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

Canon FL 58mm F/1.2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
stingOM wrote:
WOW, I am stunned. Your copy seems to be outstanding!! Shocked Shocked
Mine is no where near as sharp as yours. Mind you your shots are stopped down.
http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fl-58mm-f1-2-and-panny-g1-t35277,highlight,%2Bfl+%2B58mm+%2Bf1+%2B2.html


Thank You. To be totally sincere, I thought I got a lemon, since I was stunned by the clarity of the photos in the first posts of this topic.

Quote:
Mind you your shots are stopped down.


the photos are wide open@f1.2


Yeah my mistake. I had another look. With my copy, close distant subjects are way sharper than mid (portrait) to long distant subjects. Yours seems to be exceptional at close to mid distances. Conglats Wink

BTW which m43 body were you using? Your second bunch of shots looks more like my copy's in terms of sharpness. I am wondering now if it has more to do with manual focusing error?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stingOM wrote:

BTW which m43 body were you using? Your second bunch of shots looks more like my copy's in terms of sharpness. I am wondering now if it has more to do with manual focusing error?


The camera body was a sony nex-5.
I've taken a look at your photos, some of them seem quite sharp, so I might guess it's more of a focusing error issue; Besides wide-open the lens suffers from heavy CA and fringing, so it's hard to judge the sharpness, though reading 1st post, It's like we speak of totally different lenses...

Tesselator wrote:

Wide open it's sharp, little to no CA, great color and contrast (pop - unusual for older canon lenses I think), and the bokeh is smooooth and creamy - just how I like it.



PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Strange, I thought you said:
Tesselator wrote:
....I'm on a M4/3 camera so I can't assess corner performance but the centers and bokeh are exceptionally nice with this lens. Wide open it's sharp, little to no CA, great color and contrast (pop - unusual for older canon lenses I think), and the bokeh is smooooth and creamy - just how I like it.


Anyway, so it was all taken with the NEX-5 then..I think it is possible with MF error. But I have used it several times and it is not sharp at mid focusing distance. Close focus is quiet good IMO. But when stopped down to f2 or beyond, it is very very sharp!!


PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="stingOM"]Strange, I thought you said:
Tesselator wrote:
....I'm on a M4/3 camera so I can't assess corner performance but the centers and bokeh are exceptionally nice with this lens. Wide open it's sharp, little to no CA, great color and contrast (pop - unusual for older canon lenses I think), and the bokeh is smooooth and creamy - just how I like it.


Smile Nope, I didn't say that, that was said by another person, the OP - Tesselator, I suppose you were impressed by his examples too (on the first page of this topic) Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="RTI"]
stingOM wrote:
Strange, I thought you said:
Tesselator wrote:
....I'm on a M4/3 camera so I can't assess corner performance but the centers and bokeh are exceptionally nice with this lens. Wide open it's sharp, little to no CA, great color and contrast (pop - unusual for older canon lenses I think), and the bokeh is smooooth and creamy - just how I like it.


Smile Nope, I didn't say that, that was said by another person, the OP - Tesselator, I suppose you were impressed by his examples too (on the first page of this topic) Wink


I got all mixed up!!! Embarassed Thanks for the pointer.
Goes to show that there is much sample to sample variation.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great set of pictures, number 5 just blew me away. Fabulous image !

That's another lens on my wanted list I guess ? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I did some testings today, found some interesting results (well interesting for me Smile ) - I'll begin with the conclusion, the actual amount that goes through the lens at it's max aperture equals to my other 58mm lens - the rokkor MC 58/1.4, both lenses were mounted on same body - nex-5, in shutter speed priority with fixed ISO settings - both lenses had same maximum shutter speeds equal between them, in the same light and the photo's taken had the same brightness. To me this is the case when the maximum aperture value is just a geometric relation, actual T stops are different...
Of course this may be due to the age of the lenses, FL is known for thorium glass elements which become yellowish with time (the case with mine too), so it may influence the light being passed to the sensor.

Just to add - testing my minolta maxxum AF 50/1.4 showed that it's even faster ~1/4 stops at equal apertures, though it was tested on another body A700, and ISO values can be different meaning that A700 has more "honest" ISO's Smile

PS
Even that I don't actually win on having a faster lens, I still like it's rendering

Canon FL 58/1.2:


PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The cause is probably better coating on Rokkor. I found too, that my Porst MC 1.2/55 transfers more light than older Tomioka Revuenon 1.2/55.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IAZA wrote:
damn good, I tested this lens, but not that sharp. No PP?


Probably mostly due to sample variation. There's only the minimal amount of sharpening in my sample images. I use the scaling algo marked "Best For Smooth Gradients" and then apply my own level of sharpening so I can tune it to the image detail. It's usually less sharpening than the algo marked "Best Of Reduction" introduces.

I recommend selling your copy and trying another. Wink

Also to note is that as with any lens that has a large front element, I use a large rubber hood and no filters! This is mainly so that I don't nick the glass but I've seen studies which show that the use of large hoods can really improve things a lot while the use of filters can really degrade things a lot! Wink



Here's some more shots with mine. This is stopped down about 1/2 a stop - so like f/1.3 or something... Very Happy























These are "processed" for the image tho and not really puritanical lens samples. Still if you're used to looking at PP'd photos (as most of us are) they are telling of the lens's quality and character.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yesterday with the Canon FL 58mm F/1.2 - All taken at F/1.2 and ISO 200 on the GH1:


[center]

ISO 200, F/1.2, 1/15s









ISO 200, F/1.2, 1/50s









ISO 200, F/1.2, 1/50s









ISO 200, F/1.2, 1/80s









ISO 200, F/1.2, 1/25s









ISO 200, F/1.2, 1/100s





[/center]


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
These are ridiculously sharp compared to my copy at f1.2! Shocked


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I now have three copies of this lens. They all render identically. The images above are from the most recently acquired copy.

There's almost no PP in these other than scaling with "Best For Reduction". On the one of the young girl I used the spot removal tool to nuke some blemishes however.

These were all taken in VERY low restaurant light - no flash of course! I guess a typical 2.0 to 2.8 lens would want to expose for a second or longer at ISO 100. It's nice to have a 1.2 I can depend on good results from and not have to crank the ISO past about 200 or 320!


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
Yesterday with the Canon FL 58mm F/1.2 - All taken at F/1.2 and ISO 200 on the GH1:




Though I like the colors and rendering, there seems a lot of sharpening has been applied, could you upload some .raw files?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What? No, of course not.

But the sharpening you see is due to the use of the PS Scale tool as indicated.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are you sure you didn't drink alot of saki and use your 85/1.2? Smile


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
Are you sure you didn't drink alot of saki and use your 85/1.2? Smile


Four beers. I don't usually start making mistakes till my seventh. But two of those were after only my first sip. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
What? No, of course not.

But the sharpening you see is due to the use of the PS Scale tool as indicated.


Didn't mean to sound rude, or offend you in any way... It seems you've gotten a really nice sample of that lens Smile


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
Tesselator wrote:
What? No, of course not.

But the sharpening you see is due to the use of the PS Scale tool as indicated.


Didn't mean to sound rude, or offend you in any way... It seems you've gotten a really nice sample of that lens Smile


+1^3


PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
RTI wrote:
Tesselator wrote:
What? No, of course not.

But the sharpening you see is due to the use of the PS Scale tool as indicated.


