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

Minolta 58mm F1.2/F1.4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:29 pm    Post subject: Minolta 58mm F1.2/F1.4 Reply with quote
Rather surprisingly, it seems nobody on the world wide web has made a direct comparison between the two, but only anecdotal recollections, although I suppose there is no reason to own both for any longer period of time... Having said that, does/could anyone have/present an objective comparison?

Specifically, I own the MC-I of the 58/1.4 and the most common for-sale 1.2 is in the MC-II variant, however if anyone owns the earlier type than that is also welcome. I know that both lenses are very sharp in the centre, even from wide open, so I'm mainly concerned about the character of the bokeh.
Reportedly, the 1.2 can produce rather busy bokeh with circular highlights at longer focus distances but smoothes out at F2? I've seen plenty of images that don't really confirm such effects for either case and I suspect it's more dependant on the shooting conditions and the background than the quality of the glass.

So on that, does anyone have some images they can share. I'm okay with anecdotes from those who did own both at one point, provided they're not clouded in emotions and romance. Wink I need a 'clear' picture, so to say.

Thank you for your time. Like 1 small


PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stephan from Artaphot has published some comparison pictures of these lenses here:
http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas/321-nex-5n-und-minolta-50mm-objektive-teil-i


PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had 1.4 don't remember which one exactly it was very average like Nikon


PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:05 am    Post subject: Re: Minolta 58mm F1.2/F1.4 Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
Rather surprisingly, it seems nobody on the world wide web has made a direct comparison between the two,

Not true - at least when it comes to resolution on APS-C cameras. I've done it a few years ago, and in fact i should start to publish the numerous comparisons i did in the meantime using the A7 / A7II...
[img]http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/321-nex-5n-und-minolta-50mm-objektive-teil-i[/img]
Some other comparisons can be found here:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche


Teemō wrote:

but only anecdotal recollections, although I suppose there is no reason to own both for any longer period of time... Having said that, does/could anyone have/present an objective comparison?

Yes, good idea. I'll do it during the next days. Detail resolution and bokeh? In a typical portrait situation, ie the object at about 1 m / 3 ft and background at about 5-10 m (15-30 ft) ?

Teemō wrote:

Specifically, I own the MC-I of the 58/1.4 and the most common for-sale 1.2 is in the MC-II variant, however if anyone owns the earlier type than that is also welcome. I know that both lenses are very sharp in the centre, even from wide open, so I'm mainly concerned about the character of the bokeh.

OK, i see... I actually do have both the MC-I 1.4/58mm and the MC-II 1.2/58mm. I might add the MC 1.4/50mm and a few other classical lenses such as the Nikkor 1.4/50mm, the Canon FL 1.2/58mm, FD 1.2/55mm and FD 1.4/50mm, the Hexanons 1.4/57mm and 1.4/50mm, and the RE Auto Topcor 1.4/58mm.

Teemō wrote:

Reportedly, the 1.2 can produce rather busy bokeh with circular highlights at longer focus distances but smoothes out at F2? I've seen plenty of images that don't really confirm such effects for either case and I suspect it's more dependant on the shooting conditions and the background than the quality of the glass.

Describing the bokeh is quite tricky, especially since the correction state of a lens without floating focusing changes while focusing. The correction of spherical aberrations (mainly responsible for the bokeh) may change visibly between "infinity" and, let's say, 0.8 m distance. A few hours ago i checked the bokeh of the RE Auto Topcor 1.4/5.8cm. When focusing to 3m, the background (5-10m distance) is quite "noisy", but the foreground is extremely smooth (MUCH smoother than the MC 1.2/58mm background bokeh). When focusing the RE Auto Topcor 1.4/5.8cm to 1 m, the background bokeh becomes much smoother. Stopping down the RE Topcor doesn't really improve the quality of the bokeh (of course the depth-of-field becomes larger, but that's not "bokeh").

Teemō wrote:

So on that, does anyone have some images they can share. I'm okay with anecdotes from those who did own both at one point, provided they're not clouded in emotions and romance. Wink I need a 'clear' picture, so to say.

Thank you for your time. Like 1 small


It may take a few days, but i'll do it Wink
In the mean time i can say, that
* the MC 1.2/58mm is sharper than the MC-I 1.4/58mm,
* that you won't get shorter exposure times,
* and that the f1.2 has a yellowish color cast (NOT originating from radioactive glass, but from high refractive/low dispersive lanthanum glass).

Stephan

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta 58mm F1.2/F1.4 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

Not true - at least when it comes to resolution on APS-C cameras. I've done it a few years ago, and in fact i should start to publish the numerous comparisons i did in the meantime using the A7 / A7II...
[img]http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/321-nex-5n-und-minolta-50mm-objektive-teil-i[/img]
Some other comparisons can be found here:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche


Of course I'm aware of the wonderful resource that is your website Stephan, but I did mean that no similar comparison has been made in terms of the lens' other qualities, despite the discussion being brought up so much on various forums by prospective owners.

stevemark wrote:


Yes, good idea. I'll do it during the next days. Detail resolution and bokeh? In a typical portrait situation, ie the object at about 1 m / 3 ft and background at about 5-10 m (15-30 ft)?


That would be awesome, if you have a model that can spare the time, otherwise some other object is probably fine for the purpose. I think it would be great if you could have a consistent background (thinking various lights and geometric patterns) on one half of the frame and maybe something more natural (eg. backlit foilage, specular highlights on metal) on the other side. I've read many say that the 1.4 lenses are sharper wide open or with less glow than the 1.2, so that would be interesting to see indeed!

If you manage to create a setup that can show some OOF foreground elements too, then even better.

stevemark wrote:

OK, i see... I actually do have both the MC-I 1.4/58mm and the MC-II 1.2/58mm. I might add the MC 1.4/50mm and a few other classical lenses such as the Nikkor 1.4/50mm, the Canon FL 1.2/58mm, FD 1.2/55mm and FD 1.4/50mm, the Hexanons 1.4/57mm and 1.4/50mm, and the RE Auto Topcor 1.4/58mm.


Do you have the MC-II 1.4/58mm still? It would be interesting to compare the computed SA corrections and their effect on the bokeh against the MC-I, as it should be busier. If you have the time to add other lenses, it would definitely be appreciated by others. Personally, I only own Minolta gear.

stevemark wrote:

Describing the bokeh is quite tricky, especially since the correction state of a lens without floating focusing changes while focusing. The correction of spherical aberrations (mainly responsible for the bokeh) may change visibly between "infinity" and, let's say, 0.8 m distance. A few hours ago i checked the bokeh of the RE Auto Topcor 1.4/5.8cm. When focusing to 3m, the background (5-10m distance) is quite "noisy", but the foreground is extremely smooth (MUCH smoother than the MC 1.2/58mm background bokeh). When focusing the RE Auto Topcor 1.4/5.8cm to 1 m, the background bokeh becomes much smoother. Stopping down the RE Topcor doesn't really improve the quality of the bokeh (of course the depth-of-field becomes larger, but that's not "bokeh").


That is why I think it's best to let the pictures do the talking. Smile

stevemark wrote:


It may take a few days, but i'll do it Wink
In the mean time i can say, that
* the MC 1.2/58mm is sharper than the MC-I 1.4/58mm,
* that you won't get shorter exposure times,
* and that the f1.2 has a yellowish color cast (NOT originating from radioactive glass, but from high refractive/low dispersive lanthanum glass).

Stephan


Thank you Stephan, I believe the results will be widely appreciated. With regards to the colour cast, do you know what other Minolta lenses it affects that use similar glass? Do you know how Minolta dealt with the problem or has it only come about with age and poor storage of affected lenses?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both lenses adapted to Canon EF. In short the 58/1.2 is hands down, the better lens. Better bokeh, colour, contrast, sharpness.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
I have both lenses adapted to Canon EF. In short the 58/1.2 is hands down, the better lens. Better bokeh, colour, contrast, sharpness.


Thanks for your notes. Through browsing Flickr I'd have to agree that the difference is more significant than I first thought.

An MC-I of the 1.2 has appeared on Ebay in 'overhauled' condition, but a worn cosmetic state: Click here to see on Ebay.
I am curious to know if this earlier variant suffers the same type of field curvature and unresolved SA as the MC-I 1.4.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ teemo: thanky for the detailed inputs - i've read them only now, however the images were taken yesterday.

Testing / comparing usually is not as straightforward as one might expect.

1) Usually i do a first "rough" test first, just to get an idea about how big the diefferences between the lenses will be.
2) That helps me to find a suitable object / scenery / background for the "real test"
3) Then a first run with the selected object / scenery / background is done - usually it is not suited for publication, since there are often a few small mistakes / errors (such as changing light, or camera shake, or slightly incorrect focusing)
4) The third run - maybe with a slightly optimized scenery - usually is fine

Shooting easily takes half a day when done at home, or three times half a day when done at a nice location (maybe 1-2 hours away from home)

5) Then analysis and interpretation of the results may take another 4-6 hours.

Just to give you an idea of how much work is behind such tests ...

