Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
DAMAGED Lens - AMAZING Images! Minolta 58mm f1.2 v. Olympus 55mm f1.2
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2024
- The is beautiful old lens has heavy damage to its coatings, but what are its images like?
This Minolta 58mm f1.2 is known as one of the nicest vintage f1.2 lenses, but its coating is heavily scratched.
Will this damaged lens give a decent image? Should you buy one?
Check out the video to find out more!
To support this channel on Patreon please go to:
www.patreon.co...
Thanks for watching!
My Zuiko 55mm f1.2 is sooooo badly behaved that I've covered up the 1.2 on the aperture ring and written "wtf" as a reminder.
That made me smile!
I own the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 and its slightly slower 58mm f1,4 sibling. I use the f1.4 lens much more often because it's lighter and produces basically the same results. I've been a photojournalist for 31 years and place a higher priority on a lighter overall kit. I use the f1.2 version almost exclusively for portraits in controlled situations, i.e. an outdoor shoot of a model. I enjoy your videos. Thank you for your impressive work.
The best of the old f 1.2 lenses is said to be the Hexanon 57 mm.
I didn't know that, thanks for the info!
That scratching of the coating on the rear element can be cleaned, in case you're annoyed about it. It's on the inner surface. Minolta 58 1.2 can be easily disassembled btw. I used lens pen+microfiber to clean it. Haven't noticed any more flaring after. CA only axial. Regarding lateral aberration there's almost 0 even wide open in most ugly situations (like tree branches against white cloudy sky). Hard to find decent, unbeaten cpoy though.
The point with these lenses is that they would have primarily been used at maximum aperture in very low light, so anything other than the main subject would be very dark or completely black. This means the quality of the out of focus areas is irrelevant as it wouldn't be noticeable.
If printed in a newspaper as little dots on low quality paper, or even slightly better quality in a magazine, these lenses would have been adequate for the print technologies of their era.
edit: regarding CA, these lenses would probably have been used mostly with b&w film.
These 1.2's on Minolta bodies could be viewed wide open but then the camera would stop down to your preset during exposure.
They were available light lenses, it's true, but they sure are fun to play with and they will give a look that can't be achieved with any other lens. In modern times I think they're best thought of as art lenses.
The odd blemish doesn’t mean a lens can’t perform well. I have an Auto Chinon 50mm f1.7 I bought as part of a job lot of 3 for spares. The foremost of the middle elements has serious coating breakdown - about 50 % of it is cloudy. It’s ugly to look at but that doesn’t seem to have any effect on image quality. I’ve tested it against my Pentax 50 f1.7 and Industar 50-2 f3.5 and it holds it’s own through all aperture settings.
Damaged lenses can shoot very nicely, although some can't handle certain conditions. It sounds like yours is soldiering on though!
I once longing for wider lens, be it 1.4 or 1.2 and dreaming of beautiful/creamy image it would give. But after seeing these sample images, and then realizing that today's camera sensor is more than enough to reveal all of these lens characteristic (and flaws) which seems excessive to my liking...
Considering their price and my second though (do I REALLY need it?) I would have changed my mind and stick with what I already have - a bulk of various nifty fifty 1.8/2 glasses in my collection. These f1.8-2 range would give enough "creamy/dreamy" look, with adequate blurry background for me.😄
I think I can just about remember Ilford bringing XP1 film onto the market, which at the time was amazing as you could push it easily to a 1000 ASA, gel based rather than the usual silver nitrate, it really was something else, but that said there was always an edgy grainy photojournalism qualitty to pushing black and white way beyond its designated ASA.
I rather like the grainy photojournalism look!
I think XP1 was launched in about 1980. Bit before my time but I've heard XP2 was a big improvement. I was recently looking at some old photos I took in the late 90s on HP5 pushed to 800 or 1600. They have a very distinctive "sooty" look which for many subjects has a more appropriate feel and atmosphere than modern auto-HDR mega-sharp images.
Of course the other reason to own a 1.2 is you're shooting with the camera it was designed for. An auto camera that keeps the lens wide open until you press the shutter.
I like what the Olympus can do.
Still battling with my canon rf 50 1.2. A middle element keeps steaming up over the course of a fortnight. A wipe with lens cloth and its fine, but you gotta remove the lens block. Take the back element off to get the rear group out, then it can get its wipe.
Will try some anti mist coating as used in motorcycle helmets and paintball goggles. Its a pink wax stick that requires some buffing.
There is no water in the lens, iv taken it fully to bits and reassembled. Iris blades helicoid the lot. Cleaned with petrol fresh grease .
Never seen anything like it,
That's very odd. Assuming it's not getting in from outside, it must be something in the lens causing this. Are you sure the liquid is water? Sometimes old lenses are lubricated incorrectly, using too much oil which can lie unnoticed, but which will migrate given enough time. On the other hand, if it's coming in from outside, could it be a storage problem? Perhaps try keeping some dessicant next to the lens when storing?
