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

Searching for a f1.2 around 50mm for EOS
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
dsmlogger wrote:
I don't think that any f/1.2 lens is really sharp @ f/1.2.


Oh, trust me, the Planar 1.2/85 is.


Ha,ha,ha. Who can argue with you after seeing all the Planar 1.2/85 photos you posted.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
dsmlogger wrote:
I don't think that any f/1.2 lens is really sharp @ f/1.2.


Oh, trust me, the Planar 1.2/85 is.


He he he, yeah...

You don't have to rub it in my face! Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
CameraRick wrote:
@8310
So a "bad" 1.2 won't give me as much light as a "good" 1.4? Or do I get this wrong?
The shallow DoF is very nice, and I would use it of course. Primary goal is "brightness when it's dark" :/
Would a 50mm f1.4 Canon FD be worth a customization under these circumstances?


It depends on the exact circumstances, but I'd say it may indeed be the case that the brightness difference between a well coated 1.4 and a worse coated 1.2 is negligible. I doubt the "bad" 1.2 will be darker than the "good" 1.4 (at least I have not yet come across one), but it may be not noticeably brighter.
To say it differently: Some 1.2s (or 1.4s respectively) are brighter than others.

I cannot really comment on the Canon 50/1.4, but if I was you, I would try to sell it to the (m)FT/Nex-crowd and get a lens that is mountable via a simple adapter. I am just guessing here (maybe trifox can comment on this), but having the Canon converted will probably cost you more than the lens is worth. I would only consider conversion for rare and more expensive lenses.


Edit: If it is brightness you are after, you should probably look into t-stops instead of f-stops. If I remember correctly there was a German photo magazine that measured the t-stop of lenses they tested. I believe there are some scans of this mag floating around here somewhere.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
std wrote:
Also you need to consider that some of the 1.2 lenses (like Canon FL and some minoltas) glow wide open.


By glow, if you are referring to a sort of blooming flare (which I've witnessed with a number of lenses), I have yet to see evidence of this with my Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 when I use it wide open. Does this glow you're referring to occur under certain lighting conditions?


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Michael,
Don't know if it's flare, I have a long lens hood, but it doesn't help much.
I have made few test snaps on f1.2, f1.4 and f2. Those are just resized to 1600.

https://picasaweb.google.com/stefan.dyakov/Fl1255?authkey=Gv1sRgCIOd4rGCq8vKeA#5623347011144371090

After f2 and f2.8 the image improves significantly.

cooltouch wrote:
std wrote:
Also you need to consider that some of the 1.2 lenses (like Canon FL and some minoltas) glow wide open.


By glow, if you are referring to a sort of blooming flare (which I've witnessed with a number of lenses), I have yet to see evidence of this with my Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 when I use it wide open. Does this glow you're referring to occur under certain lighting conditions?


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
8310 wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

The story about sensors and ultra fast lenses. I think we already had that here a while ago, so there should be a discussion somewhere around.


Thanks for sharing the link, if there has been a discussion around here i missed it ...


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
8310 wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

The story about sensors and ultra fast lenses. I think we already had that here a while ago, so there should be a discussion somewhere around.



On Topic: If you really need the 1.2 for its light gathering abilities and not only its shallow dof, you are better off getting a lens with good coating, eg the SMC Pentax. I have found the Porst, for example, to lose quite a bit of light in comparison due to worse coating. In most cases it is not much faster than an SMC 1.4 lens.


Interesting. With a manual lens, the camera can't know the real aperture of the lens and therefore adjust the ISO. So I guess we could see the real effect of the light loss by testing ourselves?


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
8310 wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

The story about sensors and ultra fast lenses. I think we already had that here a while ago, so there should be a discussion somewhere around.



On Topic: If you really need the 1.2 for its light gathering abilities and not only its shallow dof, you are better off getting a lens with good coating, eg the SMC Pentax. I have found the Porst, for example, to lose quite a bit of light in comparison due to worse coating. In most cases it is not much faster than an SMC 1.4 lens.


Interesting. With a manual lens, the camera can't know the real aperture of the lens and therefore adjust the ISO. So I guess we could see the real effect of the light loss by testing ourselves?


Just tested for myself.

CZ Planar 50/1.4 - 1/5 second



Nikkor 55/1.2 - 1/6 second



Histograms are extremely similar. The f1.2 lens is clearly faster, even with a longer focal length.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
std wrote:
Hi Michael,
Don't know if it's flare, I have a long lens hood, but it doesn't help much.
I have made few test snaps on f1.2, f1.4 and f2. Those are just resized to 1600.

https://picasaweb.google.com/stefan.dyakov/Fl1255?authkey=Gv1sRgCIOd4rGCq8vKeA#5623347011144371090

After f2 and f2.8 the image improves significantly.



Hey Stefan,

Thanks for the link. Yeah, I'd say what I'm seeing is a general softening of resolution and contrast, not unexpected when moving from f/2 to f/1.2. With the close-ups you provide, however, the softening isn't nearly as noticeable, and they come across looking pretty good to me.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi 8310,

the 50mm f1.4 was 65€ in a local Store (Hamburg), I think. So not thaaat expensive, but of course I think it's because there are so many out there.
But selling it won't give me serious money, and converting may be better than buying a cheap 50mm 1.2 or 1.4, or not?
I'd like to see how the 1.4 FD performs.

