1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

I've heard great things about this lens. Is this a good deal?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by tanngrisnir3, Nov 10, 2011.

  1. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Minolta Rokkor-PG 58mm f1.2

    Arkloads of 50 1.7s and 1.4s out there, but I keep hearing good things about the 1.2

    I've just never seen another one for sale, so I don't have a comparative basis. That, and has anyone actually used one and can they confirm that it's THAT much better than slower versions?
     
  2. zpierce

    zpierce Super Moderator

    661
    Sep 26, 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Zach
    I have a Minolta 50mm f1.4 which is lovely at f2 and above. However, I paid $40 for it.

    I can't comment on this lens other than to say I'd think really hard about dropping $500 on a used, adapted, fully manual lens when you can by the 45mm 1.8, 45mm 2.8, or 25mm 1.4 for similar or less money. Very capable, smaller, lighter lenses designed for the system with full automation.

    I guess the question of is it worth it largely comes down to what are you going to use it for. If you have a purpose that requires a slightly faster, slightly longer lens, and are willing to compromise on weight and automation, then maybe it is. It would not be worth it to me over the fast native lenses available for our system.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Thanks! Yeah, that's why I'm asking, actually; 5 bills on something like this could (for my purposes) just as easily be spent on, say, a 100-300mm.

    I'm looking for a really good, larger focal length prime, so I'm just toying with the idea and, as you said, how much better in real terms is a 1.2 over a 1.4?
     
  4. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    I had one and it was nice lens but heavy as hell. I prefer a 1.4 legacy lens to a 1.2.
    500 is a decent price, IMHO
     
  5. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    I can't speak from my own experience, but before spending this kind of money you'd better read this review, where one of the conclusions states: "The performance of both lenses was superior wide open than that recorded by the f/1.2 lenses at f/2, and in fact across the board, at all apertures the f/1.4 lenses outperformed the f/1.2 lenses in terms of resolution and contrast." So far I haven't seen too many legacy lenses that can be used wide open without undue reservation, certainly not (super)fast legacy standard lenses.
     
  6. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    My only caution -- a lot of these wide open legacy lenses are very soft wide open when used on digital, and may be soft in general. You might not find 1.2 useable. Frequently, lenses wider than 1.4 also have funky bokeh that you may or may not like. Try a search pbase.com for output examples.

    Special lenses like this are picked up by only a limited number of buyers, so if you find you don't like it, it might take some effort to find a buyer. If you can try the lens on your camera, and see the pics on your computer, before you buy, that might be the safest route. I doubt the seller has a line of people waiting to buy it, so don't get too rushed into the purchase.

    Check sites like FredMiranda for similar listings, like this one ($515, but I think it was already adapted to Canon mount):
    FS: Sold: MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.2, EOS mount - FM Forums

    Here's one in August that sold for $300 Sold: Minolta MD Rokkor-X 50mm f1.2 - FM Forums

    $375 for this one: FS: Minolta 50mm 1.2 Bayonet Mount - FM Forums

    This one was $400 Sold: Minolta MD 50mm F/1.2 Lens - FM Forums
     
  7. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    Mine had nice of bokeh, but was a soft lens at 1.2. I sold mine here for $120+shipping, but it wasn't mint.
     
  8. zpierce

    zpierce Super Moderator

    661
    Sep 26, 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Zach
    I'd get one of the many, very good 50mm f1.4 lenses for about $50 and see what you think. My Minolta 50 / 1.4 is very nice, nice enough that I can't possibly imagine what it could do better that would be worth 10x the price.

    Here's an example of the softness wide open:

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/zachpierce/5068719968/" title="P1190565.jpg by zach.pierce, on Flickr">"512" height="640" alt="P1190565.jpg"></a>

    Vs. stopped down one click (1.8 maybe, it's not labeled every click)

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/zachpierce/5068722040/" title="P1190569.jpg by zach.pierce, on Flickr">"480" height="640" alt="P1190569.jpg"></a>
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Thanks to everyone. Yet again this site gets me the best possible answer in the shortest possible time, and that's RARE.

    I'm going to get a 1.4 and play around with that first, before I consider doing anything else.
     
  10. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Good choice. I love my f1.4 lenses like the Zuiko 50mm/1.4 or the Konica Hexanon 50mm/1.4. I find them to be the best balance of handling and performance. Especially thwe Zuiko, as both f/1.8 versions of those lnses are pancakes but the 1.4 version of the Zuiko is just barely longer! The difference is like adding a filter.
     
