Canon FD/Rokkor MD/Nikon

B

Bengali

Active member
Hi,

looks like most are using Nikon or Canon FD for manual lens on their GH1.

does anyone have both rokkor(-x) and Canon FD? I'm curious if image quality is similiar or Canon/Nikon is much better.

this is a long shot but do you think it's possible for Panasonic to upgrade their firmware where when you do manual focus, it will indicate correct focus? I would
think the software can detect when the pixels are in proper focus.

I remember with previous DSLR, you could do manual focus and it would turn
green when in focus.

thanks.
 
the firmware update, if possible at all, is unlikely. Panny doesn't seem to excited about continuos firmware updates - people have been asking for several other (possibly more crucial) features for awhile now.
 
Bengali said:
Hi,

does anyone have both rokkor(-x) and Canon FD? I'm curious if image quality is similiar or Canon/Nikon is much better.

thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm curious too. I just bought some Rokkor lenses because, hey, they're cheap. Just something to mess around with. But I'm curious too how the quality compares.
 
I'm curious too. I just bought some Rokkor lenses because, hey, they're cheap.
Click to expand...

which ones did you get? I recently picked up the rokkor-x 50mm f1.4 for $40 on ebay. now I'm wondering if I should have spent a few more bucks for the canon.

are you able to get tack sharp pics with the rokkor's? I tried a few shots,
came out blurry. I have to work on my manual focus. looked sharp on the lcd.

some were not out of focus but not too sharp either. maybe need to step down more.
 
Bengali said:
which ones did you get? I recently picked up the rokkor-x 50mm f1.4 for $40 on ebay. now I'm wondering if I should have spent a few more bucks for the canon.

are you able to get tack sharp pics with the rokkor's? I tried a few shots,
came out blurry. I have to work on my manual focus. looked sharp on the lcd.

some were not out of focus but not too sharp either. maybe need to step down more.
Click to expand...

Usually the Rokkors are a little above Nikon/Canon in optical quality

But it really depends on the lens... the Rokkor 50 1.4 is very good, but I don't know if it's superior to the FD or Takumar 50 1.4 lens

the Rokkor 24/2.8 is so good that Leica asked Minolta to make this lens for them, just to have an idea...
 
Bengali said:
which ones did you get? I recently picked up the rokkor-x 50mm f1.4 for $40 on ebay. now I'm wondering if I should have spent a few more bucks for the canon.

are you able to get tack sharp pics with the rokkor's? I tried a few shots,
came out blurry. I have to work on my manual focus. looked sharp on the lcd.

some were not out of focus but not too sharp either. maybe need to step down more.
Click to expand...

Which 50/1.4 version did you get? there are 3 versions... but I think all of them are a little soft wide open (like the Takumar 50/1.4), but at f/2 is very sharp and at f/2.8 is pin sharp
 
I used to be a camera salesman in the days of Canon FD, Rokkors, and Nikkors. The lenses are all comparable, especially in the 50mm range where differences are very slight. 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 were the lenses that usually were sold with every SLR back in the day. If you can pick them up reasonably you can't go wrong.

However, I would urge you to go Nikon. Here's why. The lenses will still mount to Nikon's DSLRs and work, though the manual focus ones one autofocus of course. On some of the more advanced Nikon DSLRs, the camera will even meter with these lenses.

Nikons have used essentially the same mount for 40 years. They're not going to change it any time soon. Canon discontinued the FD mount for the current EOS EF mount. Minolta discontinued the Rokkor MD mount in favor of the Maxxum mount (which is now the Sony mount).

So by buying Nikon lenses you will be buying lenses you can use on a Nikon still camera or a future Nikon video-enabled DSLR should they ever make one you want. You may pay a little more for the Nikon lens but selling a Nikon lens is easier and they tend to retain their value decently.



See my logic?
 
Obviously it's in a different price range, but how would you guys compare the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 with these lenses?
 
Which 50/1.4 version did you get? there are 3 versions... but I think all of them are a little soft wide open (like the Takumar 50/1.4), but at f/2 is very sharp and at f/2.8 is pin sharp
Click to expand...
Hi Ivan,

I got the MC Rokkor-X PG one. has orange text. yeah, so many different versions.

