NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Airy on September 11, 2016, 18:39:24
-
Same lenses, same camera, same methodology, but a different scene - outdoors, distant buildings, sunlight from behind at an angle. Here again, the lighting was variable, so please take that into account before drawing your own conclusions. I had to make coarse corrections, also because at f/1.2 and 1/4000s, the 100 ISO base sensitivity was too high and I had no ND filter at hand. Given the dynamic range, this was not an issue.
At f/1.4, and unlike the previous test, the 50/1.2 AI is the clear winner over the 50/1.4 AIS. In the center, the 50/1.2 has much less haze and a better contrast. Near the far sides, the situation reverses: the 50/1.4 has a better contrast, while the 50/1.2 exhibits its telltale haze. But consider the high definition of the lettering. The 50/1.2 behaves as a f/2 lens adding white sauce at wider apertures, so to say, but resolution is pretty good. On the contrary, the 50/1.4 is not sharp; there is obviously some astigmatism at play and/or flatness of field issue.
Below, you will find the full views (50/1.2 comes first), then center and left crop (50/1.2 on the left)
-
You may wonder why I did not show the f/1.2 shot. Well, there is nearly no difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4, except some more vignetting wide open, and some more haze in the center. So here's the comparison of the 50/1.2 with itself. The lettering on the left is just as good. This observation, i.e. the astonishingly clean letters near the far side compared to other lenses, is easily repeatable (I made it one week ago already). The corners howeve are not nice, see bottom pics. But who cares?
-
At f/1.8, let us compare the old AI with the new G. Unlike the previous indoor shoot, the difference is now massive, both in the center and on the far left side. No comment.
-
The "G" even delivers a usable corner. Also, around the white letters (see above), you will not find the "ghosts" that are present with the AI, a benefit of the better coatings I guess.
-
Now it is time to compare everybody at f/2.0. Dinner first.
-
Same lenses, same camera, same methodology, but a different scene - outdoors, distant buildings, sunlight from behind at an angle. Here again, the lighting was variable, so please take that into account before drawing your own conclusions. I had to make coarse corrections, also because at f/1.2 and 1/4000s, the 100 ISO base sensitivity was too high and I had no ND filter at hand. Given the dynamic range, this was not an issue.
At f/1.4, and unlike the previous test, the 50/1.2 AI is the clear winner over the 50/1.4 AIS. In the center, the 50/1.2 has much less haze and a better contrast. Near the far sides, the situation reverses: the 50/1.4 has a better contrast, while the 50/1.2 exhibits its telltale haze. But consider the high definition of the lettering. The 50/1.2 behaves as a f/2 lens adding white sauce at wider apertures, so to say, but resolution is pretty good. On the contrary, the 50/1.4 is not sharp; there is obviously some astigmatism at play and/or flatness of field issue.
Below, you will find the full views (50/1.2 comes first), then center and left crop (50/1.2 on the left)
Now I am confused: The first picture shows a huge IQ falloff from the clear center to the washy corners, the second picture shows a -- relatively speaking -- clear view over the whole frame.
If the first is the 1.2/50 and the second is the 1.4/50 then your comment should be reversed.
Concerning the 1.8/50G I did compare it at f=2 to the world famous 2.0/50Ai. Too hard to finally call, both were excellent but even here the 1.8/50G seems to lead by at least one noses length.
The 1.4/50G is OK on 12MP like the D3, but unusable wide open at 24MP or higher. The sharper and more contrasty rendering of the 1.8/50G does a lot in the resolution department.
PS: I found the post I was refferering to earlier: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,894.msg7908.html#msg7908 and this: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,892.msg7905.html#msg7905
-
Now I am confused: The first picture shows a huge IQ falloff from the clear center to the washy corners, the second picture shows a -- relatively speaking -- clear view over the whole frame.
If the first is the 1.2/50 and the second is the 1.4/50 then your comment should be reversed.
I checked, and confirm that I did not reverse the pictures, nor shall I reverse my statement. The 50/1.2 is not homogeneous; for some reason, much less than in the indoor case. But its center is better and the sides, though hazy, are sharp (so one can hope to get a good shot in PP). With the 50/1.4, the pic is indeed more homogeneous, but the center is not that good and the sides, while contrasty, are blurred. Matter of taste or, rather, use case - seen from afar, the 50/1.4 indeed performs better.
-
...Continuing...
The 50/1.4 AIS (right) and 50/1.8 AI (left) look very similar at f/2.0. The center crop suggests a slightly higher contrast with the 1.8 AI, but the changing lighting conditions are probably the cause.
On the left hand side, the 1.8 AI (left) shows some purple fringing or hazing; the AIS keeps the black letters "blacker". However the phone number in the window is cleaner with the 1.8 AI. Once again, it seems that the 50/1.4 AIS strength (off center) is good contrast, but the resolution suffers a bit.
