also be a very good option. Nikkor AI or AIs 50/1.8 seems to be one of the best in this price class (quite close to Zeiss in rendering except for colours, according to some).


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I posted a similar question last week, but have had no luck yet in getting a 1.4 or 1.2.

However, I did manage to try out a friends Mamiya Sekor 55mm f/1.4, an Olympus 50mm 1.4, a Chinon 50mm 1.4 and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 over the last weekend on both a Canon 60D and a 7D.

We shot some test video using a follow focus unit.

The verdict?

My Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 performed just as well, much to his dismay and my search for a 1.2 or 1.4 has taken a back seat.

The only gripe with MF lenses is if you don't have a follow focus they can be a bit fiddly to operate, especially compared to the chunkier modern AF Sigma we used.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Regarding avoiding thoriated lenses: I think it is, or can be perfectly reasonable. Most important for me is that I don't want to deal with the yellowing (buying UV flashlights or leaving it in the sun for weeks). From what I've heard it often (never?) clears up 100% and I'd prefer a more colour neutral lens over one that warms up the WB and transmits less blue. Sure, a yellow cast can be removed in PP, but the blue light that didn't make it to the sensor cannot be brought back.

That's a sensible point. In my experience UV light does clear the yellowing completely (or as as near as makes no difference to photography). The thoriated 1.4/50 Takumars are moderately warm in character anyway. And as long as you allow light into the lens occasionally, it doesn't seem to reappear.

I've cleared two Takumars in sunlight, but here is not the sunniest place on earth! Smile One lens took many weeks through the whole winter, but I'm told it can be done in days where the sunlight is consistent and strong. I agree with you about lamps, I wouldn't want to bother with them either.

Quote:
I will soon ( very probably) put my CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 for sale here for a reasonable price. Great sharpness stopped down with this lens on a 5D. Nice 30cm min. focus distance too, which is quite unique.

Which model Pancolar? The zebra and earlier models all used thoriated glass! Smile


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here, you might consider this late Tomioka variant as Voigtländer Color-Ultron: Click here to see on Ebay.de


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting, if it wasn't stuck on a Rolleiflex I'd have sworn that was a Yashica ML series lens, looks identical.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pdesopo wrote:

.
.
.
indianadinos, I'll check the Zuiko on the market place.

Thank you all.


If you want to avoid radioactive lenses, make sure the 50mm 1.4 Zuiko is not one of the early (radioactive) ones. The later ones are supposed to be non-radioactive.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
HI there,

I have found that the old Nikkor S.C. 50mm f/1.4 is a wonderfully sharp lens. It is, IMHO, the sharpest of the pre-AI Nikkors. www.keh.com KEH camera brokers has these for under $100USD. They also have the AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 for as little as $75USD, if you don't mind bargain condition. Please note, KEH's bargain condition is often better than Ebay's mint condition!!! Not sure what KEH's shipping prices or policies are outside of the US, but you could always use a third party in the US to purchase and then ship to you.

Do you really need an f/1.4? If it is to get "that cinema look" of minimal depth of field in a pull focus situation, I understand. But what really is the difference in the depth of field wide open of an f/1.7 vs. f/1.4?

If it is for low-light, I don't think the f/1.4 is necessary. The fine f/1.7 lenses mentioned already in this post are only a 1/2 stop slower, and the f/1.8 lenses only 2/3 stop slower. (f/2 is the next full stop down from f/1.4). Also, you paid big bucks for your 7D which has great high iso low-noise performance - which can be enhanced even more in post processing with noise reduction. In days gone buy film speed WAS a big issue. I remember being amazed when the first 400 speed color films came out when I was in high school! Today, shooting at 6400 with fairly low noise (we used to call it grain) is common place.

The f/1.4 will cost more.

You can get nice bokeh in an f/1.7 or f/1.8, or even f/2 normal, so that isn't it.

So, in conclusion, the Nikkor f/1.4's are nice, and I am sure you could find one within your price range, but you could probably buy 2 or 3 or more f/1.7 or f/1.8's for the same price. Therefore, I would suggest that before you buy you decide why you really want the f/1.4.


Hope this helps!

Paul


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great post Paul.

One lens that is great for video is the Helios 44, it has great bokeh and the clickless aperture is a big boon, it definitely gives a 'filmic' look imho.

Only an f2 though but as you say, with modern high iso cameras, not a problem.

Kubrick would never have bothered with that ultra fast Zeiss lens if faster emulsions had been available for Barry Lyndon.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Kubrick would never have bothered with that ultra fast Zeiss lens if faster emulsions had been available for Barry Lyndon.



I agree. Now, that said, there are some times when a large aperture is warranted. I have a Canon 85mm f/1.2 L and it is an amazing lens wide open. I love the look of a portrait with the just the eyes in focus, and granted, this is a tough trick to pull off with any other kind of lens. Of course, I suppose the effect could be mimmicked in Photo Shop, and my wife hates the images it produces - "Why take a picture if 90% of it is out of focus?". Confused


Paul


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ s58y: thank you for the heads up.

