If you simply must have a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2....

[John Koerner]

There must be a way to show this for purposes of discussion in threads like this.

Perhaps the best way is to remember the old adage, "A picture's worth a thousand words." 

[bjornthun]

I find it very, very interesting just how *difficult* it is to express the characteristics of a lens aside from its MTF chart, which of course cannot tell the entire story.

When I tried to write about my Noct and 50/1.2, as compared to each other and to other lenses, I was quite stumped and had to resort to similie (...."paints like", "draws like".....). Sometime when I have time to think about it, I think I will attempt to determine if any of a lens' non-MTF characteristics can be reliably described or illustrated. For example, we all know that a lens' bokeh is easily demonstrated by making photos at wide apertures. But how to you show contrast, microcontrast, tonality and so forth inn a repeatible and reliable manner? There must be a way to show this for purposes of discussion in threads like this. Because I agree that when one of us states that a certain lens "has character", it does not really tell the reader much. 

"Repetible and reliable manner"
Something tells me that this will rely on quite heavy use of mathematics, and it won't be easy to write about or discuss. MTF charts may turn out to be the easy part, and even those can present a sufficient amount of difficulties. 

[Airy]

Tomorrow's my birthday. I need a Noct. Whoever reaches 60 and has got no Noct has wasted his life, anyway.

By the way I'll be sixty in 366 days, so there's still some hope left.

On the f/1.2 thread, I sort of compensated by tossing in a few f/1.2 shots from the two siblings (50/1.2 AI and AIS). I do have a few shots made with three different Nocts, but these are all test shots made in shops (Paris, Ginza, ...) and none will truly demonstrate its pictorial qualities.

And concerning MTF curves, let me repeat that certain Naerfotograf website proved more useful (to me, i.e. better correlated with my subjective satisfaction) than most chart-laden sites...

[null]

Tomorrow's my birthday. I need a Noct. Whoever reaches 60 and has got no Noct has wasted his life, anyway.

..

The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 (About 800 made total) was on my "bucket list", I've added the 1948 5cm F2 Collapsible, 1949 8.5cm F2, 1949 13.5cm F4, and 1949 3.5cm F3.5- all with the proper Nikon 1949 varifinder. I'll be 60 shortly after you. "I'm satisfied", go for the Noct-Nikkor.

Getting the Noct-Nikkor would certainly have been less costly.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I'll likely bring *two* Noct-Nikkors with me to Scotland this May. Thus at least the members participating in the NG Event at Killin will have the opportunity to acquaint themselves with this lens.

[Airy]

Unfortunately I'll be at work... otherwise I'd be most pleased to meet the owner too...

[Erik Lund]

IR Noct
_EGL6220 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

[Erik Lund]

Noct
_EGL5976 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_lund/]Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr[/url]_EGL5976 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

50mm f/1.2 Ais
_EGL5975 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr


Just see the sheer size difference in blur circles, and that is from the same distance.

[Fons Baerken]

there is a difference in focus, that explains the same distance i think

[Tristin]

Erik, only difference I can tell in those particular images are the Noct's tighter focal length.  That combined with the focus area certainly makes the circles larger.

[Erik Lund]

Difference in focus,,, You don't see it,,, OMG 

Are we looking at the big white blobs dead center,,,?

[Erik Lund]

Noct at Night
_EGL4003 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

[Erik Lund]

In bright daylight you need a fast shutter,,,
_EGL4907 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

[Erik Lund]

It you stop it down you stat to see Ghosts - So never ever do that! See what happens at f/11

_EGL5138 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

[Erik Lund]

Noct Straight up

_EGL5183 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr