NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on November 11, 2017, 19:14:20
-
(http://www.destoutz.ch/slides/lens_55mm_f1.2_282994.jpg)
I have sold my Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.2 and am looking to replace it with an all-metal, pre-AI, version.
Based on some research, centering on Roland's site, with some feedback from Pindelski, Nikon has 4 different versions of 55mm f/1.2 lenses, only 2 of which have the scalloped, all-metal focus ring (which is what I am after). These two all-metal versions are:
- Nikkor 55/1.2 S-Auto (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f1.2_979837.html) (F)
- Nikkor 55/1.2 S ♦ C-Auto (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f1.2_282994.html) (C)
The other pre-AI 55 f/1.2 Nikkor (K) has the same rubber focus ring as the 50mm AI-S, so I am not interested in this one.
It is my understanding, concerning the two bulleted pre-AI versions that are all-metal, that the Nikkor 55/1.2 S ♦ C-Auto is the preferable option as this one has the more modern multi-coating and is likely the better choice for a modern DSLR.
My question is, has anyone directly compared the pre-AI Nikkor 55/1.2 S ♦ C-Auto to the AI-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.2?
If so, how would you characterize the differences, if any?
Thanks,
-
I own both lenses.
The 55/1.2 is softer and less contrasty than the 50/1.2, this is in particular evident at the widest stops. From f/5.6 onwards they behave very similar, though.
These lenses do exhibit a "veiling flare" wide or near wide open, which some user don't like and others find endearing.
-
I don't have the 55/1.2 S.C but I do have the K version. Both are multicoated but the optics of the K version are tweaked slightly, probably to improve close range performance since it focuses closer - 0.5m instead of 0.6m, so the S.C may perform differently although I expect them to be similar overall.
Wide open the images almost have a soft-focus look. Contrast is on the low side and there is a soft glow around the subject but with a core of sharpness. I have only used the AIS 50/1.2 briefly but my impression is that wide open it produces much cleaner images, not unlike a faster version of the AIS 50/1.4. Background bokeh on both versions tends to be busy or complex, so you may need to choose backgrounds carefully.
At smaller apertures the image becomes cleaner, and by medium apertures it produces sharp images with good contrast and colors, as you would expect with any standard lens.
I like the slightly longer than normal focal length. Nikon has an article on the development of this lens here: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0049/index.htm
If you want the old style look with more cleaner imaging characteristics, consider the Voigtlander 58/1.4 SL II S
The attached picture was taken with my 55/1.2 at f/5.6.
-
I own both lenses.
The 55/1.2 is softer and less contrasty than the 50/1.2, this is in particular evident at the widest stops. From f/5.6 onwards they behave very similar, though.
These lenses do exhibit a "veiling flare" wide or near wide open, which some user don't like and others find endearing.
Thanks for the feedback.
-
I don't have the 55/1.2 S.C but I do have the K version. Both are multicoated but the optics of the K version are tweaked slightly, probably to improve close range performance since it focuses closer - 0.5m instead of 0.6m, so the S.C may perform differently although I expect them to be similar overall.
Wide open the images almost have a soft-focus look. Contrast is on the low side and there is a soft glow around the subject but with a core of sharpness. I have only used the AIS 50/1.2 briefly but my impression is that wide open it produces much cleaner images, not unlike a faster version of the AIS 50/1.4. Background bokeh on both versions tends to be busy or complex, so you may need to choose backgrounds carefully.
At smaller apertures the image becomes cleaner, and by medium apertures it produces sharp images with good contrast and colors, as you would expect with any standard lens.
I like the slightly longer than normal focal length. Nikon has an article on the development of this lens here: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0049/index.htm
If you want the old style look with more cleaner imaging characteristics, consider the Voigtlander 58/1.4 SL II S
The attached picture was taken with my 55/1.2 at f/5.6.
Much appreciated, Roland—and terrific, colorful image!
I actually bought the Voigtlander 58/1.4 SL II S and I really like it, in some ways, not so much in others.
It is razor-sharp, renders nicely, except often there is a reddish (warmer) veil to the overall image.
It also has a similar, squirrely background as the 50 Ai-S, wide-open, but I think it is sharper at its fastest aperture.
Here are a couple of snapshots taken with the Voigtlander 58/1.4 SL II S @ f/1.4 in Zion:
-
If you want a standard lens with smoother backgrounds, the best options that I know of are the 58/1.2 Noct, the AFS 58/1.4 Neo-Noct, and I think the humble AFS 50/1.8 might not be too bad either. But of course the 58mm lenses are extremely expensive, and none have the old style focus ring that you want, especially the AFS models. I'll see if I can dig up some more pictures with my 55/1.2...
