NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Airy on September 07, 2016, 23:44:45
-
Resuming the A/B comparisons, now that I got a decent copy of the 50/1.8. Opposing to the latest Zeiss is unfair - they are nearly 40 years apart. On the other hand, the Zeiss is probably the only multipurpose, (relatively) light modern 50mm MF lens around (the Voigtländer 40/2 and 58/1.4 do not count, given their very different FL).
First an overall view of the scene, at f/2 in either case. It appears that the Zeiss underexposes slightly and still has that warmish color rendering (the former 50/2 ZF2 was even more yellowish). And of course, there is the trademark (high) Zeiss vignetting, while the 50/1.8 has much less: at f/2, the perceived vignetting of the Nikkor is much reduced - it gets us rid of that "central hot spot" impression.
-
Now looking at the center, right side, and lower left corner. The details on the right side are somewhat in front or behind the focus plane, so you won't expect perfect sharpness anyway. The Zeiss looks consistently better (more contrasty, somewhat sharper). The background blur in the centre shot looks different; the Nikkor exhibits purple fringes, while the Zeiss exhibits better delineated CA.
-
Now concerning sharpness over the f scale : in the focussed areas, the Zeiss at f/2 is equivalent to the Nikkor at f/4 ; the gaps narrows then progressively to one stop (Zeiss f/4 equivalent to Nikkor f/5.6 and so on). The following shows 100% crops of the Eiffel tower shots at f/2, 2.8, 4; Zeiss is always on the left hand side. Last shot is the full field t f/2.
-
The difference in the corners is less, because the Zeiss, while excellent in the center, shows some significant performance drop in the corners wide open (it gets sharp all over at f/4). By the way the selected corner is not perfectly in focus, but the difference is nevertheless apparent. The Nikkor still exhibits some of the purple haze that is even more present at f/1.8. (By the way, the 50/2 AI is about as sharp, but has even more haze at f/2).
-
One more remark : for all practical purposes, at f/2.8, most Nikkors can be called sharp when mounted on the Df. In the "Eiffel tower" shorts, the high contrast edges cause some bleeding that reduces the sharpness, and it is more pronounced with the "old" lens, as one would expect. Another series (not yet published) shows that, on overcast days with lower contrast subjects, lenses are closer.
This thread will continue with short range shots, where the Zeiss is expected to shine. It being so good at long distances is certainly more surprizing. Zeiss MP should maybe read "multipurpose" rather than "macro planar"...
-
Considering more than 10x of price difference between Milvis 50/2.0 and Ai 50/1.8, the latter seems to perform admirably, and its cost performance is excellent.
-
Agreed. I see no valid reason for not using the Nikkor 50/1.8 AI, on Df, in daylight, and in a distance, and from f2.8, and if you are sure you have got a decent copy. QC of Zeiss seems good and consistent, while the poor Nikkors had to go through many experiences and owners.
The Nikkor will not ruin any shooting under those conditions. Also, shooting against the light does not seem to induce another possible performance gap (I also got evidence yesterday, not however the time to process it). I have yet to check the bokeh, but that's more a short range shooting issue.
So the main reason for choosing one lens or the other is a secondary one: price, availability, size, overall rendering, other goals of the shooting session... under the above mentioned conditions.
I do not yet know how they will compare when one or more of the above conditions change.
Meanwhile I better understand why Björn rates the 50/1.8 Nikkor that highly. The pancake AIS I had (and still have) is definitely different, and is less satisfactory, so one should not draw conclusions from that version as I did before in my ignorance.
-
Considering more than 10x of price difference between Milvis 50/2.0 and Ai 50/1.8, the latter seems to perform admirably, and its cost performance is excellent.
I was happy enough to buy the Milvus used (!!). Some buyers in Paris happen to have too much money, buy on a whim and resell when they discover that MF requires practice...
-
I was happy enough to buy the Milvus used (!!). Some buyers in Paris happen to have too much money, buy on a whim and resell when they discover that MF requires practice...
