Better alternatives to OM 55 1.2 and the Helios 40-2?

[Nitsan]

Hey guys, two questions:

1. Better alternative to Helios 40-2?
I'm selling my 85mm Samyang to get the Helios 40-2 for it's bokeh, just wondering if there's something better that I've not heard about?
(I like the strong bokeh shapes it creates)

2. Better alternative to my silver tipped OM 55mm f1.2?
It's my fave lens but I'd rather something not radioactive and I'm wondering if there's something nice to replace it with? (1.4 or 1.2)

(Shooting 5D3 and need to stay within the same price range of those lenses)
Thanks everyone!

[Spotmatic]

Never mind the radioactivity. It's not harmful at all. You'll receive more radiation from your normal surroundings than from this lens.

[Nitsan]

yeah i've heard it's not harmful.
It's still a bit soft in high contrast shots so I was wondering if there's something better.

[kuuan]

I have read here and there that a Pentax A f1.2/50, for a f1.2/50 is hard to beat for wide open sharpness, but then I am a real fan of Pentax glass and might have not read those comments which favor another

[Nitsan]

nice thanks i'll check it out

[ForenSeil]

Minolta MD 50/1.2 is much better than the OM 55/1.2 and can be converted to EOS
Radioactivity of these lenses is only harmful when you mill and ingest them

[Attila]

I was never bog fond of Helios-40-2 I kept cheaper Helios 40 due no big difference, Pentax 1.2 is sharpest from all lens what I try, no CA
Tomioka almost same sharp with little CA, Nikon , Konica less sharp , but buttery smooth bokeh.
In 70-90mm range many , many good lens available

[simbon4o]

If you like nervous and swirly bokeh than Samyang 85 is not for you. It is too modern and smooth in character.

A better alternative of 40-2 is it's original - Biotar 75 1.5. There are other great lenses but all are more expensive and cannot be attached to DSLR without many modifications many of them cannot be attached at all. There is one more - the CZJ Pancolar 80 1.8, I think that's all.
About 50mm 1.2 - SMC Pentax A 50 1.2 is great, another good 1.2 is Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 older version. The best 1.2 is Noct Nikkor 58 1.2 but it costs more than a lot!

[cooltouch]

Both the Canon FL and FD 55mm f/1.2 are actually good performers wide open. I own a copy of each. The non-Aspherical FD 55mm f/1.2 has the same optical formula as the older FL 55mm f/1.2, but I'm guessing the coatings on the FD are better. As far as getting them to perform well wide open, you just have to get used to the paper-thin depth of field, which can take a while, I've found. Conversion to EOS mount is not very difficult, and works much better than going with an FD-EOS adapter. Those adapters can't handle lenses that are faster than f/4 very well.

Here's a pic I shot with my FL 55mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2, using an FD-EOS adapter with the glass element removed, on my Canon XS (1000D):


Bokeh are soft and creamy. And even thought the focus looks soft in the above photo, it actually isn't. It's just that the DOF is so shallow that not much of the photo is in the field of focus. In this case, the point of focus were the rose's pistils and/or stamens.

[DanielT74]

As far as sharpness/microcontrast is concerned Canon FD 55/1.2 Aspherical is the king (and I have tried Pentax 50/1.2 both A and K and Minolta 58/1.2). As far as bokeh is concerned Canon can be very nervous while Minolta is generally gorgeous but prone to ghosting.

[Nitsan]

thank you very much for the information cooltouch.
I can't use FD or Minolta on my Canon though, they don't reach infinity. I definitely don't have the budget or time to open up and try to mod a $600+ lens. I wish I did, there are so many lenses I would want to get if I could.

[Nitsan]

[Lightshow]

There is a conversion kit for the FL 55/1.2 and the Rokkor MC PG 58/1.2
I myself love the Rokkor, but there are mirror issues on Canon FF.

[cooltouch]

[kopi234]

another alternative for your zuiko, i found my Nikkor-s auto 55mm F1.2 non-ai is good enough.

wide open sample straight from d60.


cropped picture above

[Nitsan]

[Nitsan]

[cooltouch]

[Lightshow]

I found my Nikkor S.C 55/1.2 to bloom wide open, great for portraits, not so much for other stuff.
I do like my FL 55/1.2, but I think I like the FL 58/1.2 more.
Re: the conversion, my bad, yes I meant Ed's, but forgot to add the info about it.

[cooltouch]

I don't recall blooming flare from my Nikkor wide open -- but its been years since I owned it. It might be that a difference in the coatings may account for this? Dunno.

[kopi234]

>>@ cooltouch:
you're right, the 55/1.2-s auto bokeh might be a little "nervous" for some people, but it's also not a problem for me.

>>@lightshow:
my 55/1.2 copy perform quite good wide open, but the drawback is very prone to ghosting.
the pictures below i took at WO, no PP straight from d60

[cooltouch]

If there's ghosting in the above two images, my eyes aren't good enough to see it. What I do see is excellent sharpness and good contrast, especially in the second photo.