-
If you want a standard lens with smoother backgrounds, the best options that I know of are the 58/1.2 Noct, the AFS 58/1.4 Neo-Noct, and I think the humble AFS 50/1.8 might not be too bad either. But of course the 58mm lenses are extremely expensive, and none have the old style focus ring that you want, especially the AFS models. I'll see if I can dig up some more pictures with my 55/1.2...
Thanks, Roland.
I personally would never spend the $$$ on a Noct., which is pretty soft wide-open as well:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/August/58mmnoct.jpg) (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-noct-nikkor-58mm-f1-2)
While the Noct. has its benefits (with respect to coma), after looking at many images from it, IMO the Noct. is possibly the most-overrated, under-performing piece of glass there is. (It's worth maybe $500 more than an AI-S, no more.)
If I were going to spend $3000-$4000 on a used 55-58mm lens, it would be a used Zeiss Otus 55.
Same thing with the AFS 58/1.4 Neo-Noct.:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/August/58mmg.jpg) (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g)
If you click the link ^ above ^ regarding the rendering, however, the Neo-Noct has the best bokeh of the bunch, which is why (even though it's soft) so many people seem to love it.
(Being somewhat soft, with great bokeh, is probably why it's vaulted as such a great portrait lens.)
I am curious to see more Pre-AI 55mm f/1.2 S ♦ C shots, so please do share more.
I think (although it may lag, sharpness-wise, as you and Bjørn point out, it may be that the elder pre-AI versions render bokeh better, like the Neo-Noct. does).
However, if we get back to the subject of pure sharpness, it's hard not to compare the dismal scores above to the Otus 55 below (same price, used, as a Noct.):
(https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/zeiss-otus-55mm-f-1-4-apo-distagon-t--review-28738/images/highres-Zeiss-OTUS-55mm-f1-4-MTF_1453288141.jpg) (https://www.ephotozine.com/article/zeiss-otus-55mm-f-1-4-apo-distagon-t--review-28738)
Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus
Like Michael, I seek extreme sharpness wide-open.
That said, the Zeiss Otus 55 is twice as sharp at f/1.4 than the Noct. ... and is even vastly sharper than the Noct. is @ f/4.0.
This is why I wouldn't pay more than a thousand bucks for a Noct. It's a joke, really, unless you're a vampire, or astro-shooter, and shoot night only. Even then, I doubt it would beat an Otus.
Based on the above, I am considering buying a used Otus.
However, I don't want to spend $3-$4K for a 50mm, nor do I want that kind of weight in my bag (for one lens), regardless of the price.
I have though about a Milvus f/1.4, but they're big and heavy too.
In the end, I think I am going to stick with my Voightlander. It is a better lens than any Nikkor 50mm, esp. wide-open:
(https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f-1-4-sl-ii-lens-review-25670/images/highres-Voig58mmMTF_1402415374.jpg) (https://www.ephotozine.com/article/voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f-1-4-sl-ii-lens-review-25670)
Voigtländer Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL (Version I, not II)
Keep in mind, this is a graph on the older version. I have not seen any MTF stats on the newer one, which I have, and I suspect it will be somewhat improved.
I don't really care about edge sharpness, but I very much do care about center-mid sharpness wide-open.
The Voigtländer beats any Nikkor 50-58mm lens in this regard, and also has better CA correction than any Nikkor 50-58 lens:
(https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f-1-4-sl-ii-lens-review-25670/images/highres-Voig58mmCA_1402415262.jpg) (https://www.ephotozine.com/article/voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f-1-4-sl-ii-lens-review-25670)
Voigtländer Nokton 58mm **CA** (Version I, not II)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/August/58mmNikonCA.jpg) (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g)
Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 Noct. + Nikkor 58mm Neo-Noct. **CA**
I am trying to get used to the 'reddish' (warmer) veil the Voigtländer has ... which seems only to be present when under-exposed a bit.
Properly-exposed (and over-exposed a tad) it seems to be quite clear and neutral.
It is, for sure, sharper than my ex-Nikkor 50mm AI-S wide-open. In fact, it's about as sharp as the Zeiss 50mm Milvus wide-open (the Angry Photographer calls the new Voigtländer Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL II S "The Best Lens Value Ever (https://youtu.be/PBTMs0qYVCY).")
In closing, here are some snapshots I took at my father's 90th birthday, two weeks ago, this last October 25th (my 81 year old mom would kill me if she knew I posted images of her online, lol).
If anyone wonders why I am "John Koerner II," it is because I was born the day after my dad's own birthday. (What else are you going to name your kid, if he's born the day after your own birthday :) )
So, really, it was a dual birthday party. Anyway, enjoy:
1. @f/1.4 ... razor-thin DOF ... brother in-focus, dad not.
2. Sr. and Jr.
3. Relaxing doggy
4. Lounging mom
5. Sr. & Jr. celebrating w/ the same cake
-
https://richardhaw.com/2017/03/15/repair-nikkor-s-c-55mm-f1-2/
:o :o :o
-
I think (although it may lag, sharpness-wise, as you and Bjørn point out, it may be that the elder pre-AI versions render bokeh better, like the Neo-Noct. does).
