Originally Posted by
D. Bryant
Well I do know that the Minolta Rokkor is revered and coveted by some but I would hardly call it the sharpest lens ever produced for an SLR. Do you have some resolution tests you can share when it is being used on a DSLR?
I'm not sure if I understand the second question but if you are asking what $300 lens would I suggest as an alternative to the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2, then I would suggest a Canon EF 50 mm f/1.4 since you mentioned the Canon 50D. There really isn't much difference speed wise between f/1.2 and f/1.4 (roughly 1/3 of a stop). It would be my guess that the Canon niffty fifties (f/1.8 & f/1.4 50mms) are just as sharp as the Rokkor 58. If money isn't a consideration then I know that the Canon 50mm EF f/1.2 will out perform the Rokkor wide open; the Canon f/1.2 is a pretty high class lens. Whether or not the bokeh of the Rokkor is "better" than other lenses in it's class is just a matter of opinion. I know from viewing the results of the testing of several Leica ASPH 50mm lenses by a friend of mine locally during the past year, the bokeh from these lenses are really hard to beat. And perhaps equally so with the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5, what a beauty!
But this discussion is getting far afield from my original comment about using older vintage MF lenses on digital bodies. In short a vintage lens may not perform quite as good on a digital body as it did on a film body. I suspect this may be due several reasons such as flare, the critical angle need by the photo-diode sites to capture light, and the reflectivity of the sensor. These vintage lenses have to evaluated on a case by case basis. In the case of the Canon DSLRs with an APS-C sensor such as the 40D I've found Olympus Zuiko prime focal length lenses perform much better than some of the finer Nikon primes, but I wouldn't generalize and say that is true in every case with either brand of MF lenses.
Working with MF lenses is in some ways preferable to me since the control of the aperture and focus ring is right there where I like having it. Unfortunately that comes with the disadvantage that those lenses no longer have automatic apertures causing the focusing screen to darken severely which does slow there use down which can be important in certain shooting situations, especially low light conditions or fast action. On the whole I've tended to migrate away from MF lenses except in the case of very long focal length lenses which I use for back yard bird photography when I'm in the mood.
It doesn't seem that you care for any digital bodies of moderate price, that being the case I would recommend that you just stick with film since you don't want to pay the price for the upper echelon bodies. And since you seem to also favor the Contax G2, I thought I would mention that some of the lenses made for the G series are now being converted for use on the Leica M8, another body that you don't want to buy.
Did you stop to think what this really means in terms of that camera? The sensor resolution is so high that only the best optics are going to be able to create the best IQ.
I'm glad you rate the 40D over the 50D. I don't own a 50D myself, I'm very happy with my 40D and if you think the Canon 5D is such a great camera, which it is for the most part, why don't you buy one, shoot digital exposures, take some high end workshops for digital printing from guys like Tyler Boley or George DeWolfe and learn the craft?
Then you can make a competent decision for yourself whether digital printing is for you which was the original premise of this thread.
Don
Bookmarks