Admitting that Milvis is an excellent lens also for more general purposes, it would be difficult to focus manually at middle to distant ranges because of the very short focus throw between 5m and infinity. The focus throw of Ai 50/1.8 in the same range is roughly twice as long as that of Milvis. That's why I prefer Ai 50/1.8 to Ais one.
-
I just learned that Zeiss was releasing three new Milvis lenses: 15, 18 and 135mm, and the equivalents of Classic versions was discontinued. Apparently the optical designs of 15mm and 135mm remain the same, but 18mm is newly designed and is f2.8 now.
-
Admitting that Milvis is an excellent lens also for more general purposes, it would be difficult to focus manually at middle to distant ranges because of the very short focus throw between 5m and infinity. The focus throw of Ai 50/1.8 in the same range is roughly twice as long as that of Milvis. That's why I prefer Ai 50/1.8 to Ais one.
To me the short throw is OK, with one reservation.
It is OK because there is no slack in the action and because it is rather stiff. Nice consequence is, the lens is not easily knocked off focus (quite unlike my 50/1.4 AIS for instance). Moreover, because the lens is quite sharp in the center wide open, focussing is made easy and the focus confirmation dot provides more usable indications.
One reservation is, moving subject. In that case, I also prefer a long focus throw and light action.
-
The focus throw of the Zeiss 50/2 macro is very similar to the Nikon AI and AIS 55mm macro lenses - all are more or less standard lenses which focus by extension to 1:2 magnification. As Airy suggested, the focus throw is adequate for these lenses if the focus ring is well damped and there is no slack in the focus mechanism. No doubt the longer focus throw of the AI 50/1.8 does make focusing easier at far distances.
A comparison between the Zeiss 50/2 and AIS 55/2.8 would be interesting, apart from the extra speed of the Zeiss, they have very similar specifications.
-
Indeed the focus throw of Ais55/2.8 is as short as that of Zeiss MP 50/2.0. But the viewfinder image of the former is very contrasty and flare-free, and DOF is a bit deeper at f2.8 wide open (even though it is a bit longer which make DPF a bit shallower). All these make the MF very comfortable.
That said, my eyes were less declined when I used my Ais 55/2.8 Micro, so I cannot say for sure if there would be any difference. :'(
-
I wonder how much all of this matters, and which parts of it matter considering that Ps can make one look like the other unless there is a material difference in sharpness. A lot goes into a photograph with the most important part being the person behind the camera. Then again, if you think some lens has a special magic, it might improve your shooting because of the effect it has on your outlook...
I shoot a lot with my totally non exotic 50mm f/1.4G. I have seen some nice shots Fons takes with his 58mm f/1.4G. It also has AF which I must have for street shots. Too bad it costs 4 times what the 50 goes for.
You can't take a picture without a camera and a lens, but a lot of the stuff is just amazingly good. It was also good 40 years ago....
-
Even if you could PS images from a lens to look like another lens, you would adding a lot of extra PP time. Quality costs, and the last %5 always costs way more than the first 95%.
-
Interesting exercise but Mongo does not understand the purpose. Would it not be a fairer and a more relevant comparison to compare the f2 Milvus to a contemporary Nikon 50mm f1.8 G instead of a 40 year old Nikon ?? The fact that one is AF and the other manual is of little relevance to a direct comparison of similar and contemporary lenses. The fact that one gives AF for a little over $200 in total compared to the other that is approximately $1250 in total is just another reason to really compare what each offers for the money, size , weight and IQ.
Not sure what the 50mm f1.8 Ai cost but the new G model could not have been much more even at twice the cost of the Ai.
Mongo has always been a strong advocate of the older lens treasures but even in that case, it makes far better sense to buy the much newer model when it performs so much better for so little extra cost. The Nikon 50mm f1.8 G is such an example. It is a different matter when it comes to considering a Nikon 105 f1.4 compared to the performance of say, a 105 f1.8 or even a 105 f2.5. In Mongo's view, there is not enough difference in performance to justify the inordinate price difference.
-
I think it is interesting to see how well a highly regarded old lens stands up to a modern design, regardless of how much or little they cost.
-
Indeed, my intent was to look back into history (even though the Milvus is a refinement of an older design, not a radical departure like the Tamron 45/1.8).