Was the Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4 already mentioned here? I love it's bokeh. (This is with the 4T)
-
https://richardhaw.com/2017/03/15/repair-nikkor-s-c-55mm-f1-2/
:o :o :o
Thanks for the link. You seem to confirm the consensus it's not as sharp.
-
Was the Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4 already mentioned here? I love it's bokeh. (This is with the 4T)
Terrific image, John.
Your offering seems to confirm my speculation above: "... although it may lag, sharpness-wise, as you and Bjørn point out, it may be that the elder pre-AI versions render bokeh better, like the Neo-Noct. does ..."
-
Thanks. That might be the case, central sharpness is usually better than later versions depending on the lens. It's Off topic here, but I noticed the same pleasant bokeh's on the longer end with the pre Ai 85/1.8 105/2.5 135/2.8 and the 200/4 Q (C). (an example of the last one is in today's 'November' topic)
-
A few points:
1. I agree the Noct is expensive, but it was never a cheap lens, very expensive to hand polish the aspherical element, and only made in limited numbers, it was the "Otus" of its time. I don't think it is over-rated, but it is over-priced - it is a shame that collectors have pushed the price so high, out of the reach of many who would like to use it. Even without collectors I would expect it to be well above $500, and more than the more conventional AIS 50/1.2 costs to buy new today.
2. MTF charts have their place but I would never judge a lens on them alone. These charts say very little about rendering characteristics except for sharpness of a flat subject at a fixed distance. The Noct, Neo-Noct and 55/1.2 all have significant field curvature so corner sharpness is never going to score highly on flat MTF charts. This says nothing about their performance on real-world 3D subjects. They may actually have very good corner sharpness, but a little in front or behind the test chart. Lenses with flatter fields like the Otus are always going to look better in these tests. The designers of the Neo-Noct purposely designed the lens with field curvature to make the background rendition smoother. This was a brave decision as it does not look good in most test charts, they had different design goals, and most who use it find the sharpness is perfectly acceptable and the overall rendition is very pleasing. That's not to say everyone will be happy with this lens, some will prefer the Otus or Voigtlander or something else...
3. You said you seek extreme sharpness wide open. If that is your goal, the 55/1.2 S.C is likely to disappoint since it is less sharp than any of the other options mentioned.
4. I was up last night until nearly midnight sanding and cleaning down my daughter's room in preparation for re-painting. I had no time to find more pictures, maybe later this week.
-
I have both the Voigt 58/1.4 and the Noct Nikkor. The Voigt is indeed incredible value for money. But the contrast and (relative) sharpness of the Noct wide open are definitely worth a look. Two very different lenses.
Back to the subject - I also had a 55/1.2 in hands a couple of times ; interesting lens, but any 50/1.2 (AI or AIS) would probably serve you better. As a matter of fact, the 50/1.2 AI was my allrounder for some time. Sharpness and contrast wide open is much less than what the Noct would deliver, though.
-
Thanks. That might be the case, central sharpness is usually better than later versions depending on the lens. It's Off topic here, but I noticed the same pleasant bokeh's on the longer end with the pre Ai 85/1.8 105/2.5 135/2.8 and the 200/4 Q (C). (an example of the last one is in today's 'November' topic)
Rubbing my chin, more and more, on these ol' lenses—thanks.
-
A few points:
1. I agree the Noct is expensive, but it was never a cheap lens, very expensive to hand polish the aspherical element, and only made in limited numbers, it was the "Otus" of its time. I don't think it is over-rated, but it is over-priced - it is a shame that collectors have pushed the price so high, out of the reach of many who would like to use it. Even without collectors I would expect it to be well above $500, and more than the more conventional AIS 50/1.2 costs to buy new today.
Have to disagree with you, Roland.
As a comparison, high-end computers, 20 years ago, were prohibitively expensive. Today, they are utterly worthless and couldn't run Microsoft Word.
Their extreme prices 20 years ago don't justify a tripling in the price to get one of these (comparative) dogs today.
To finish the point, that the Noct. was so difficult to make decades ago, doesn't justify a $3,000 of $4,000 current price tag. The Noct. simply under-delivers compared to other available options.
If I spend 3K-4K on a 58mm lens, is going to be on an impeccable 55mm Zeiss Otis, not a dated, under-performing Noct.
IMO, the Noct. is worth $500 more than a 50/1.2 AIS, at most, and that's it.
Of course, any individual is free to do whatever they want to with his money, but what it took to make (30 years ago) is irrelevant today IMO.
