50mm f1.4 Vintage Pick: Canon FD or Nikkor or... Rokkor?

50mm f1.4 Vintage Pick: Canon FD or Nikkor or... Rokkor?

  • Total voters
    64
I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just clicked on reply with quite instead of reply -- sorry for that. I'll go back and edit your quote out. Thanks for the catch.
 
Okay, now this time I am quoting you, because what you said is so true: investing in a good video tripod and an outboard audio recorder will make a much greater and more significant improvement than a different lens. But these are real solutions, and they can never compete with the illusory thrills of the Hunt For The Mythical Magic Lens That Makes You Scorcese.

Lucas Adamson said:
Well you can disagree with me, but I actually agree wholeheartedly with you, so go figure....

I like FD lenses. I think that ALL 50mm f1.4 lenses by the major brands are good. Takumars, Nikon Ais, Contax Zeiss, Yashica, Canon FD, Rokkor.

I only shared what I consider my preference. It is Contax Zeiss, but I agree, subtle differences can cost the earth and aren't particularly worth it, considering all of the creative elements that really contribute to good filming. I think newcomers to manual lenses on m4/3 should use almost anything, not the best. It will make only the tiniest of difference to their videos. Audio is more important to invest in, in my opinion, and a good tripod.
Click to expand...
 
Exactly Lucas,

Everyone has a preference, and that is going to come out in a question like this. I've taken GREAT care in threads like this to say that I didn't think FD lens was bad. I had some for my AE1, and more for my T70. I shot professional work with both (mostly sports photography). In *my opinion* the Nikon glass was better. You can read that as "more to my liking", and on the sidelines where I worked, it was about 90% Nikon at the time.
 
Shaveblog's comparison to microphones is interesting, after all, you can have mathematically perfect mics that sound like crap. And you can have mics with funny bumps in the freq. response, like the B&K (DPA) 4003 that sound amazing. On the other hand, most pros did go with Canon and Nikon over Minolta. But maybe they liked the cameras better. Or they liked something other than sharpness.
On the other, other hand (three hands makes everything easier), you have photodo rigorously testing the lens resolution. So I think you can say that even if Minolta tests higher, lots of people prefer other lenses, and different lens makers have different "best" lenses, like the legendary Tamron 90mm, or the legendary Nikon 50mm F/1.8. But even if the Nikon 1.8 tests better than the faster 50mm prime, people buy the more expensive one, so go figure.
Is too much sharpness a bad thing? Well, as far as video goes, probably, since you may get more aliasing. Many ofthese vintage lenses are sharp enough, so then Bokeh and color and purple fringing become important. PF really annoys me, for others, it is something else.
 
Agreed. For me Chromatic aberration (purple/ green fringing) is the single biggest reason for not buying a lens, and lack of it is very close to the top of my priority list. CA is just horrible, ruins highlights in corners, and is very hard/ impossible to get rid of in post.
 
DrDave said:
.... the legendary Nikon 50mm F/1.8. But even if the Nikon 1.8 tests better than the faster 50mm prime, people buy the more expensive one, so go figure.
Is too much sharpness a bad thing? Well, as far as video goes, probably, since you may get more aliasing. Many ofthese vintage lenses are sharp enough, so then Bokeh and color and purple fringing become important.
Click to expand...
Well, I also heard this before. But are you serious that Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is better than f1.4? And the thing about the aliasing, we have no Problem if we have GH13.
 
Not a big difference, and there are sample variations between generations of lenses, 4.4 vs 4.2 MTF. At 4.4 MYF the 1.8 Nikon matches the Minolta 1.4, so that is a good deal. The Nikon is sharp, no question. Check out the review and samples on Ken's page
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm
and the ratings here:
http://jimdoty.com/learn/Tips/Equipment/Lens_Testing/Photodo_Tests/nikon_tests.html
In general, really fast lenses have some technical hurdles, which is why they are expensive. And also why the slightly slower lenses will occasionally outperform them.
If you take my Rokkor 1.4 and my AF Minolta 1.4, they are so close it is scary. But they are different. The AF is slightly sharper in the center (looking at 16x magnification of a test chart) and the Rokkor is slightly better edge to edge. So which is better? Well, for portraits, the AF, for larger scenes the Rokkor.