I routinely use old Nikkors on my Df. My most used 50mm Nikkor is the 50/1.2 AI; best performer at f/2, and here the comparison with the Zeiss certainly makes more sense, I mean: is less predictable. My guess (from long usage of both) is that the Zeiss is unbeatable in the center, but the Nikon has a more even rendering (sharpness and illumination). That holds for daylight and distant scenes. Closer or at night, it becomes more complicated.
but Mongo can rest assured I'll also include the 50/1.8G in the comparisons. I did test the 50/1.8G with others last Sunday, but the shots were not usable: for some reason, the 50/1.8G that I focussed using LV (after having it switched to MF) went off focus in the process. This is why I insisted that having a lens with a somewhat stiff focus ring (as has the Zeiss) is not necessarily bad. Making a series of shots without having to re-adjust the focus is not infrequent a situation. Older MF lenses (teles, especially) often had an AF lock button, by the way.
The only thing I can say now is that the 50/1.8G probably delivers the best bokeh - circular, least outlining, etc. But anyway that's for a later edition. Today I got the Tamron 90/2.5 on the camera, and the 50/1.8 AI in the bag just in case.
-
thank you Airy - understood. You mentioned the Tamron 90mm f2.5. Mongo is a great fan of that lens too but Mongo owns the first AF version instead of the manual version. It is light and very cheaply constructed relatively speaking but delivers amazing results and great to use.
Look forward to your other tests in due course.
-
If it is AF, then probably 90/2.8 ? The first MF version, which I own, is built like a tank. And contrast may be better than I thought : despite the cleaning done at the shop, and a further one by myself, I noticed yesterday (under strong light) that the front lens, while looking clean, was slightly milky. I suspect it got cleaned with one of those pre-impregnated towels like I bought long ago in a shop (a photographer, not a grocery) and indeed left some veiling behind, which is difficult to get rid of. Never again.
After using my lens pen again, it seems that I got it right now. We'll see if it makes a difference. Otherwise the lens (52B version) is known for its propensity to flare (coatings are just average), but it is more than usable.
-
Lenses are built to a price point. The Zeiss had better out perform the Nikkor(s).
KEH.com ....... 50/1.8 AI Nikkor Ex+ condition ............................... $133.00 (USD)
B&H Photo ..... AF-S 50/1.8G Nikkor ............................................. $217.00 (USD)
B&H Photo ..... Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/2M ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F ........ $1283.00 (USD)
Sept 9, 2016 as I type
1283.00/133.00=9.65
1283.00/217.00=5.91
Dave
I'd also like to see a comparison of the AF-S 50/1.8G to the 50/2.0 Zeiss Milvus.
-
OK, you'll get the comparison.
Concerning the price point, your observation is correct and that is why I buy *second hand* Zeiss. Finding a 35/2 was easy, a 25/2 much less, and the brand new Milvus 50/2 was sheer luck.
-
If it is AF, then probably 90/2.8 ? The first MF version, which I own, is built like a tank. And contrast may be better than I thought : despite the cleaning done at the shop, and a further one by myself, I noticed yesterday (under strong light) that the front lens, while looking clean, was slightly milky. I suspect it got cleaned with one of those pre-impregnated towels like I bought long ago in a shop (a photographer, not a grocery) and indeed left some veiling behind, which is difficult to get rid of. Never again.
After using my lens pen again, it seems that I got it right now. We'll see if it makes a difference. Otherwise the lens (52B version) is known for its propensity to flare (coatings are just average), but it is more than usable.
Airy, it is definitely an f2.5. Mongo just assumed it was one of the first AF models because it was still f2.5 (and not f2.8 like later AF models) like the original manual version of this famous lens. Could post an image of it if you wish. This is a link to some info about this not often seen lens: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-90mm-F2.5-macro_lens363.html (released in about 1990) and same lens with different model Number here: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-90mm-AF-F2.5_lens365.html (released in about 1994)
-
I'd also like to see a comparison of the AF-S 50/1.8G to the 50/2.0 Zeiss Milvus.
Me too. The 1.8/50G is a very good lens.