2. MTF charts have their place but I would never judge a lens on them alone. These charts say very little about rendering characteristics except for sharpness of a flat subject at a fixed distance. The Noct, Neo-Noct and 55/1.2 all have significant field curvature so corner sharpness is never going to score highly on flat MTF charts. This says nothing about their performance on real-world 3D subjects. They may actually have very good corner sharpness, but a little in front or behind the test chart. Lenses with flatter fields like the Otus are always going to look better in these tests. The designers of the Neo-Noct purposely designed the lens with field curvature to make the background rendition smoother. This was a brave decision as it does not look good in most test charts, they had different design goals, and most who use it find the sharpness is perfectly acceptable and the overall rendition is very pleasing. That's not to say everyone will be happy with this lens, some will prefer the Otus or Voigtlander or something else...
Totally agree with you here, in all respects.
Even modern cell phones deliberately soften portrait pics, so you have to use the right tool for the job.
While I personally favor razor-sharp images wide-open, I have also seen softer, Neo-Noct images that look better than super-sharp Zeiss Apo Sonnar images (on people/portraits), because of the dreamy softness, so I agree I need to keep that in mind.
3. You said you seek extreme sharpness wide open. If that is your goal, the 55/1.2 S.C is likely to disappoint since it is less sharp than any of the other options mentioned.
Based on images, like John Geerts posted, I will not be disappointed at all; I will merely value it for what it's good at ... and seek what I desire for macro/nature via a different route.
4. I was up last night until nearly midnight sanding and cleaning down my daughter's room in preparation for re-painting. I had no time to find more pictures, maybe later this week.
Understood. Am anxious to see more of your images, and I appreciate your time and effort in providing feedback, thank you.
-
I have both the Voigt 58/1.4 and the Noct Nikkor. The Voigt is indeed incredible value for money. But the contrast and (relative) sharpness of the Noct wide open are definitely worth a look. Two very different lenses.
Thanks for your feedback.
I have never seen any chart/graph ... or even photo ... from a Noct. that impressed me enough to be interested to the extent I would part with 4K to own one. Not even in the top 10 running.
I have seen images from the Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED VR II that had my jaw on the floor, coveting that lens (although I am waiting for the E FL ED version, before I buy ;) ).
Same from the Zeiss Oti; same from the Voigthlander; same from the Zeiss Apo Sonnar: all of the above produce images that are good (so compelling) to have me interested enough to buy them--or to still be thinking of buying them.
By contrast, I've seen images from the Noct. that are nice ... that I appreciate ... but nothing that ever 'floored' me to the extent I felt compelled to start putting away money to own one (not even close).
Back to the subject - I also had a 55/1.2 in hands a couple of times ; interesting lens, but any 50/1.2 (AI or AIS) would probably serve you better. As a matter of fact, the 50/1.2 AI was my allrounder for some time. Sharpness and contrast wide open is much less than what the Noct would deliver, though.
My 50mm AI-S as well. Loved it @ f/4 ... super sharp, nice bokeh.
Am just tired of the rubber-focus ring, the CA, etc.
I am still getting used to my Voigtlander Noct. For sure, it is sharper wide-open. Not so sure @ f/4.
Because the prices are so reasonable, I will try my own 55 f/1.2 S*C and see what I think. One will stay, one will go, or ... the Voigtlander and the Pre-AI 55mm may take completely roles :)
-
Based on images, like John Geerts posted, I will not be disappointed at all; I will merely value it for what it's good at ... and seek what I desire for macro/nature via a different route.
Please be aware that the Image of the Tulips was shot with the Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4 which is (in the center) much sharper than the 55mm or 50mm f/1.2 = It is somewhat comparable with the Voigt 58/1.4 but the 5.8cm has a little more DOF wide open and weaker corners. The center is sharper and the bokeh of the 5.8cm can be more pleasant than with the Voigt, depending on the subject.
-
Please be aware that the Image of the Tulips was shot with the Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4 which is (in the center) much sharper than the 55mm or 50mm f/1.2 = It is somewhat comparable with the Voigt 58/1.4 but the 5.8cm has a little more DOF wide open and weaker corners. The center is sharper and the bokeh of the 5.8cm can be more pleasant than with the Voigt, depending on the subject.
I'm aware.
As I alluded to, I think your image is reminiscent of the Neo-Noct ... better bokeh, not super-sharp.
We disagree a bit, in that I actually don't think yours is as sharp as the Voigt wide-open; though I do agree it has better bokeh.
Here is an image from Photography Life, comparing the bokeh of the AFS 58mm to others (including the Voight):
Both are perfectly-round, but the Nikkor 58 has much softer transitions; the Voigt much harsher borders.
Though I don't have the charts to back up your lens, it is clear the smooth transitions are wonderful.
Do you consider the Pre-AI 55mm f/1.2 S ♦ C a "downgrade" ... or an equivalent to this?
(Keep in mind this is the old Voigt, not the new one):
-
It hurts to see you write so badly about the Noct-Nikkor John, both about the performance and the second hand prices.