Stephan

PS: ah yes, this evening i'll upload the bokeh results of 23 "normal" lenses:

* Canon FL 58mm 1:1.2
* Canon FD 55mm 1:1.2
* Canon FD 50mm 1:1.4
* Canon new FD 50mm 1:1.4
* Konica AR 57mm 1:1.4
* Konica AR 50mm 1:1.4
* Mamiya Auto Sekor 50mm 1:2 (M42)
* Mamiya Auto Sekor 55mm 1:1.8 (M42)
* Mamiya Sekor CS 50mm 1:1.4
* Minolta MC-II 58mm 1:1.2
* Minolta MC-II 58mm 1:1.4
* Minolta MC-X 50mm 1:1.4
* Minolta MD-II 50mm 1:1.2
* Minolta MD-II 45mm 1:2
* Minolta MD-III 50mm 1:1.4
* Nikon Nikkor-H 50mm 1:2
* Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4
* Nikon Series E 50mm 1:1.8
* Pentak Super-Takumar 50mm 1:1.4 (M42, radioactive)
* Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 5cm 1:2.8 (M42)
* Topcon RE Topcor 5.8cm 1:1.4
* Topcon RE Topcor 58mm 1:1.8
* Zeiss CY Planar 50mm 1:1.4

For comparing purposes i have also included a 35-70mm zoom and a 85mm lens:
* Minolta MD-II 35-70mm 1:3.5 @ 50mm
* Minolta MC-II 85mm 1:1.7


PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I had 1.4 don't remember which one exactly it was very average like Nikon


Oh, which 1.4 lens do you think gives better bokeh than the Minolta and Nikon?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, you've gone above and beyond for this Stephan. The publication will be very useful.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vanylapep wrote:
Attila wrote:
I had 1.4 don't remember which one exactly it was very average like Nikon


Oh, which 1.4 lens do you think gives better bokeh than the Minolta and Nikon?


I really don't see much difference between the 50mm 1:1.4 Rokkors and the 50mm 1:1.4 Nikkor, but you may decide yourself:
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/479-standard-lens-bokeh-ii

The bokeh of other standard lenses can be found here:
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/477-standard-lens-bokeh-i
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/480-standard-lens-bokeh-iii

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
@ teemo: thanky for the detailed inputs - i've read them only now, however the images were taken yesterday.

Testing / comparing usually is not as straightforward as one might expect.

1) Usually i do a first "rough" test first, just to get an idea about how big the diefferences between the lenses will be.
2) That helps me to find a suitable object / scenery / background for the "real test"
3) Then a first run with the selected object / scenery / background is done - usually it is not suited for publication, since there are often a few small mistakes / errors (such as changing light, or camera shake, or slightly incorrect focusing)
4) The third run - maybe with a slightly optimized scenery - usually is fine

Shooting easily takes half a day when done at home, or three times half a day when done at a nice location (maybe 1-2 hours away from home)

5) Then analysis and interpretation of the results may take another 4-6 hours.

Just to give you an idea of how much work is behind such tests ...

Stephan

PS: ah yes, this evening i'll upload the bokeh results of 23 "normal" lenses:

* Canon FL 58mm 1:1.2
* Canon FD 55mm 1:1.2
* Canon FD 50mm 1:1.4
* Canon new FD 50mm 1:1.4
* Konica AR 57mm 1:1.4
* Konica AR 50mm 1:1.4
* Mamiya Auto Sekor 50mm 1:2 (M42)
* Mamiya Auto Sekor 55mm 1:1.8 (M42)
* Mamiya Sekor CS 50mm 1:1.4
* Minolta MC-II 58mm 1:1.2
* Minolta MC-II 58mm 1:1.4
* Minolta MC-X 50mm 1:1.4
* Minolta MD-II 50mm 1:1.2
* Minolta MD-II 45mm 1:2
* Minolta MD-III 50mm 1:1.4
* Nikon Nikkor-H 50mm 1:2
* Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4
* Nikon Series E 50mm 1:1.8
* Pentak Super-Takumar 50mm 1:1.4 (M42, radioactive)
* Schneider Kreuznach Xenar 5cm 1:2.8 (M42)
* Topcon RE Topcor 5.8cm 1:1.4
* Topcon RE Topcor 58mm 1:1.8
* Zeiss CY Planar 50mm 1:1.4

For comparing purposes i have also included a 35-70mm zoom and a 85mm lens:
* Minolta MD-II 35-70mm 1:3.5 @ 50mm
* Minolta MC-II 85mm 1:1.7

That's quite a task to undertake, thanks for sharing.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
That's quite a task to undertake, thanks for sharing.


+1

Many thanks.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1