-
the 50/1.2 AI; best performer at f/2
I wonder whether this has actually been measured, it keeps getting stated as a fact but I've never seen this tested and keep getting back to Ken Rockwell when I search for it, who also just states it as a fact. If anyone knows where this observation originates from, I'd be happy to have that information!
I believe the statement is usually qualified as "out of all Nikon 50mm lenses".
-
Another vote for 50/1.8G, although the sample I had bought new and had used with D610 seemed to suffer from the uneven field curvature. My current one used with D750, bought new and calibrated at Nikon service, renders the entire image frame evenly. Even my earlier sample showed nice bokeh as seen in this attached sample.
-
Akira: mine had to see Nikon Service before it had its plane of focus perfectly aligned in parallel to the recording chip.
Yet I took a lot of magic bokeh shoty with it too.
above 1.8 the character is very straight an sensibly high res.
-
I wonder whether this has actually been measured, it keeps getting stated as a fact but I've never seen this tested and keep getting back to Ken Rockwell when I search for it, who also just states it as a fact. If anyone knows where this observation originates from, I'd be happy to have that information!
I believe the statement is usually qualified as "out of all Nikon 50mm lenses".
.
I have seen one serious site stating it and providing evidence (MTF curves). Hope to retrieve the url. In another publication (by JM Sépulchre, a serious tester at the "Monde de la photo" magazine), things were not clear cut. Personal experience is, with my two copies of the 50/1.2, I was always impressed by the image quality at f/2. I am only trying to understand why. Zeiss may well be sharper, but from experience (having used the 50/2MP extensively) I prefer to stop it down. Maybe the vignetting spoils the broth. But wait until you see the pics. And no, the website you are referring to is not my source of information (even though it may be a funny read).
-
I wonder whether this has actually been measured, it keeps getting stated as a fact but I've never seen this tested and keep getting back to Ken Rockwell when I search for it, who also just states it as a fact. If anyone knows where this observation originates from, I'd be happy to have that information!
I believe the statement is usually qualified as "out of all Nikon 50mm lenses".
I believe Ken Rockwell is the origin.of this statement and it may be correct as of the date it was first published.
Ken Rockwell like Moose Peterson used to review lenses he never touched. Ken also states as fact what is really opinion. There is also a lot of outdated statements on his site. He is however capable of doing a careful review.
Before putting your money down do some cross checking :)
Dave
-
Oops! Accidental post. :-[
-
...it keeps getting stated as a fact but I've never seen this tested and keep getting back to Ken Rockwell when I search for it, who also just states it as a fact.
Ken Rockwell did a roundup test of five or so 50mm Nikkor lenses. He stated that he did focus bracketing to assure an accurate assessment of each lens. I'll try to post a link latter. I'm sure this comparison predates the G-type 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. It also excludes the 58/1.2 Noct(s).
Dave
[I found a bunch of stuff but I didn't find exactly what I remembered so most likely my memory has failed me. I don't have time to do more searching this morning. If I ever get time I'd like to compare my 50/1.2 AIS to my 50/1.8 AI and AF-S 50/1.8G. I have a 50/1.4 AIS that lube contaminated. I have the tools to repair it but not the time. The truth is what I need more than any piece of equipment is time.]
-
Many reviews are essentially subjective, in which case one should make his own opinion about the reviewer's personal preferences, biases, etc. Parker comes to mind (for wines), or Björn Rörslett (for Nikkors), etc. I do not rely much on Parker because his findings do not really correlate with my *experience*; I do rely on the other one because the correlation is good (except for the 50/1.8 until I found a good copy of the long nose version).
My grabbing one lens rather another one does not depend on sharpness only, let alone on MTF curves. My perception of a lens seems to depend on the pleasing memory of having obtained "good" results - the final shot, after PP, generally not printed, in which case sharpness is only one ingredient, I dare say secondary one, with respect to all manipulations and to the final downsampling. On the other hand, sharpness and "good" results seem to correlate well, and that elusive "3D pop" notion too. This is why I am still fooling around doing comparisons by using real life situations, rather than charts that I find nearly useless - real subjects have a depth and are placed at various distances, and are not uniformly lit. Still wondering about what ingredients contributed to the success.