It's actually a very remarkable lens in several use cases!
Very few lenses, if any at all, comes close to the Noct-Nikkors way of depicting a scene; Painterly graduation of subtle tones with smoothness galore while retaining plenty of sharpness where needed,,,
An extraordinary Nikkor! Several here own it and enjoy it!
You are of course entitled to you opinion... But I disagree strongly!
-
It hurts to see you write so badly about the Noct-Nikkor John, both about the performance and the second hand prices.
It's actually a very remarkable lens in several use cases!
Very few lenses, if any at all, comes close to the Noct-Nikkors way of depicting a scene; Painterly graduation of subtle tones with smoothness galore while retaining plenty of sharpness where needed,,,
An extraordinary Nikkor! Several here own it and enjoy it!
You are of course entitled to you opinion... But I disagree strongly!
Eric, I appreciate your rebuke of my subjective opinion :)
I know the Noct is better than the other AI-Ses, but do you honestly believe it deserves to be at an Otus price?
I like your description of its "Painterly graduation of subtle tones with smoothness galore," as I believe this is important.
(In fact, I think John Geerts demonstrated this very nicely with his pink flower image, albeit from a different lens.)
John's lens can be had for ~$120 - $325 ... do you believe the Noct to be 10-40x better in its rendering?
I am not sure if you have the Zeiss Otus, but if so, how would you characterize it compared to the Noct?
The Otus' rendering is sublime also, and its sharpness is in another league from the Noct.
However, I do recognize the point that sometimes utter sharpness (as well as edge-to-edge sharpness) are not desirable in certain lenses (or under certain circumstances).
There was a discussion where this kind of smooth, beautiful blur, graduated color, and even lack of sharpness, can be utterly pleasing ... more so than clinical super-sharpness.
I don't mean to "write badly" about the Noct, just its inflated price point.
When you see the 30-year-old pre-AI Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4 produce such a beautiful image (and can be had for $120 - $325 on Ebay), it makes the $3,000-$4,000 price of the Noct. appear to be ridiculous.
I suppose my point is, just because the Noct. can be used for astronomy is no justification for its price to be astronomical ;D
-
I've shot with Ais Noct on Kodachrome 25 during the film days and was very happy with my sample. The image was contrasty, and the bokeh was creamy. But I heard that the earlier samples had been quite prone to flare when used in the daytime.
When Noct was current, it was sold for around 160,000 JPY new, and I bought mine as second hand in mint condition for 120,000, which was very fair and reasonable. That being said though, the skyrocketed second hand price of just under 400,000 JPY seems to me high enough to say ridiculous.
-
A limited production and high demand, not to speak about it taking collectors' fancy, inevitably will make the Noct expensive today.
It really is something special, but not to everyone's taste and many have trouble getting it to "sing" its praised song. A fundamental point is that the Noct was made to make pictures, not to measure well in a lab. Thus, it is not a flat-field lens and using it close up, with or without added extension, only makes this fact even more obvious.
Being basically a hand-made item, the Nocts tend to show individual variation as well. I have shoot a handful of Nocts over the years and the two I kept in my lens arsenal testify to this. I also suspect this is a lens that can go out of alignment if handles carelessly and that would add further to the variability of these optics. We rarely got our hands on them brand new so they have an unknown history before coming into our possession. The Noct is robustly build, but is not indestructible and should be treated with utmost care.
-
We talked about this some time ago
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5326.msg84639.html#msg84639
The Noct is similar to the APO Lanthar 125,,,, I stated,,,,, don't know if you missed it back then,,,
-
We talked about this some time ago
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5326.msg84639.html#msg84639
The Noct is similar to the APO Lanthar 125,,,, I stated,,,,, don't know if you missed it back then,,,
Ah, yes, thank you. The Apo Lanthar isn't $4k, though :)
Is it possible to convert a pre-AI Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4?
I don't see an AI Kit listen in Roland's page ... only on the pre-AI 55mm f/1.2.
Really liked John's image.
-
Nikon never made an AI conversion kit for the 5.8cm f/1.4 (or any other lens with screw-on aperture ring - they were only available for lenses made from about 1967 onwards). The only way to convert it is to mill the original aperture ring.
Note that the rear lens shield is quite deep and may conflict with CPU contacts inside modern cameras, so could also need trimming down a little.
If you are interested in the 5.8cm lens, this is good reading:
https://www.lenstip.com/114.1-article-50_years_of_Nikon_F-mount_%E2%80%93_Nikkor-S_5.8_cm_f_1.4_vs._Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.4G.html
-
Nikon never made an AI conversion kit for the 5.8cm f/1.4 (or any other lens with screw-on aperture ring)
The only way to convert it is to mill the original aperture ring.
Note that the rear lens shield is quite deep and may conflict with CPU contacts inside modern cameras, so could also need trimming down a little.