@ pdccameras: thanks for the advice, really appreciated. I actually already bought a Nikon from Keh in the past, a nice 24mm and it was in great conditions for a bargain. After this thread it seems clear to me that a 1.4 it's worthless. In fact, at this point I'm just looking for a good 1.7* (btw the Pentacon looks good).

I see your point about the grain even if I'm wondering what can be used in PP when it comes at something like 6400. The noise reduction doesn't do miracles. After a certain threshold it just smudges everything out.

*edit: I meant 1.8 not 1.7

Last edited by pdesopo on Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:23 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
pdesopo wrote:
I see your point about the grain even if I'm wondering what can be used in PP when it comes at something like 6400. The noise reduction doesn't do miracles. After a certain threshold it just smudges everything out.


Pedesopo, This is a tough one, because everyone's tolerance for grain or noise is different. Also some folks might shoot to accentuate this effect for a gritty, cinema verite feel. I also don't have a 7D and I don't know what your post processing workflow is. I think you should do some tests and see how much noise you feel you can live with for the type of work you do with the equipment and software you have. View the images/videos as you would be displaying them and see what your threshold is. Once you know how high you are willing set the ISO on your camera, you can back calculate the f/stop you will need to get the shot.

Best,

Paul


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
pdccameras wrote:


Pedesopo, This is a tough one, because everyone's tolerance for grain or noise is different. Also some folks might shoot to accentuate this effect for a gritty, cinema verite feel. I also don't have a 7D and I don't know what your post processing workflow is. I think you should do some tests and see how much noise you feel you can live with for the type of work you do with the equipment and software you have. View the images/videos as you would be displaying them and see what your threshold is. Once you know how high you are willing set the ISO on your camera, you can back calculate the f/stop you will need to get the shot.

Best,

Paul


Yes that's true, noise tolerance is something subjective.
So far the best workflow I've found is shooting raw when it comes to shoot still images, almost always standard profile.
Then Cinestlye when it comes to shoot video. This way there's more room for CC in post. And that's another subjective matter as I know many others just avoid flat styles.
There are other things like 24p or 30fps. I simply find that 24p is not that easy, and won't gives that cinema look by just switching to it. That look comes with many others details, so I just prefer to skip that, get a clean footage and focus on the CC.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Quote:
I will soon (very probably) put my CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 for sale here for a reasonable price. Great sharpness stopped down with this lens on a 5D. Nice 30cm min. focus distance too, which is quite unique.

Which model Pancolar? The zebra and earlier models all used thoriated glass! Smile

One of the later models (white MC). Wink


PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Slightly OT: speaking of workflow, among all flat profiles around, I'm finding CineStyle really great for shooting videos.
It's probably the best imho when it comes to CC in post.
http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/cinema/filmmaking/digital-printer-lights/cinestyle


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
pdesopo wrote:
Slightly OT: speaking of workflow, among all flat profiles around, I'm finding CineStyle really great for shooting videos.
It's probably the best imho when it comes to CC in post.
http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/cinema/filmmaking/digital-printer-lights/cinestyle


This has been developing for a couple of years before Technicolor, and the latest version is very similar.
Down to personal taste really, but it's another option.
http://marvelsfilm.wordpress.com/marvels-cine-canon/
Some other useful stuff and links on there also.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would recommend, in the order of personal preference:

- Olympus Zuiko 50/1.4 (the latest version with past 1,000,000 s/n; not G.Zuiko as those are single-coated);
- Yashica ML 50/1.4 (it's currently undervalued - can be had for 50-70 EUR if you're patient);
- Nikkor AI or AIS 50/1.4 (a great lens, but the fact it can mount modern Nikon bodies pushes its price relatively high).
- SMC Pentax M 50/1.4, only if you can find it for under $100 (these can be used on modern Pentax bodies).


I was slightly disappointed with the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (it's rendering wide open is not my cup of tea, but there are those who love it). However, I liked SMC Pentax M 50/1.4 (it's not radioactive and a very decent lens).


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Radioactive nature?

Oh please, the level of emitted radiation is miniscule, even if you walked around with the thing taped to your testicles it wouldn't do you any harm, you receive a lot more radiation every time you fly on a plane. In many palces the rocks emit more natural radiation, it's just not worth worrying about the radiation a lens can emit, it's so tiny.

What about the Canon FD 1.4 SSC? It's one of the two cheapest 1.4s along with the Minolta MD 1.4.


My SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4, m42 mount, registers 122 mcR/H front lens and 687 mcR/H rear lens. Those level don't bother me at all on this great lens. I use it mostly on a Canon 550D with a chipped (for focus confirmation to put me in range) adapter.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2