It does have a small nick on the glass and some debris on the inside of the glass. Does not show up.

I'll have to take some more shots during the day at each stop and see. I can't complain too much for a $37 lens w/ship.

I've settled on trying to acquire the rokkor 28mm f2.8 as an interim lens
for the panasonic 20mm. It's no comparison but is the cheapest alternative for now. Having a hard time justifying $400 for such a tiny lens.

Obviously it's in a different price range, but how would you guys compare the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 with these lenses?
Click to expand...
no comparison, that's a different league. if you can afford those lenses,
then you have some real gems.
 
Mister Big said:
I used to be a camera salesman in the days of Canon FD, Rokkors, and Nikkors. The lenses are all comparable, especially in the 50mm range where differences are very slight. 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 were the lenses that usually were sold with every SLR back in the day. If you can pick them up reasonably you can't go wrong.

However, I would urge you to go Nikon. Here's why. The lenses will still mount to Nikon's DSLRs and work, though the manual focus ones one autofocus of course. On some of the more advanced Nikon DSLRs, the camera will even meter with these lenses.

Nikons have used essentially the same mount for 40 years. They're not going to change it any time soon. Canon discontinued the FD mount for the current EOS EF mount. Minolta discontinued the Rokkor MD mount in favor of the Maxxum mount (which is now the Sony mount).

So by buying Nikon lenses you will be buying lenses you can use on a Nikon still camera or a future Nikon video-enabled DSLR should they ever make one you want. You may pay a little more for the Nikon lens but selling a Nikon lens is easier and they tend to retain their value decently.



See my logic?
Click to expand...

For a Nikon DSLR shooter, this is completely true. but for a GH1?

I did not buy any Nikon lenses for my GH1 because the "inverse focus ring" bothers me a lot, like the Pentax/Takumar lenses.
 
I used to be a camera salesman in the days of Canon FD, Rokkors, and Nikkors. The lenses are all comparable, especially in the 50mm range where differences are very slight. 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 were the lenses that usually were sold with every SLR back in the day. If you can pick them up reasonably you can't go wrong.

However, I would urge you to go Nikon. Here's why. The lenses will still mount to Nikon's DSLRs and work, though the manual focus ones one autofocus of course. On some of the more advanced Nikon DSLRs, the camera will even meter with these lenses.

Nikons have used essentially the same mount for 40 years. They're not going to change it any time soon. Canon discontinued the FD mount for the current EOS EF mount. Minolta discontinued the Rokkor MD mount in favor of the Maxxum mount (which is now the Sony mount).

So by buying Nikon lenses you will be buying lenses you can use on a Nikon still camera or a future Nikon video-enabled DSLR should they ever make one you want. You may pay a little more for the Nikon lens but selling a Nikon lens is easier and they tend to retain their value decently.



See my logic?
Click to expand...

yes, very logical should you have the funds to do so. It would have been
nice then for me to keep my nikon lens back when I had the Fuji S1. I'm in
the boat of having to sell off before I can buy.
 
Bengali said:
Hi Ivan,

I got the MC Rokkor-X PG one. has orange text. yeah, so many different versions.

It does have a small nick on the glass and some debris on the inside of the glass. Does not show up.

I'll have to take some more shots during the day at each stop and see. I can't complain too much for a $37 lens w/ship.

I've settled on trying to acquire the rokkor 28mm f2.8 as an interim lens
for the panasonic 20mm. It's no comparison but is the cheapest alternative for now. Having a hard time justifying $400 for such a tiny lens.

no comparison, that's a different league. if you can afford those lenses,
then you have some real gems.
Click to expand...