If you are interested in the 5.8cm lens, this is good reading:
https://www.lenstip.com/114.1-article-50_years_of_Nikon_F-mount_%E2%80%93_Nikkor-S_5.8_cm_f_1.4_vs._Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.4G.html
Really appreciate the info, and that link, Roland.
Fascinating. Old and modern both seem to pretty much suck wide-open ... and they both seem to be excellent by f/4-5.6.
(https://www.lenstip.com/upload3/2625_roz_centr.jpg)
For reversed, when I do stacks, f/4 is almost invariably the aperture I select.
The old Voigtlander Nokton (https://www.lenstip.com/265.4-Lens_review-Voigtlander_Nokton_58_mm_f_1.4_SL_II_Image_resolution.html) appears to be sharper wide-open at and f/4. (I would imagine the newer version even more so.)
In all the lenses, there is a huge disparity from center-to-edge sharpness, which is I suspect by design, as it aids in the rendering and isolation of a subject for portraiture.
One thing LensTip didn't comment on, or measure (at least back then 2009/2010), was bokeh. They did mention that, while the new version had better light transmission; they were surprised at how close they were, given the 50-year disparity in the elder version.
Wish LensTip performed the same test with Noct., but Photography Life did so on the previous page, and the results were delved into pretty well.
-
If you are interested in the 5.8cm lens, this is good reading:
https://www.lenstip.com/114.1-article-50_years_of_Nikon_F-mount_%E2%80%93_Nikkor-S_5.8_cm_f_1.4_vs._Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.4G.html
There is also a topic here : http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4066.30.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4066.30.html)
-
And it's tale number 40 of the Nikkor lenses http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0040/index.htm (http://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0040/index.htm)
-
Ah, yes, thank you. The Apo Lanthar isn't $4k, though,,,,,,
I really have a hard time comparing second hand lens prices like that,,, ;) doesn't make sence imho,,,
Not going into figures, the Lanthar was much cheaper new which ever way you calculate.
Something relevant for users is the build quality, the Lanthar is no where near that of the Noct,,,
For me the sh prices are fairly ok,,, for both
-
Not that it significantly changes the discussion but two final prices on auction for the Noct on Ebay are 2020$ and 2850$, and 2 sold "buy it now" were at 2199$ and 2398$. https://www.befr.ebay.be/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=noct%20nikkor&LH_PrefLoc=2&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684
I just bought one, not on Ebay, for less than 2000$.
-
The disparity from center-to-edge sharpness has more to do with the difficulty of designing a fast (f/1.4) lens with consistent rendering across the frame. It's only recently that massively engineered SLR lenses (such as the Sigma Art and Otus) have appeared on the market with more even sharpness at full aperture. Rangefinder lenses such as those from Leica don't have to deal with long back-focus distances, it's easier to design smaller lenses with more consistent performance across the frame.
I agree, it is shame the Lenstip article did not include bokeh tests. Most of the old Nikon standard lenses have rather busy background rendition, I suspect the 5.8cm is similar, perhaps not as bad as the others (I haven't tried this lens). It's certainly not a Noct however. The tulip closeup posted earlier taken with the 5.8cm has nice smooth rendition largely because fast aperture and close range gives very shallow DOF, any background will melt away...
-
(http://www.destoutz.ch/slides/lens_55mm_f1.2_282994.jpg)
I have sold my Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.2 and am looking to replace it with an all-metal, pre-AI, version.
I understand the appeal of the old hill and dale focus ring. The feel of those all metal lenses. I own a few and I'd like to own a few more.
One of the first to have the neoprene focus grip was my first Micro-NIKKOR-P Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, the lens I bought with my Nikkormat FTn back in August 1970. All of my other lenses that I bought in the early '70s were all metal. Then all the Nikkors start switching to the neoprene focus grip. I saw this as a lowering of Nikon's standards and a cheapening of the product. It saved Nikon the production cost of machining the most of the exterior of the focus ring.
However:
I think the lens performance should come first. That said I own a few of the old lenses for the nostalgia of both the product and image. I own both a NIKKOR-Q Auto 1:3.5 f=135mm and a Nikkor Ai 135mm f3.5. I owned both of these lenses back when and I own them again. I like having the early 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q. Other older style lenses include the NIKKOR-S Auto 1:1.4 f=50mm and a couple of Micro-NIKKOR Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm (I'm cheating and doing cut and paste from Rolland's site to get the names correct). I may have other hill and dale lenses and I sure want more.
I'm leading up to this...
I recommend not selling a good copy of an AI or AIS Nikkor to replace it but use it. Instead of switching I recommend buying the older style along with the newer style. Sure have a petting zoo but don't just leave those old beauties in their stalls. Take them out for a walk, romp with them in the pasture. Some of those lenses have a special rendering that endears them. Use them and enjoy the differences in feel and image rendering.