-
Now the 50/1.8G is on the left, and the 50/1.8 AI on the right.
In the center, the G is distinctly sharper (see also the bamboos) and more contrasty. A significant improvement over the AI.
On the left, the difference is even more considerable.
-
Now the 50/1.8G (left side) vs. 50/1.2 AI... in the center it is more or less a tie. On the left, the 50/1.8G delivers better contrast, no purple fringing on edges, but resolves about the same (see for instance the small "cabinet damien" inscription on the window). On the right, same contrast gap, but the street name "peuple belge" for instance, seems better delineated with the 50/1.2.
Conclusion: unlike the indoor shot, the 50/1.2 seems to be the best of the classics here, at least at f/2.0 (its lack of homogeneity at f/1.4 is troublesome, as Frank pointed out). Its combination of low contrast (wide open) with suprizingly high resolution is unique. But the 50/1.8G, with its consistently better contrast and similar resolution, is an improvement. And if you are a pixel-peeping-corner-hugger, then... see below.
But these tests at wide apertures say only little about successful results. There are a quite few memorable shots for which I used the 50/1.2 AI(S or no), wide open as well as stopped down ; in the latter case there is something special happening - some kind of "3D pop" in some cases, high microcontrast, or the impression of experiencing blazing sunlight for real in other cases... I think I'll summarize this experience in another thread.
I definitely got other keepers with the 50/1.8G, but they are of another kind. Something with transparency and good bokeh.
-
Concerning the 1.8/50G I did compare it at f=2 to the world famous 2.0/50Ai. Too hard to finally call, both were excellent but even here the 1.8/50G seems to lead by at least one noses length.
I am a bit suspicious here. The 50/2 AI and 50/1.8 AI are similar and, from my testing, the 1.8 is somewhat superior at f/2 and even f/2.8 owing to some lack of contrast of the 50/2 at those apertures (purple haze at f/2, recedes partly at f/2.8). Also, the chart-shooting based tests by J.M Sépulchre were clearly in favor of the 50/1.8, to his own surprize, as he expressed in the report. And the 50/1.8G is definitely better than the 1.8AI. What was your shooting situation that led to this conclusion?
The 1.4/50G is OK on 12MP like the D3, but unusable wide open at 24MP or higher. The sharper and more contrasty rendering of the 1.8/50G does a lot in the resolution department.
This, and the AF inconsistency of my copy, made me part with it :(
Also, the 50/1.8G suffers less from coma than most others. Not a "lesser Noct", but a good buy.
-
Shooting situation: Portraits indoors measured in shiny eyes / iris scan quality and dreamy bokeh
No Noct, to harsh the transition from sharp to unsharp -...- off topic: the 1.4/24G has some "noctish" qualities. Now that I use it more often I value the super smooth transition from sharp to unsharp. A WOW lens even after five years of getting used to it. That is why I am after the 58G. I am ready to pay up to 900 Euros for a used one.
-
Airy, I appreciate your effort for these extensive tests and posting the results. I really hope that my sample of 50/1.8G is as good as yours.
-
Back in the day, I did extensive tests with my very early (#5) AIS 50mm f/1.2. I still have the results saved on photobucket.
From what I remember using it (I sold it a long time ago) is that it was very sharp in the center with a quick falloff of sharpness and increasing darkness of the corners wide open. It improved substantially at f/2.8.
These were the results wide open; (these are film scans fyi);
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v36/bo130/17.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/bo130/media/17.jpg.html)
And then stopped down to f/2.8;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v36/bo130/21.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/bo130/media/21.jpg.html)
The corners were very dark wide open. An example of the lower left corner wide open;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v36/bo130/20.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/bo130/media/20.jpg.html)
Here is the same corner at f/2.8;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v36/bo130/24.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/bo130/media/24.jpg.html)
I loved this lens and I sometimes wish I never sold it. However, I understood its limitations - and if I kept those in mind it was a fantastic lens to use in specific circumstances wide open.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v36/bo130/kp_zps9ipnxejf.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/bo130/media/kp_zps9ipnxejf.jpg.html)
-
Indeed, the vignetting of the 50/1.2 expresses itself in "dark corners", not very nice (the AIS version possibly being a tad worse). However, from my observations, some sharpness gets retained off center, while the "fogging" increases.
Last pic above is a lovely one.
-
Thanks Airy. I agree about how it rendered. I don't know if there were severe problems with the AIS. At the time I owned an FA and and F4 and I was interested in being able to use matrix metering. I also figured it had *more* modern antireflective coatings.
-
The difference between the AI and AIS wrt corner shading, if any, is not big. Both lenses' vignetting becomes annoying when shooting a uniform area such as blue sky, but n which case stopping down may be advised. Otherwise, I do not really care.