| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013
Posts: 661
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:49 pm Post subject: rokkor1,2/58 or summicron 2/50 R? |
 |
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
Like Roger - shutterbug-used to say explaining why he used 1,4 summilux m and not the summicron 50 f/2, both lenses at 5,6/8 produced the same image and, with the summilux he had the 1,4 aperture if it was useful.
Well, in that way i use the rokkor 58/1,2 lens. At 5,6/8 almost none is better and has f1,2 aperture and when i need it, there is.
But lately my hungry of lenses call for the f2/50 summicron R.
I can't decide. Can you help me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Take Leica and try , if you are happy keep it, if not you can find next curious guy easily.
_________________
-------------------------------
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 |
|
|
Rick1779
Joined: 17 May 2013
Posts: 1207
Location: Italy
Expire: 2014-06-06
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rick1779 wrote:
The Summicron R is on my wanted list, but take care there are some differences between first and second version |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinyangbt
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 1973
Location: Romania
Expire: 2012-12-27
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: rokkor1,2/58 or summicron 2/50 R? |
|
|
yinyangbt wrote:
| DR.JUAN wrote: |
Like Roger - shutterbug-used to say explaining why he used 1,4 summilux m and not the summicron 50 f/2, both lenses at 5,6/8 produced the same image and, with the summilux he had the 1,4 aperture if it was useful.
Well, in that way i use the rokkor 58/1,2 lens. At 5,6/8 almost none is better and has f1,2 aperture and when i need it, there is.
But lately my hungry of lenses call for the f2/50 summicron R.
I can't decide. Can you help me? |
That's called LBA attack  If you can afford it , take it and test it , Attila is right. But I'll ask you , do you really need it ? 
_________________
Cheers , Teo
http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=5778915 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011
Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: rokkor1,2/58 or summicron 2/50 R? |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
| yinyangbt wrote: |
| DR.JUAN wrote: |
Like Roger - shutterbug-used to say explaining why he used 1,4 summilux m and not the summicron 50 f/2, both lenses at 5,6/8 produced the same image and, with the summilux he had the 1,4 aperture if it was useful.
Well, in that way i use the rokkor 58/1,2 lens. At 5,6/8 almost none is better and has f1,2 aperture and when i need it, there is.
But lately my hungry of lenses call for the f2/50 summicron R.
I can't decide. Can you help me? |
That's called LBA attack If you can afford it , take it and test it , Attila is right. But I'll ask you , do you really need it ? |
do we ever need more than one in the same focal?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
Thanks guys, very much.
Yes, Attila. I can try it (again, like I did some time ago. Perhaps 25 years or so  )
I know the summicron, both of them. I have written records with their caracteristics and defaults.
But, in special the last version left in my mind very good memories.
And you know what is it, the old good lens is better than the good of today.
And, overall, I like to buy lenses!!!!!
Now knowing the three, can't take desicion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 3666
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: rokkor1,2/58 or summicron 2/50 R? |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
| hoanpham wrote: |
| yinyangbt wrote: |
| DR.JUAN wrote: |
Like Roger - shutterbug-used to say explaining why he used 1,4 summilux m and not the summicron 50 f/2, both lenses at 5,6/8 produced the same image and, with the summilux he had the 1,4 aperture if it was useful.
Well, in that way i use the rokkor 58/1,2 lens. At 5,6/8 almost none is better and has f1,2 aperture and when i need it, there is.
But lately my hungry of lenses call for the f2/50 summicron R.
I can't decide. Can you help me? |
That's called LBA attack If you can afford it , take it and test it , Attila is right. But I'll ask you , do you really need it ? |
do we ever need more than one in the same focal?
|
I'm the wrong person to ask as I have more than 25 lenses in the 50-58mm range.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 3666
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
| DR.JUAN wrote: |
Thanks guys, very much.
Yes, Attila. I can try it (again, like I did some time ago. Perhaps 25 years or so )
I know the summicron, both of them. I have written records with their caracteristics and defaults.
But, in special the last version left in my mind very good memories.
And you know what is it, the old good lens is better than the good of today.
And, overall, I like to buy lenses!!!!!
Now knowing the three, can't take desicion. |
Look for a good deal, then you won't be out anything if you decide to sell it again.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Decision is fairly easy fit into your budget, lens has any emotional relation to you ? if both yes take it
_________________
-------------------------------
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 |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
I have a decision.
Know that the summicron v.2 is sharper at f/2 than the v.1. But almost equal to rokkor 1,2/58 at f/2.
At f/2,8 and f/4 the summicron v.2 wins.
At 5,6 and f/8 the cron and the rokkor almost the same rendering. Perhaps the cron a bit more contrast.
At f/11 the cron wins again.
The bokeh, for the rokkor.
I use the 5,6 and f/8 aperture. So the cron and rokkor, in facts, are practically the same in rendering.
And at f/1,2 and f/1,4 only the rokkor plays.
Roklor 1,2/58 for me by now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
| DR.JUAN wrote: |
| Roklor 1,2/58 for me by now. |
Good logic, good choice.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
| DR.JUAN wrote: |
| Roklor 1,2/58 for me by now. |
Good logic, good choice. |
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yan's
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yan's wrote:
i'll take 58 1.2 without hesitation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSalles
Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Posts: 1372
Location: Brazil - RS / South
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RSalles wrote:
Playing he devil's advocate... Coindidently, I was pp yesterday two pics taken with the Summicron-R 2/50. Both at f5.6.
_MG_8778DV2013-BW-web por Renato Augusto Salles, no Flickr
_MG_8774_lzn-BW-web por Renato Augusto Salles, no Flickr
I didn't find necessary to add sharpening. If there is some it's a SilverEfexPro addition, not mine (we never know what happens behind the courtains...)
Cheers,
Renato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
Very nice, Renato.
They seem to be those i take with my rokkor.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arctures
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 295
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arctures wrote:
Never had summi, but own rokky. As for me Rokkor 58/1.2 is really excellent lens. Despite of some mirror issues with 5DMarkX (I am using LiveView to avoid them) and size it has a beautiful rendering, contrast and colors. Especially I like portraits from it. Some time ago I have quickly compared rokky with my Contax Plannar AEG 50/1.4 @f/4-f/5.6 and got no difference in terms of sharpness. Depending on the situation and your experience rokky could render especially creamy/dreamy.
@1.2 1 source light from window
Some random from Brit FLoyd friday concert. Well not stellar counter light performance but really nice - only a few rare flares over all the shots. Those are crops from larger images - I was sitting pretty far from scene:
_________________
Sony A7, NEX-5n, Panasonic GH5(Oly12-40/2., Contax Distagon T* 28/2.8, Contax Planar T* 50/1.4, Contax T* 80-200/4,
Minolta Rokkor MC 58/1.2, Minolta MC Rokkor-X PF 50/1.7, Minolta MD 50/2.0, Konica Hexanon AR 50/1.8,
Konica Hexanon 57/1.4, Rokkor-PF 55/1.7, Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, Auto Yashinon 50/2.0, Canon FD 50/3.5
Voigtl�nder APO Lanthar 90/3.5 M42, Topcon RE.Topcor 58/1.8, Helios-44-2 58/2.0, Canon FD 24/2.8,
Canon FD 135/2.5 SC, Auto Topcor 135/3.5, Pentax SMC 55/1.8, Minolta 35/2.8, Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
Very nice pics, thanks for sharing.
At F/8 I'm almost sure that you didn't find some differences in rendering between the Rokkor 1,2 and the Planar. Especially 'cos the rokkor's best aperture (IMHO) is just F/8.
The only one desagree is the CA that the lens shows wide open (yes, I remember that it's F/1,2 and it was made for low light).
The portraits are nice, yes, I agree.
But for portraits, in rokkor's world, try the MC PF 100/2. Beleave me, it's a dream lens. Perhaps not the King of pixel peeping, but it is into the royalty of the great IQ lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
| DR.JUAN wrote: |
But for portraits, in rokkor's world, try the MC PF 100/2. Beleave me, it's a dream lens. Perhaps not the King of pixel peeping, but it is into the royalty of the great IQ lenses. |
I see you can spend over $1000 for the f/2 and under $100 for the f/2.5. That much a difference?
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
| DR.JUAN wrote: |
But for portraits, in rokkor's world, try the MC PF 100/2. Beleave me, it's a dream lens. Perhaps not the King of pixel peeping, but it is into the royalty of the great IQ lenses. |
I see you can spend over $1000 for the f/2 and under $100 for the f/2.5. That much a difference? |
The money, i think, does not be the parameter to judge the lens quality. Not matter lens cost. Only the IQ. And if the lens worth for you, well so worth the money.
I like the 100/2, if it should worth $ 10 better, and if it is expensive, if i can, i pay.
It's better than the 2,5.
But it's difficult to me put a price to the difference between both. How much is the best f/4? How much is the f/2?
Anyways, the 2,5 MC second version is a good lens, indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