That's my 2 cents on this subject. If it doesn't work for you that's fine. Again I wish I had more of the oldest classic Nikkors.
Best,
Dave Hartman
-
I really have a hard time comparing second hand lens prices like that,,, ;) doesn't make sence imho,,,
Not going into figures, the Lanthar was much cheaper new which ever way you calculate.
Something relevant for users is the build quality, the Lanthar is no where near that of the Noct,,,
For me the sh prices are fairly ok,,, for both
Seems like, even here, there is disparity.
Based on Richard Haw's post (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5326.msg84678.html#msg84678), it appears the AI Noct is more robust than the AI-S:
- a simple and broad generalisation from me from a teardown point of view.
Ai:
tougher construction
heavier
more screws
Nikon loves using glues in this generation but not as much as the New-Nikkors
tough,traditional construction with the lens barrel and optics separated
Ai-S:
lighter
clever tricks used to simplify complicated assemblies
cost-cutting on some parts (plastics, scotch tapes, plenty of brass shims)
optics casing sometimes incorporated in the lens barrel as cost-cutting and making things more compact/simplification
I personally like fixing the older Nikkors compared to Ai-S ones. it's like fixing a beetle compared to a ford focus :o :o :o
If I were to buy one, I believe I would lean toward the AI version ...
-
Not that it significantly changes the discussion but two final prices on auction for the Noct on Ebay are 2020$ and 2850$, and 2 sold "buy it now" were at 2199$ and 2398$. https://www.befr.ebay.be/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=noct%20nikkor&LH_PrefLoc=2&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684
I just bought one, not on Ebay, for less than 2000$.
Hmmm, I would pay $1500 to $2K for a Noct, but is seems to me that the only $2,000 Nocts are bang-up discards, no box, no paperwork.
Their prices have actually jumped UP from last time I looked a couple of years ago ... the really clean ones are $4500 - (gulp) $6000+:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p3984.m570.l1312.R1.TR9.TRC1.A0.H0.Xnoct.TRS2&_nkw=NOCT+AI&_sacat=0
-
I understand the appeal of the old hill and dale focus ring. The feel of those all metal lenses. I own a few and I'd like to own a few more.
One of the first to have the neoprene focus grip was my first Micro-NIKKOR-P Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, the lens I bought with my Nikkormat FTn back in August 1970. All of my other lenses that I bought in the early '70s were all metal. Then all the Nikkors start switching to the neoprene focus grip. I saw this as a lowering of Nikon's standards and a cheapening of the product. It saved Nikon the production cost of machining the most of the exterior of the focus ring.
However:
I think the lens performance should come first. That said I own a few of the old lenses for the nostalgia of both the product and image. I own both a NIKKOR-Q Auto 1:3.5 f=135mm and a Nikkor Ai 135mm f3.5. I owned both of these lenses back when and I own them again. I like having the early 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q. Other older style lenses include the NIKKOR-S Auto 1:1.4 f=50mm and a couple of Micro-NIKKOR Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm (I'm cheating and doing cut and paste from Rolland's site to get the names correct). I may have other hill and dale lenses and I sure want more.
I'm leading up to this...
I recommend not selling a good copy of an AI or AIS Nikkor to replace it but use it. Instead of switching I recommend buying the older style along with the newer style. Sure have a petting zoo but don't just leave those old beauties in their stalls. Take them out for a walk, romp with them in the pasture. Some of those lenses have a special rendering that endears them. Use them and enjoy the differences in feel and image rendering.
That's my 2 cents on this subject. If it doesn't work for you that's fine. Again I wish I had more of the oldest classic Nikkors.
Best,
Dave Hartman
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I believe there really isn't enough of a difference from the pre-AI versions, and current AI-S versions, to justify a stable. I simply prefer the metal look.
When I stack, reversed, my preferred aperture is f/4, and even the pre-AI Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4 is right there with Nikon's best today @ f/4.
Based on what Roland said, I will probably lean toward the pre-AI 55mm f/1.2, so I can just go with an AI Kit.
If I am going to keep two 50-ishmm lenses, and need top sharpness wide-open, I'll probably lean toward Zeiss ... although none of the 50-ish mm Zeisses are what the 135mm is wide-open.
For 1:1, I really don't need to reverse a 50mm anyway (as the CV 125 is 1:1), so I will just enjoy the Voigt and may pick up a pre-AI 55mm f/1.2 just for fun. Don't need more 50mm lenses than that ... unless Nikon comes out with a 50-55mm f/1.4 E ED AF lens ... which I think they will be doing sooner, rather than later.
I could use AF at that focal length.
-
Seems like, even here, there is disparity.
Based on Richard Haw's post (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5326.msg84678.html#msg84678), it appears the AI Noct is more robust than the AI-S:
- a simple and broad generalisation from me from a teardown point of view.