At least one ingredient cannot be traced back on the final shot, namely the ergonomics. I always felt comfortable with the 50/2 ZF2, to the extent it was my standard lens in Iceland two years ago. On the opposite side, I do not feel at ease with the 50/1.4 AIS because my copy has too loose a focus ring which, in combination with the relatively short throw, is annoying. Result is a lower statistical score of focus accuracy, so the ergonomics may express themselves in the results after all.
No Ken Rockwell bashing from my side. I observed a few strange findings making me wonder if he ever has the reviewed lens at hand, indeed, but the same holds true for more renowned reviewers with paying websites.
His theory that lens sharpness does not really matter sounds provocative, but his insistence on the importance of a good focussing technique is quite to the point. Many of my naive test attempts (partly) failed because of that.
The only thing that really put me off on his site is his theory that "made in Japan" means good, "made in Thailand" so-so, and "made in China" means bad. Too much stinky ideology behind. I experienced that QA (like democracy) can be put at a use everywhere. But that's for another thread.
-
Airy, sorry to hijack your thread. Hope my post make some sense...
-
Akira, nooo apologies - I hijacked myself.
Concerning the 50/1.8G, the first copy I bought was also de-centered (which I understand is equivalent to your "uneven field curvature), but the retro one that came with the Df is perfect and will be used for testing.
-
Akira, nooo apologies - I hijacked myself.
Concerning the 50/1.8G, the first copy I bought was also de-centered (which I understand is equivalent to your "uneven field curvature), but the retro one that came with the Df is perfect and will be used for testing.
Thanks!
For your information, I attach an image shot with my first sample with the "uneven field curvature". The lens was set at f5.6 and focused at the most distant part of the city seen in the center. I raised the exposure to make the entire image more visible. Otherwise the NEF is just converted to JPEG in CC2015.5. I had to reduce the image quality to 60% because of the limitation of the maximum size of the individual image, but it should be good enough to see the uneven sharpness within the frame.
Please view large. As you see, the center is sharp, the righ-hand side of the distant scene is very soft, the left-hand side scene is also soft but not as the right-hand side. On the other hand, the below left as well as below right corners are fairly sharp.
-
To me, the focus was not set on infinite (even if that was your intention). I do not see anything distant being in focus.
-
I focused manually using the magnified live view image. The polluted air could have made the iamge appear soft.
Or, maybe it was caused by the focus shift? I might have focused with the lens wide open.
-
I have seen one serious site stating it and providing evidence (MTF curves). Hope to retrieve the url.
Thanks for the hint. If you find it, that would be great!
-
Before putting your money down do some cross checking :)
I bought the 50/1.2 for being the fastest 50mm and for wide-open characteristics. I agree that the performance at f/2 is very good, and it may well be unrivaled by any Nikon lens (of course the 55mm Otus would change things up). But it would be nice if that reputation was actually founded in some data. I think that a potential competitor would be the 50/1.8 AF-S due to the aspherics.
-
Here are a couple of KR 50mm lens comparisons.
The first is a 2010 comparison and includes the AF-S 50/1.4G, AF-D 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 AIS as well as the 58/1.2 AIS Noct...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/50mm-f12/ (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/50mm-f12/)
Here is another comparison that does not include the 50/1.2 AIS (maybe the one I remember)...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm)
The best or sharpest (center, edge?) 50mm Nikkor at f/2.0 statement is surely out of date.
Dave
-
I bought the 50/1.2 for being the fastest 50mm and for wide-open characteristics. I agree that the performance at f/2 is very good, and it may well be unrivaled by any Nikon lens (of course the 55mm Otus would change things up). But it would be nice if that reputation was actually founded in some data. I think that a potential competitor would be the 50/1.8 AF-S due to the aspherics.
I have found the picture (*center* MTF curves) but not the original web page publishing it. As usual, such pieces of evidence get copied and pasted all over the place, losing lots of contextual info while being at the same time held up as absolute truths. As you will see in another thread, my findings are different, and the disturbing factor is one lens not mentioned in the picture, the 50/1.4 AIS (is it identical, optically, with the AFD version?)