Found a Noct...

[Erik Lund]

"Better" is difficult to comment on since it depends on individual value,,,

For modern cameras especially with a CPU from Bjørn the Ais with the linear aperture movement is better

The Ai is the real old school MF lens design; Strong build

The aperture opening of the Ai is pretty round stopped down slightly maybe 2/3 of stop or so

The Ais is more desirable and as far as I can tell more expensive

[JJChan]

I did some shots to try to show some of the character of this lens - apologies if not great but it was starting to rain and I had to hurry.
Here are handheld (I didn't have tripod) shots at f1.2, f2.8 and f8

One can see wide open that there is well controlled fore and background bokeh - the degree of control means that there is a certain symmetry of the focal plane - leading to a subjectively increased isolation of the subject. This is also amplified by the field curvature and the vignetting. This is particularly so in the close to mid focal distances.

At f2.8, it sharpens up and there is loss of the LOCA and flare around the finer details. The focal plane is also starting to flatten out and vignetting almost gone. At f8, it is sharp and loses a lot of its character.

[JJChan]

Continuing:
The character of the Noct is especially so with objects in the centre of the field and less with off centre (eg the tree). Even banal objects can stand out and have a 'look' that is not seen with just the naked eye. This, coupled with the speed (f1.2) make it unique.

The Neo-noct has a lot of these characteristics - but these are absent in many normal and fast lenses including the Nikon 50 f1.2, 55 f1.2 and Canon 50 f1.2. The latest Leica  Noctilux has similar character, again more than just because of the speed (f0.95). THAT lens puts the cost of the Noct into perspective and hence was worth it to me.

But, it is also a nicely balanced lens and has beautiful micro and macro contrast - I like using it, not just in shots that maximise its character.
In short, Airy - I think you will really like it.

[Airy]

I am sure to like it. But I could like the neo noct even more, given that it is also good at subject isolation, and has less LoCA and haze which are seldom usable features.

[Michael Erlewine]

The original Noct is the one I like. Here it is with a little extension on the Nikon D810 and stacked with Zerene Stacker.

[Airy]

Makes my NAS (Noct Acquisition Syndrome) come back.

[John Koerner]

I did some shots to try to show some of the character of this lens - apologies if not great but it was starting to rain and I had to hurry.
Here are handheld (I didn't have tripod) shots at f1.2, f2.8 and f8

I honestly don't see anything you've posted here that I couldn't equal, or surpass, wide-open with the Ai-S 50mm f/1.2.





Plus this lens also reverses, for 1:1 macro shots:





With the exception of the last, all were single images hand-held as well.

And, on a tripod, shot at f/16, it is razor-sharp too:



Jack

[dslater]

Hi Jack,
  Here's an example of where the 50 f/1.2 Ai falls down a bit compared to the Noct. Admittedly the stars are elongated a bit due to the length of the exposure, but the coma & flare around the bright stars is obvious. While I don't have a Noct, I'm certain it would perform much better on this subject.

And this is with a crop sensor. A full frame camera would show even more coma near the edges of the field.

[John Koerner]

Hi Jack,
  Here's an example of where the 50 f/1.2 Ai falls down a bit compared to the Noct. Admittedly the stars are elongated a bit due to the length of the exposure, but the coma & flare around the bright stars is obvious. While I don't have a Noct, I'm certain it would perform much better on this subject.

And this is with a crop sensor. A full frame camera would show even more coma near the edges of the field.

Hi.

It's very difficult to rate that photo as I don't know the conditions under which it was taken, nor is there a juxtaposition provided as a measuring stick.
Any lens can take a bad image under bad conditions.

That said, according to Ken Rockwell, some astrophysicist bought like 5 Nocts for that purpose specifically. So I am sure (for certain specific uses) the Noct MUST provide certain key advantages.

Still, does that make a used 58mm f/1.2 Noct worth 5x the price of a brand new 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s? 

Also, does the Noct provide **any** advantage over the 50mm Ai-S in standard lighting?

I don't shoot astronomy; I shoot in optimal light. (Or try to.)

I am pretty convinced that, in optimal light, the 50mm Ai-S can do anything the Noct can do, anything, for $700 rather than $3,500.

If someone wants to spend an additional $2,800 to remove the coma from astronomy images, that is their choice. But they would have to be heavy into that kind of shooting.

With that said, I will probably buy a Noct at some point, just to take it for a spin, and make/record the differences it makes myself (if any).

But I think, for the most part, the "difference" between the Noct and the Ai-S in normal-light shooting is more myth than reality ... essentially nothing worth talking about ... in all but the most extreme conditions.

[Michael Erlewine]

Just a shot this morning using the Noct with the D810.

[John Koerner]

That is a pretty photo.

I won't have the time until the weekend, probably, but I will take some tripod + optimal light 50mm Ai-S images with the D810 that I am sure will compare quite favorably with anything the Noct can do.

Both are fine lenses.

The difference is, the 50mm Ai-S is **worth** the $700 price tag ... whereas the Noct is, um, well, not so much worth the $3,500 price tag ... unless its few advantages mesh with your night-only specifications ... or unless you have money to burn

[longzoom]

Hi.