As for Aliasing in the GH13, I'll wait and see, but the aliasing only goes away in tele mode, presumably. I like the color on the minoltas. But I'd pick up the Nikon 50/1.8 in a minute if I saw a good deal.
Also consider CA, as Lucas says, it is a bummer.

BTW, if you look at Ken's samples, the Voigtlander 40mm looks the sharpest :) And so it goes.
 
Sharpness, schmarpness I say. A pox on MTF charts!

Also, I haven't seen ANY aliasing on any GH13 material. The Canon cameras specialise in this effect, due to a line skipping codec. The GH cameras have NO discernible aliasing/moire.
 
Yep! I noticed that, since I use my Pancake a lot. That is the Sharpest lens for GH1, but never seen any aliasing.
Hence I am considering sharp lens in 50mm too. Would FDn f1.4 be OK?.
 
I get aliasing all the time on the GH13 with the Panny 20mm on musical instrument strings, like cello, harp, double bass, etc. Elsewhere, I don't see it so much. And the sharper the prime, the stairier the step.
Here's two unrelated, or sorta related things, if you have two lenses, one of which is slightly sharper but the other one has better color, CA, etc, which would you take? Well, the one with better color is going to look way better. But most ppl will buy the sharper one, or the one, sight unseen, that ppl say is sharper. They won't really care about the color. And many ppl will buy the F1.2 or 1.4 over the 1.7 or 1.8, even though a majority of ppl will opine that the slower lens is, in some cases, a better lens.
Point two, if one buys the popular, statistically better choice, one has a false sense that they have the best lens. And guess what, chances are, they won't! They might even have a slightly off sample, which is sooooo common in used lenses (like, why is it for sale?) The only way to know is to get two lenses, try them out, and then keep the one you like better. And that's the only way to know. Thanks to eBay, you can comp the Nikon 1.8 to the Minolta 1.4, and even the Nikon 1.2 (don't bother, but if you must you must), and get ALL your money back for the lenses you don't want. Or you can just buy the Voigtlander :)
 
exttreem said:
Well, both Canon and Nikkor 50mm f1.2 costs 3 time more than f1.4 anyway.
Do we really see the significant difference in the results of both f1.4 and f1.2 lenses?
Click to expand...

Don't know about Nikkors, but Canon FD 50mm 1.2 is not that great compared to 50mm 1.4. I wouldn't recommend it unless you really need that half stop.
Speaking about superspeeds, there's another FD normal lens: 55mm f1.2 Aspherical. Don't confuse it with ordinary 50mm 1.2. It's expensive, but worth it. Wide open, at 1.2 it outperforms 50mm 1.4 at f4 in terms of both center and edge sharpness (at the cost of lower microcontrast - no problem to me, I like low-contrast look and always dial the contrast down on my DSLR). I own both lenses and the difference is huge. For details check out this:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page81.html
 
There are many People who underestimate FDs against Nikkors, while if you take for instance New FD 50mm f1.4, it's enough sharp for GH13 and has Good Colors and Contrast too.
 
Most of the Nikkor Ais 50mm f1.8 lenses are Pancake size, which I worry about not being useful on Follow Focus. Hence I am more interested in f1.4 in both Nikkor and FDn.
 
I have two recent Sigma lenses (Nikon mount) that I love. The 10-20mm and the 18-200. Will they work for the GH1/GH2? They do not have an aperture ring.
 
Lens choice for GH1/GH2/AF100

Lens choice for GH1/GH2/AF100

I have two recent Nikon mount Sigma lenses that I love, the 10-20mm and the 18-200mm. Will they work for the GH1/GH2/AF100. If so what adapter is best?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top