That's the best version, the one I have. as for the rokkor 28m, get the f/2 version, is very nice. but it's a U$200+ lens
If you want a good and cheap 28mm, the Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 with serial number starting with 28 is very nice, so tiny and light, but very sharp lens. and you can get for less than U$25
 
That's the best version, the one I have. as for the rokkor 28m, get the f/2 version, is very nice. but it's a U$200+ lens
If you want a good and cheap 28mm, the Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 with serial number starting with 28 is very nice, so tiny and light, but very sharp lens. and you can get for less than U$25
Click to expand...

thanks Ivan. I'll keep an eye out for the 28mm f2. will also give the vivitar a try.
 
I shoot with Rokkors on my GH1 and love them. I've never used Canon FDs or Nikons though to compare them with. From what I understand from all of my research, they're all very close together. Check out Rokkor files for some good info and reviews of all of the different lenses.
 
curious, do you have the rokkor 28mm f2.8? is f2.8 large enough for low light indoor shooting? thinking of getting one.

the 24mm seems to be sharper and better constructed, but it's also $100 more than the 28mm. probably will stick with the 28mm. going for cheap.
 
I heard a comment from a "pro" on an audio podcast that basically stated, Canons were much sharper lenses overall than Nikons. He basically said, take a look at 100% crops and its obvious how soft Nikons are. Being a newbie statements like this sound crazy, but certainly can form an impression subliminally. Is there any truth to this at all? Has anyone ever heard this bias?
 
Last edited:
Bengali said:
curious, do you have the rokkor 28mm f2.8? is f2.8 large enough for low light indoor shooting? thinking of getting one.

the 24mm seems to be sharper and better constructed, but it's also $100 more than the 28mm. probably will stick with the 28mm. going for cheap.
Click to expand...

I only have experience with the 24/2.8 and 28/2 rokkors. The 24/2.8 is a legend, the Leica 24/28 that costs 3x more is actually a Minolta.

I've heard that the Minolta 28/2.8 has nothing very special...it's a good lens, but nothing great...
How much are you paying for it?
 
mikecazzx said:
I heard a comment from a "pro" on an audio podcast that basically stated, Canons were much sharper lenses overall than Nikons. He basically said, take a look at 100% crops and its obvious how soft Nikons are. Being a newbie statements like this sound crazy, but certainly can form an impression subliminally. Is there any truth to this at all? Has anyone ever heard this bias?
Click to expand...

Do you know why this "pro" told this?

Because Canon guys are just plain arrogant... I know this because I have some experience in still photography and I know lots of pros that use Canon gear. Canon users will always say that Canon is superior to everything...

If that's true? of course not, that's the most bizarre statement I've heard in all my life.

Yes, Canon have some great lenses, specially some from the "L" line. But Nikon have some amazing lenses also... it just depends on which lenses you are talking about.
 
Ivan Lee said:
Because Canon guys are just plain arrogant... I know this because I have some experience in still photography and I know lots of pros that use Canon gear. Canon users will always say that Canon is superior to everything...
Click to expand...

Canon has been so much more innovative in developing bodies and lenses than Nikon there is almost no comparison.

Nikons are still somewhat limited by the very old mount design, Canon didn't make any friends with their FD users when they switched to the EOS mount (except for those of us now who like buying cheap Canon FDs for our GH1s) but the EOS mount is so far superior to the Nikon mount they almost aren't worth comparing and this allowed Canon to make huge leaps over Nikon in the last bit of the 80s and early 90s - Canon went from basically having no AF bodies to having the EOS-1 + Canon L glass with ultrasonic motors and remarkable TTL flashes in a single generation and Nikon didn't catch up with that for years. Not too long after that, we started to get our first image-stabilization lenses - again, Canon did it first.

So if you were getting into Canon at that time, yeah, you're probably a bit biased - I think Nikon is catching up to an extent but having used both, I've never found Nikon lenses to be better than the best Canon L lenses. I own both Nikons and Canons and could do what i do using either...but from a technological standpoint, and a lens standpoint, I think Canon wins if only slightly, but it's not like it happened as an accident, Canon had to do some things better in order to beat out Nikon which was heavily entrenched in the photojournalism world at that time and Canon, as part of its philosophy, appears more interested in creating exotic lenses (either superfast, tilt/shift, etc.) than Nikon, so that has appeal for some as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top