NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: stenrasmussen on April 12, 2016, 13:56:23
-
As I have a Noct available I thought I'd test it against my Neo.
Any wishes from my good colleagues here will be attempted fulfilled.
Will commence testing tomorrow.
-
Field curvature; close, medium and far distance - Have fun! 8)
-
Thanks Sten,
do you have an early NeoNoct (low serial) or a later version (meaning higher serial) of it?
My suspicion is, that the early models had some issue with max sharpness and resolution with open aperture, which later production runs mitigated. I had 2 samples and could compare them directly, one a low sn, the other higher (sn > 15000) which was noticeable better. But it could very well be just individual sample performance. But the interest is still there if it is more "systemic".
rgds, Andy
-
While Sten is preparing the 2 contenders:
Maybe the interview with the designer of the NeoNoct - Haruo Sato - is of interest to understand aspirations, design goals, etc .....
http://www.nikkor.com/technology/02.html
Here is the story to the original Noct
http://www.nikkor.com/story/0016/
rgds, Andy
-
The Noct I have here is S/N: 1873xx...i.e. an early Ai-S, the Neo is late with its S/N: 210168. According to Roland's pages the serials run 200001 - 218556->.
-
I couldn't wait so I ran some prelim close range sharpness tests...and boy is that Noct good. Just about as good at f/1.2 as the Neo is at f/2! (crops at 100%)
I will continue this with the 50/1.8G, 50/1.4G, 50/1.4Ai and the little 50/1.8 Series E.
Behind OOF is smoother with the Neo. Foreground OOF belongs to the Noct.
-
Call me old fashioned, but I would like to se some pictures ;) The Noct is on my list as well. The list is named "Lenses I can't afford to buy for the time being". But I dont mind drooling over some pictures.
-
Call me old fashioned, but I would like to se some pictures ;) The Noct is on my list as well. The list is named "Lenses I can't afford to buy for the time being". But I dont mind drooling over some pictures.
If you exercise some patience you will see plenty of pictures ;)
-
If you exercise some patience you will see plenty of pictures ;)
The hardest exercise of them all ;)
-
i want to have the money to even buy a neo noct! whatever that is :o :o :o
-
i want to have the money to even buy a neo noct! whatever that is :o :o :o
'Neonoct' == The AFS 58 mm f/1.4 G.
-
oh,ok... :o :o :o
-
Ok, this took a bit longer than expected due to other chores...read: the government in da house wanted stuff done ::)
Anyways, I still have processing to do but here's a taste at f/2 of an aperture series from 1.2/1.4 to 4.0 with the three fast ones (Noct Ai-S, NeoNoct and 50/1.2 Ai-s)
Focus set to the polleneers in the middle. For this test getting super accurate focus on the same area isn't that critical as it is mostly for fore- and aft rendering I shot these.
-
Hm. You should have the equal magnification of the main subject, Sten. Now the camera has been fixed to one position? That'll make perspectives for all purposes identical, but due to the different scale depth of field will not be equal.
Nitpicking, I know. However, this also shows how futile it is to make all parameters of a comparison "the same".
-
Well you just make things a little complicated also shooting the 50mm, we could just ignore that for now,,, and enjoy how similar the 58mm's are
-
I would just regard the addition from the 50/1.2 as nice to have in this comparison. I might do a magnifequal comparison too...just to satisfy my friends.
Yes, the 58'ers are similar but different. The Noct renders proximal OOF smoother and the NeoNoct distal OOF smoother. Not by much but it is noticeable.
-
It looks like the three pictures were shot from the same position since the perspective is the same (position of background objects relative to the subject is unchanged). Obviously the difference in focal length means the subject magnification and angle of view is a bit different, but this is still a valid test. Changing the camera position so the magnification of the main subject is the same would change the perspective. That would introduce other variables which may or may not make the comparison easier...
The 50/1.2 here performs very well compared to its elite siblings, the two nocts have smoother, more melting background rendition but the 50/1.2 is not too bad.
-
These were exactly the points I addressed earlier. One cannot have both magnification and perspective (approx.) identical unless focal lengths are the same (and optical designs also similar).
As depth of field is highly dependent on magnification (and f-number), I prefer making the main subject depicted to the same scale.
-
Time for another update.
After careful scrutination I have learned the following:
- The Noct is sharper in the center at f1.2. Moving towards the far corner the image suffers from some loss of sharpness and increased softness/vignetting.
- The NeoNoct is clearly not as sharp (but still very portrait good) in the center at f1.4. Sharpness is kept better afloat towards the corners and at the far corners sharpness/softness/vignetting is much better than the Noct's.
- Coma; both lenses are behaving quite well, with slight increase in gullwinginess from close to infinity. By f2.8 all traces of coma are gone. Interestingly, the 50/1.2 Ai-S, although terrible wrt. coma at f1.2-2, exhibits the same coma correction at f2.8.
- Bokeh; again very similar behaviour, with the Noct producing at close focus softer proximal one and distally the NeoNoct has a slight advantage. The 50/1.2Ai-S is not bad but absolutely not in the same league.
- Point light source bleeds; when shooting wide open the NeoNoct show less bleeding than the Noct.
- Sunstars when stopped down; this is Noct's department so no need for NeoNoct to play ball here.
- Flare; this one goes to the new Emperor. The predecessor lacking the nano curtain does struggle (like most older lenses).
- Focus shift; both lenses perform distal focus shift when stopped down. In order to achieve optimal focus, LV/stopped down focusing is a must. For portrait shooting with the NeoNoct a best fit AF fine tuning is a solution.
- Lateral CA; the NeoNoct shows less. CA from either lens is easily dealt with during PP.
- Axial CA; both lenses show magenta fore and green aft color artifacts. This is common with "under-corrected" lenses. Removing this is generally an easy job with ACR or NX-D (I still have to learn other raw converters).
- Relative focal length; the Noct is slightly wider than the NeoNoct.
- Manual focusing with and S-type focusing screen; both lenses are absolutely fine but the manual Nikkor has a clear advantage mechanically. (It takes a lot of practice to be able to nail focus with these speedy Gonzales's).
I will follow up with images supporting my findings.
-
Thanks Sten! Interresting ;)
-
Flare:
-
Bokeh outside:
-
Shipyard at f1.2 and f1.4.
-
Thank you very much, Sten!
In the traffic sign shots the NeoNoct seems to show very much text book bokeh at medium distance (trees), while the Noct seems more "nervous" ... The perfect near field Bokeh of the Noct was impressively demonstrated by Michael Erlewine's studio shots. I'd love to see him use the NeoNoct in comparison.
I tend to buy the NeoNoct as portrait optics for the D500 early next month, hopefully before Scotland.