Didn't mean to sound rude, or offend you in any way... It seems you've gotten a really nice sample of that lens Smile


+1^3


Yup! Three "really nice samples" of it. Which to me begs the question of if someone's sample is extra good or someone else's sample is poor. Also there's the skill factor. I'm not great at all or even many areas of photography but I do seem to have this uncanny sense for being able to tell how to use a given lens optimally. I can for example, produce images with this lens which look like total crap at f/1.2 - soft all over with no redeeming qualities. Like trying to shoot people in soft light from 8 to 10 meters away as just one example. Or trying to shoot high contrast geometrical objé at close proximity. Take a look at the younger girls chop-sticks and use your imagination for how bad that might look. In both those cases as just two examples, I somehow just instinctively know to stop down to 2.0 or more as well as which lighting will work and which won't, etc.. And every lens is like that too - not just this one. So if others are making mistakes with the equipment then there's that too which might account for some of the differences. I have no idea but it's always a possibility - thus mentioned.

Lastly I'm not offended nor think anyone here rude. It's OK to ask... but sometimes the answer is no. And this is a discussion about a hunk of glass stuck in front of a camera - I have almost no emotional investments at all. If someone else tried this model and didn't like it or didn't understand it, that's OK, I'm cool with that.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
RTI wrote:
Tesselator wrote:
What? No, of course not.

But the sharpening you see is due to the use of the PS Scale tool as indicated.


Didn't mean to sound rude, or offend you in any way... It seems you've gotten a really nice sample of that lens Smile


+1^3


Yup! Three "really nice samples" of it.


Actually, the caret symbol -- "^" -- means 'to the power of,' so what I meant was "plus 1 cubed". But since, from a mathematical point of view, "plus 1 cubed" is identical in value to "plus 1" I guess my comment wasn't all that meaningful. In this respect, your interpretation works better. Cool Regardless of the techniques you employed, it is obvious that 58/1.2 is an excellent performer.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hehe.. But yeah... I guess I would say it's a fun and unique performer which can produce excellent results.

An "excellent performer" to me is something more like the Canon 85mm F/1.2 L or something like that - something very consistent etc..

That's how I'm seeing it at this time anyway. Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well lemme tell ya, as a guy who owns a Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical -- which is at least as good as the "L" -- I have found that it takes some work to get good images with it too. When shooting wide open with it, I have to be extremely aware of everything that's going on in terms of movement because the depth of field is so thin. Not only do I have to pay attention to the exact point of focus and whether it's moving or not, but I have to discipline myself to remain immovable as well. I've screwed up quite a few photos with that lens and the only reason why I can figure I did was because I was the one that moved -- not the subject. When stopped further down it becomes much more easy to use and then the photos really begin to shine. But I'm addicted to the images I can capture with that lens wide open -- and same goes for my FL 55mm f/1.2 -- so I continue to work at improving my technique with a lens that really can be quite a challenge to use.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yup, a perfect example of the skill-set I was referring to. With the 58/1.2 now imagine an additional softness at f/1.2 which can be diminished or conquered all together by the contrast, lighting, and subject distance one chooses or encounters. You can see how it affects distant shots in the kitchen photo I posted - notice the edges of the metal shelf, etc.



And how it affects close proximity shots as seen on the chopsticks here - just to use my most recent examples:



In the first example imagine how that would look if I were trying to capture face and hair detail - or if the scene were nothing but those shelves and I hadn't attempted to draw the audiences' attention away from the shelves with the steam and partially hidden cook. etc. etc. I could go over each image in this thread and explain why it works or not but I guess most get what we're talking about by now.

As you point out every lens is like this is some way or ways. It's up to us as the photographer to recognize them and act accordingly. Some are easy to get as in the example of the 85/1.2 L while others take a little thought and planning as in the case of the Rokkor 58/1.2 or this FL 58/1.2 etc.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[center]

My Friend Rests

Canon FL 58mm F/1.2 (F/1.2 1/80s, ISO100)

[/center]


PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:38 pm    Post subject: Re: One for sale... Reply with quote
Pardon me, but that doesn't look "mint" to me, and the price is exaggerated...

P.S.
It's strange, to me at least, seeing someone advertising a lens, and providing photos taken with a different copy.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3