Ai:
tougher construction
heavier
more screws
Nikon loves using glues in this generation but not as much as the New-Nikkors
tough,traditional construction with the lens barrel and optics separated
Ai-S:
lighter
clever tricks used to simplify complicated assemblies
cost-cutting on some parts (plastics, scotch tapes, plenty of brass shims)
optics casing sometimes incorporated in the lens barrel as cost-cutting and making things more compact/simplification
I personally like fixing the older Nikkors compared to Ai-S ones. it's like fixing a beetle compared to a ford focus :o :o :o
If I were to buy one, I believe I would lean toward the AI version ...
In the above is a summary over AI vs. AIs so very general,,, and not Noct precise, no shortcuts in the Noct- Nikkor AIs!
Almost all Nikkors are different in mechanical design one way or the other
Please replace glue in the above with thread lock.
The most significant difference for the Noct AI vs. AIs is the blade design! The number of blades and the shape of the blades. IMHO
Second, yes the old one is a bit more resistant to wear,,, longer threads, heavier to focus, unless you use really light grease.
-
In the above is a summary over AI vs. AIs so very general,,, and not Noct precise, no shortcuts in the Noct- Nikkor AIs!
Almost all Nikkors are different in mechanical design one way or the other
Understood.
True, but (therefore) aren't there some designs better/stronger/more robust than others?
Please replace glue in the above with thread lock.
Noted.
The most significant difference for the Noct AI vs. AIs is the blade design! The number of blades and the shape of the blades. IMHO
Noted.
The AI has only 7 blades, but they're curved.
Meanwhile, the AI-S has 9 blades which are straight.
Which lens renders a better bokeh, IYO?
Second, yes the old one is a bit more resistant to wear,,, longer threads, heavier to focus, unless you use really light grease.
So it seems unanimous the AI is the better-built item ... and it also has much longer focus throw (230° compared to a paltry 140° in the AI-S).
Curious as to some objective/subjective conclusions as to which is the better buy ... and why?
-
On 7 curved vs 9 straight blades, it's a matter of preference. If you are into star burst effects, go for the 9 straight, but for nicely rounded background bokeh (especially at wider apertures), I would lean towards the 7 curved blades of the AI.
On the focus throw, my AI 55/1.2 is similar to the AI Noct, and 230° is very long, the lens is very slow to focus. It's fine for static subjects but if you need to focus from near to far quickly, it can be frustrating, you can't do it in one movement. I wouldn't say the 140° focus throw of the AIS is paltry, it is much quicker to focus and still long enough to allow precise focusing. The focus throw of my AIS 55 micro over the same distance is much shorter, and I have no trouble focusing it accurately.
On build quality, don't worry about it, neither lens will fall apart in your hands and will last a life time with good care.
-
I would rather prefer the longer focus throw of Ai and older versions. As the modern digital cameras are unforgiving to the slightest focus error, the focus throw of Ais is too short to nail the focus, especially between 5m and infinity.
As for the aperture blades, neither 7- or 9-blade system of MF Nikkors (especially the fast ones) looks nice when stopped down by 1-2 stops... The only exceptions I know for sure are the 7-blade systems of Ai and older 105/2.5 and 135/3.5.
-
The aperture blades of the AI Noct are curved, similar to the AI 105/2.5.
-
The aperture blades of the AI Noct are curved, similar to the AI 105/2.5.
Roland, my faint memory may coincide with that. But the blades would still form the gear-like shape when the aperture was stopped down by half to 2 stops, if I remember correctly. At f4.0 and smaller, the straight 9-blade aperture never bothered me. The same went with Ais 105/1.8 I had.
-
Getting back to the 55/1.2 (AI converted K version), I have put some out-of-camera jpgs and NEF files on dropbox for you to inspect. There are two pictures which show the funky background rendition and one with closeup performance. All all taken at f/2 so fairly wide, but closed down enough that the lens is quite sharp and with good contrast. The bronze ant sculptures were created by a friend, I took these pictures for her website:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/771gxfcpw0hk6gi/AACyGggcSbtxNxDaQ2_GNTALa?dl=0
-
Getting back to the 55/1.2 (AI converted K version), I have put some out-of-camera jpgs and NEF files on dropbox for you to inspect. There are two pictures which show the funky background rendition and one with closeup performance. All all taken at f/2 so fairly wide, but closed down enough that the lens is quite sharp and with good contrast. The bronze ant sculptures were created by a friend, I took these pictures for her website:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/771gxfcpw0hk6gi/AACyGggcSbtxNxDaQ2_GNTALa?dl=0
Thank you for your time in doing so.
F/2-4 is pretty much exactly where I kept my 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, properly-oriented as well as reversed.
Seems like there was a high-contrast/low-contrast version of each shot.
-
The jpg embedded in the NEF file does look a bit different from the separate jpg file, that is not intentional, just the way it turns out.