If I'd buy a 50mm 1.4 which can be directly adapted and is in my price-range, I would shot for the Pentax SMC. The Post 1.2 seems not be something I want, and everthing else is far to expensive... :/

Best Regards


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If F1.4 is acceptable as a useable aperture then I'd recommend the Contax 50/1.4 MM.

Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:32 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ManualFocus-G:
I see, faster yes, but by how much?

Anyways, I guess you would either have to know the exact t-stops of both lenses or do the same test again on film to draw any further conclusions. Or use only the Nikon and stop it down (though you still do not know the t-stops of the respective f-stops then)



CameraRick wrote:
Hi 8310,

the 50mm f1.4 was 65€ in a local Store (Hamburg), I think. So not thaaat expensive, but of course I think it's because there are so many out there.
But selling it won't give me serious money, and converting may be better than buying a cheap 50mm 1.2 or 1.4, or not?
I'd like to see how the 1.4 FD performs.

If I'd buy a 50mm 1.4 which can be directly adapted and is in my price-range, I would shot for the Pentax SMC. The Post 1.2 seems not be something I want, and everthing else is far to expensive... :/

Best Regards


Well, sounds like you already fell in love with the Canon Wink
Unless you are determined to get the most economical option by any means, I am sure the Canon makes a great candidate. And the resale value should increase quite a bit when professionally converted.

A Pentax should not be that much more expensive and without the need for a conversion it is likely to be cheaper.

By the way, I do not consider the Porst a bad lens - if you can snap a good copy, that is. I was pretty surprised by the center sharpness that my copies delivered wide open (although I have seen pictures from apparently really bad copies showing a ridiculous amount of spherical aberration even stopped down). It is just not as bright as an SMC 1.2.

A Zuiko or a Nikon 1.4 may be some of the other options, but I cannot tell how they compare to the SMCs in terms of brightness.

Wasn't 300€ your original price limit? You could look for an SMC Pentax 1:1.2 (without the "A"), they usually go for around 250 in the bay.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm just informing myself right now, I'm not able to buy yet - but if a Conversion isn't that much at all (don't know it yet), maybe it's a solution I can get "quickly". Money is low - it's summer, so many people don't seem to need people like me for getting Jobs done Very Happy
The Canon is here, I considered buying my Mom a Converter (she owns a Panasonic G1), but I think she'll stick to AF anyways Smile using it for a Conversion would be a good solution for it I think. When the Lens is worth it (maybe someone here uses it?)

A Pentax is around 120€, plus Adapter (20€).
The Pentax 1.2 I found were above 300€, I think I'm looking in the wrong directions Very Happy

@ jjphoto
Sounds intersting!
I didn't found any by now... only Yashicas or Zeiss for C/Y :/


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CameraRick wrote:
...@ jjphoto
Sounds intersting!
I didn't found any by now... only Yashicas or Zeiss for C/Y :/


The Contax 50/1.4 is a Zeiss lens and quite common on Ebay or almost anywhere.

Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:32 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So when I search for it, I search for the Zeiss? They seem pretty expensive.

What about Olympus OM 1.2 and 1.4? Are they worth a shot?


PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CameraRick wrote:
So when I search for it, I search for the Zeiss? They seem pretty expensive.

What about Olympus OM 1.2 and 1.4? Are they worth a shot?


This is just the very first one that came up when I searched (contax 50 1.4) but this is the lens I am referring to.
Ebay Item # 220803379586

I've never used the olympus 50/1.2 but it has an excellent reputation, however they are not cheap, at least USD500, generally more. A mint one just sold for about $650.

The Olympus 50/1.4 is very cheap and an excellent lens (I have one too). It's fairly important to get one that is multicoated or a fairly late serial number (preferably not one of the early 'silver nose' versions). Mine is around serial number 700000 and is an excellent lens. They are quite sharp wide open but I feel the Contax is sharper wide open than the Olympus 50/1.4. The Olympus is cheap so it wouldn't hurt to start there and it would be easy to resell at a small loss if any.

By the way, you might want to avoid lenses which focus in the opposite direction to those you are acustomed to using. The Nikons focus the WRONG way!

JJ


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hm strange, yesterday I saw some nice prices for the Olympus OM f1.2, but seems like they got sold Smile

The Contax is a Zeiss in my Eyes, which get's them very expensive at least here in Germany :/ don't know if I can have luck with getting one.

Hm, hard times buying good Lenses these days :/


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My f/1.2 normal-lens price (converted to US$) :

Nikkor 50/1.2 : $348
Rokkor 58/1.2 : $313
Canon FD 55/1.2 : $232
Pentax-K 50/1.2 : $226

All are best lenses, though my fav are Rokkor and Pentax Smile


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rokkor and FD would be "Lens to Convert", so it would get much more expensive in total.

I just can't find a Pentax 1.2 for this price :/


PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
8310 wrote:
@ManualFocus-G:
I see, faster yes, but by how much?


1/3rd of a stop I think! And the Nikkor would have much worse coating (I would imagine). There may well be a much bigger difference on film, but the results don't lie, the f1.2 lens is faster than the f1.4 lens on digital, even with a longer focal length and worse coating Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2