NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Nikfuson on December 18, 2020, 13:00:05
-
Got the two to compare and first off a vignetting test.
In-camera vignetting control turned off and focus at infinity.
-
Focus shift at close range (ca. 1m).
The red dot next to the bar code for reference.
-
Strange outlier at f/1.8. If real, it is easy to avoid that stop.
-
Strange outlier at f/1.8. If real, it is easy to avoid that stop.
I see now that I put the red dot in the wrong place in the 1.8 sample. Will correct it.
-
To my eyes, the point of focus (not the red dot) remains the same at f1.8 and smaller.
-
I see now that I put the red dot in the wrong place in the 1.8 sample. Will correct it.
I agree. Think the true point of focus is slightly above the red dot, almost to the bar just above the one indicated.
-
I agree. Think the true point of focus is slightly above the red dot, almost to the bar just above the one indicated.
Yes corresponds to number 3 not 0
-
I agree. Think the true point of focus is slightly above the red dot, almost to the bar just above the one indicated.
The red dot was just meant to be a reference, not at the exact point of focus.
-
Here is the 1.2 at long distance focus. Vignetting correction applied to ease judgement of sharpness.
-
So, what is the practical optical difference one might ask? Shallower DOG...eh, DOF.
-
Here the 1.2 version.
-
f/1.2 would better suit short-nosed dogs.
-
"Portrait" shot with the two lenses.
-
Ball games.
First the 1.2, then the 1.8 at full openings.
Then both at 2.8.
-
2.8
-
Thanks for testing Sten.
Actually this does proof that the 1.8 is a great lens ;) I would expect to see larger differences between a 1.2 and a 1.8 lens...
-
Mentioned before there seems to be a difference in focal between the 1,2 or 1,8 versions.
Suppose you want the 1,2 version for wide open performance and the rest for the 1,8 which seems to be doing
excellent in the comparison.
Thanks for the reviews, Sten.
-
Field of curvature (at near distance obviously).
F/1.2
-
#12 really demonstrates how superior the 1.2S's (lack of) field curvature is to the Ai/Ai-s. My Ai-s taking the same shot would have displayed it's signature fishbowl look in the background. That alone solves, imo, the Ai/Ai-s' most significant problem.
Can we get some light star demonstrations?
Thanks Sten!
-
To me the onion rings in the F/1.8 version seem to be the most striking difference between the two lenses.
-
Starshots
-
Some coma/astigmatism showing on the 50 f/1.2 S on the brighter stars in the corners. Assuming both are wide open, the performance 1/3-1 stop down can be of interest.
The 50 f/1.8 S capture actually looks better, although there are traces of the same. Both look excellent compared to the 50 f/1.8G - as I recall stopping down several stops was needed for acceptable results even on a DX sensor, so I have not been inspired to use that focal length for astrophotography again.
-
still a lot better than the original NOCT :o :o :o
https://richardhaw.com/2016/09/25/repair-noct-nikkor-58mm-f1-2-ai-s/
(https://richardhaw.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/dsc_3805-2.jpg?w=831&h=&zoom=2)
-
still a lot better than the original NOCT :o :o :o]
Mmm, does this mean a new generation has genuinely arrived?
More power to the march of the S line :)
-
Mmm, does this mean a new generation has genuinely arrived?
More power to the march of the S line :)
even the 58/1.4G shows better performance than this :o :o :o