@@zenography7923 just checked in on it, steamed, always one surface of one element. I could attach a silica packet inside the caps. I leaning toward polymer degradation.
my nikon nikkor 55mm f/1.2 performs somewhat between these two, with the added nikkor color signature. just about sharp enough, interesting blur, good colors.
There were the regular 1.2 Nikkors of 50, 55 and 58mm and the specially corrected 1.2 "Noct" Nikkor... The price of the later 10x higher than the former.
That sounds like a nice lens - enjoy!
Zorki says "I'll get my people to talk to your people".
Yep, he said that too!
Two Leica speed champs were a 65mm f/0.75 and a 50mm f/0.75 lens. Both appear to have been designed specifically for x-ray photography. (Leica Barnack Berek Blog)
I know Oude Delft(Old Delft) in the Netherlands produced a 50/0.75 x-ray lens, not sure wether or not it was own design or a Zeiss clone.
Wow, that's fast. I wonder what they would do on mirrorless?
My Porst Color Reflex UMC XMG 50/1.2, which is a rebadged Fujinon(old FA/X mount) EBC DM, seems to be a better choice. At or near MFD no 1.2 is going to be a sharpness monster, certainly not hand held, but for anything over 1m or so it is quite useable. Blur isn't superb but not too bad either and I've never seen a trace of CA so....... On the downside is the price, they are more rare than either the Minolta or the Olympus. I got lucky because not everybody knows what it is and sometimes it gets rejected just because the badge says Porst rather than Fuji.
That sounds like an interesting lens, I'll keep my eye open for one!
Even on film, it is hard to justify such lenses in comparison to a 1.4
I love my olympus 50mm f1.4 and will stick to it
The Zuiko 1.4 is a lovely lens, enjoy!
My favorite is the Zuiko 50 f1.4
One of my faves too!
Love the end! We return to reality, i see it all the time on purchase sights/sites/you get me! 85mm is the best, its like flies to a ? There are many great lenses, as you display and the fact that it opens to these wide aperture’s means nothing,the point being,how many photographers need a lens that will shoot in low light? Sorry, Today, quality of the lens is far more important!
True enough, but these old fast lenses are fun to play with!
@@zenography7923 i understand that, im a collector of both cameras and lenses, i have over a hundred cameras and mote lenses, my point was, that there are many lenses out there that are not grabbed, and some are very good in surprising ways.
Yeah, I remember films rated @ 3200 ASA . The 58mm & 55mm f1.2, remain impressive, mate.
They're a couple of beasts, no doubt about it!
I get more quality and sharpness from my modern 50mm F1.1 Kamlan..£45....😮
I guess so, but these old fast lenses sure are fun to play with!
So, you own the Olympus and the Minolta...
I've been looking at adding a vintage f1.2 lens to my collection. I have a number of f1.4 lenses that I really love, but was thinking that an f1.2 would be even more amazing. After this video, I'm not so sure. The f1.2's seem exceptionally soft with boatloads of spherical aberrations. To be clear, my f1.4's all do as well, but not enough to make me stop using them, and indeed sometimes these effects are desirable for certain subjects... but the f1.2's are off the charts in this regard lol. So far I'm seeing a pattern with the f1.2's vs. the f1.4's: more expensive, heavier, worse image quality. Are there any other f1.2's to be considered?
The primary reason that we bought the f1.2 back in the day was because the films needed the speed.
As films got better through the 70's and 80's, that became less of a necessity.
Of course, if you are using it on a digital camera made in the last fifteen or twenty years, (rough guess, I'm not a digital guy) then an extra stop or two isn't going to matter.
As to image quality, there's a saying "you get what you pay for." That was as true back in the day as it is today.
All the major manufacturers made an f1.2, but the nicest I've used is the Zuiko 50mm f1.2 (not 55mm). A truly stunning lens that's actually quite sharp wide open. As many have said though, these were available light lenses and aren't really needed today, but they sure are fun to play with! I consider them art lenses today, with which one can achieve a specific look that can't be made in any other way, so for me they still have a use.
Lemme know when your Minolta is on an adapter for Fuji if you can reach infinity or anywhere near it.
I don't have a Minolta to x mount adaptor but will probably get one at some point - if so, I'll be sure to let you know! Hope all's well mon ami.
Canon 50mm f.95 came out in 1961.
Is your cat named after a camera?😂
Yep, Zorks is named after the Zorki cameras.
He sure is!
According to Wikipedia it means sharp sighted, which is appropriate for a 🐈
❤❤❤❤
👍
lovely colors from the minolta. very bright and attention grabbing
Good old Minolta colours!
🟡