It's very difficult to rate that photo as I don't know the conditions under which it was taken, nor is there a juxtaposition provided as a measuring stick.
Any lens can take a bad image under bad conditions.

That said, according to Ken Rockwell, some astrophysicist bought like 5 Nocts for that purpose specifically. So I am sure (for certain specific uses) the Noct MUST provide certain key advantages.

Still, does that make a used 58mm f/2 Noct worth 5x the price of a brand new 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s? 

Also, does the Noct provide **any** advantage over the 50mm Ai-S in standard lighting?

I don't shoot astronomy; I shoot in optimal light. (Or try to.)

I am pretty convinced that, in optimal light, the 50mm Ai-S can do anything the Noct can do, anything, for $700 rather than $3,500.

If someone wants to spend an additional $2,800 to remove the coma from astronomy images, that is their choice. But they would have to be heavy into that kind of shooting.

With that said, I will probably buy a Noct at some point, just to take it for a spin, and make/record the differences it makes myself (if any).

But I think, for the most part, the "difference" between the Noct and the Ai-S in normal-light shooting is more myth than reality ... essentially nothing worth talking about ... in all but the most extreme conditions.

       In my experience, Noct has some advantage over 50/1.2 wide open, a hair at 2.0, but they both getting equal to 2.8 and up.  New Sigma 50/1.4 is a bit sharper wide open, and contrast/color ratio is higher. Way better is Otus, of every imaginable respect, for the same, or even less, amount of money. But if one wants Noct so badly... LZ

[John Koerner]

       In my experience, Noct has a little advantage over 50/1.2 wide open, a hair at 2.0, but they both getting equal to 2.8 and up.  New Sigma 50/1.4 is a bit sharper wide open, and contrast/color ratio is higher. Way better is Otus, of every imaginable respect, for the same, or even less, amount of money. But if one wants Noct so badly... LZ

I am sure the Otus is a technical marvel, BUT ... it is *not* a rough-and-tumble lens designed to hike with in the outdoors.

Neither the Sigma nor the Otus has "character"; neither is reversible, where they can take 1:1 macros in nature.

As a hiker and nature photographer, the Nikkor 50mm Ai-S is something I can bring with me, every day, on a hike ... not worry about rain, falling down, scratching it up, etc.

If I see something cool, up close, I can also flip over the Ai-S, in the reverse, and take great 1:1 macro shots with it as well.

IMO, the Otus (and the Noct, for that matter) are too expensive and "niche only" to be considered "hiking" or "nature photography" gear.

The Otus is essentially for sterile, studio shooting ... in perfect conditions ... while the Noct is what it is: a nocturne (not standard use), specialty lens.

For everyday shooting, versatility, plus a character of its own, I think the Nikkor 50mm Ai-S is by far the better value.

[dslater]

Hi.

It's very difficult to rate that photo as I don't know the conditions under which it was taken, nor is there a juxtaposition provided as a measuring stick.
Any lens can take a bad image under bad conditions.

That said, according to Ken Rockwell, some astrophysicist bought like 5 Nocts for that purpose specifically. So I am sure (for certain specific uses) the Noct MUST provide certain key advantages.

Still, does that make a used 58mm f/1.2 Noct worth 5x the price of a brand new 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s? 

Also, does the Noct provide **any** advantage over the 50mm Ai-S in standard lighting?

I don't shoot astronomy; I shoot in optimal light. (Or try to.)

I am pretty convinced that, in optimal light, the 50mm Ai-S can do anything the Noct can do, anything, for $700 rather than $3,500.

If someone wants to spend an additional $2,800 to remove the coma from astronomy images, that is their choice. But they would have to be heavy into that kind of shooting.

With that said, I will probably buy a Noct at some point, just to take it for a spin, and make/record the differences it makes myself (if any).

But I think, for the most part, the "difference" between the Noct and the Ai-S in normal-light shooting is more myth than reality ... essentially nothing worth talking about ... in all but the most extreme conditions.

I think you're missing the point of the Noct somewhat. The reason to use a Noct is for cases where you're not shooting in good lighting. It's primary purpose was for shooting wide open at night - hence the "Noct" designation. If you look further on Rockwell's site, I'm pretty sure he has some night shots that directly compare the Noct to the 50 f/1.2 AiS. The difference in the appearance of the street lights is easy to see. Just checked - his review of the Noct has a direct comparison between the Noct and the 50 f/1.2

[John Koerner]

I think you're missing the point of the Noct somewhat. The reason to use a Noct is for cases where you're not shooting in good lighting. It's primary purpose was for shooting wide open at night - hence the "Noct" designation. If you look further on Rockwell's site, I'm pretty sure he has some night shots that directly compare the Noct to the 50 f/1.2 AiS. The difference in the appearance of the street lights is easy to see.

I don't think I am missing the point at all.

I think I stated, pretty clearly, that unless you make heavy use of night-specific photography, the Noct offers essentially ZERO advantage over the 50mm Ai-S.

I think the people who are posting "daylight" images with the Noct are the ones missing the point ...

Jack