Author Topic: Noct vs. NeoNoct  (Read 6768 times)

stenrasmussen

  • Guest
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2016, 22:05:17 »
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.

Roland Vink

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1525
  • Nikon Nerd from New Zealand
    • Nikon Database
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2016, 22:10:38 »
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.

Bjørn Rørslett

  • Fierce Bear of the North
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 8252
  • Oslo, Norway
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2016, 22:34:03 »
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.


stenrasmussen

  • Guest
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2016, 10:59:39 »
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.

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 6485
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2016, 11:30:52 »
Thanks Sten! Interresting ;)
Erik Lund

stenrasmussen

  • Guest
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2016, 12:17:07 »
Flare:

stenrasmussen

  • Guest
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2016, 12:19:59 »
Bokeh outside:

stenrasmussen

  • Guest
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2016, 12:31:41 »
Shipyard at f1.2 and f1.4.

Frank Fremerey

  • engineering art
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12360
  • Bonn, Germany
Re: Noct vs. NeoNoct
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2016, 13:31:22 »
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.
You are out there. You and your camera. You can shoot or not shoot as you please. Discover the world, Your world. Show it to us. Or we might never see it.

Me: https://youpic.com/photographer/frankfremerey/