  11. chrith

    chrith Mu-43 Regular

    56
    Nov 12, 2010
    i really like my 58 1.4. best 40 dollars i have spent on a piece of photography equipment. this lens almost never leaves my camera body.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  12. Brian S

    Brian S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    714
    Apr 11, 2009
    I do not use my Nikkor 55/1.2 on the EP2- too hard to focus.

    For a cropped sensor, 1.3x and more, the Nikkor 55/1.2 has better sharpness. Over the center 2/3 of a 35mm frame it outperformed the 50/1.4 of the day. It went for center sharpness, which works out on a DX format Nikon DSLR and other 1.5x and more crop cameras.
     
  13. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Ah, jeez. Now I'm going to have to look for one of those!
     
  14. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    I don't have any experience with the Rokkor (heard good things though) but I have a lot of experience with the Pentax 50/f1.2 and 50/f1.4 and a word of warning - you buy a 50/f1.2 because it's f1.2, not because it's better that the f1.4 version.

    My experience is that the Pentax 50/f1.4 is equal or sharper than the f1.2 at all apertures they share (so from f1.4 onwards). It also weighs half as much, has less CA and flare, and cost 1/4 what the f1.2 cost... But, the f1.2 is f1.2, and f1.2 can do some pretty special things...

    You can do this with a 50/f1.2...
    6301990386_9cd8ea99de_b.
    f5.6

    6301414643_75a11573dc_b.
    f1.2

    6314195238_8d3164bcb4_b.
    f1.2

    6331058983_56108a74d7_b.
    f11

    But then you can do this with a 50/f1.4...
    6020763710_2ed1616522_b.
    f5.6

    6064215064_961012d462_b.
    f1.4

    5820969788_fda9650041_b.
    f8

    5601812523_efa241f597_b.
    f1.4

    6331055719_fc0e94a84f_b.
    f11

    So, my advice - get a 50/f1.4. If you find you're comfortable with shooting manually (comfortable enough to spend $500 on manual glass) and you find yourself constantly using the f1.4 at f1.4, then by all means get a f1.2. Just don't expect it to be 'better'.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. absolutic

    absolutic Mu-43 Veteran

    416
    Jan 21, 2011
    the bottom line, guys, which is the best and cheap 50mm lens to get? I am going to be using it on GF2. Probably a 1.4 makes sense, I used to own Nikkor 50mm 1.2 Ais on my D700 and it is just not easy to focus at 1.2. I do presently own the newest Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF-S G lens, but I am just not loving this lens. Should I go Pentax, Minolta, Canon FD, Olympus? I want to spend under $100>. Also does 50 1.4 becomes 100 1.4 on m4/3 or does it become 100 2.8 instead? Somewhat newbie questions, but I have not put much research in m4/3
     
  16. I have a Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC which I was lucky enough to purchase for 70 bucks. The thing is, I hate the glow it gives at f1.2 which is why I always back it off at least half a stop. Considering the price a 55/1.2 would normally sell for, it makes the OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 (which is perfectly usable at f1.8) seem an absolute bargain in comparison for the pittance that they usually sell for, and is so much smaller and lighter as well.
     
  17. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Generally speaking, the 1.2s I've seen have been 'better' only in terms of having a dreamier look wide open, with narrower depth of field. My Nikon 55/1.2 was actually a lot softer than the 50/1.4 on the E-P2.

    It's an interesting look, but my suggestion would be to get a cheap 50/1.4 and leave it at that. $500 is a lot for any lens. If you really want to try a 1.2, you can find used ones at KEH for ~$300.

    DH
     
  18. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Wow, unless that lens had element separation or fungus, you gave someone a really good deal.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    +1 to the KEH recommendation. Anything at KEH rated better than "UGLY" is going to be functionally great, and their prices are fair.
     
  20. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    If you're going for cheap, get a Minolta MD 50/1.7, Minolta seems to be somewhat cheaper than the other brands. A 50mm on MFT produces the same field of view, "sees the same" as a 100mm on a FF camera. Nitpicking, the focal length doesn't change, only what part of the lens' image is used by the camera. Likewise, aperture stays the same. I will not go into depth-of-field discussions here, in general you'll find that MFT produces much more depth-of-field than a FF camera.