Found a Noct...

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It is basically very difficult to be certain of something you have never tried ... 

Also do not try to demean people using their Noct(s) for whatever purpose they think suitable, please.

If someone has the money for a Noct at whatever price they accept, it's their choice, not yours.

[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]

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

I would agree with that, although instead of ZERO advantage, I'd say SLIGHT advantage. Coma is coma and is independent of lighting. In a side-by-side comparison wide open, I believe you will see a slight sharpness difference at the edges of the field even in optimal lighting as longzoom said. Is it worth the price difference? Probably not. However, much of the high price the Noct commands today is due to its value as a collectors item rather than its photographic value.

[John Koerner]

It is basically very difficult to be certain of something you have never tried ... 

I am certain I have never seen an image posted with a Noct that has been any more impressive than shots taken with other lenses.

Also do not try to demean people using their Noct(s) for whatever purpose they think suitable, please.

Okay, but try not to demean my opinion while you're on the subject

If someone has the money for a Noct at whatever price they accept, it's their choice, not yours.

I am pretty sure I said this, exactly, in Reply #55.

Jack

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Please, stop harping on why nobody should buy a Noct. I'm sure your points have come across to us all by  now.

[Airy]

@John Koerner, @Michael Erlewine :

Thanks for the impressive shots. In both cases, I do not clearly see the drawbacks normally associated with their respective wide apertures (purple haze for the 50/1.2, slight "glow", etc.). Did you do anything special in PP ?

I have been using two copies of the 50/1.2 (AI, AIS) with pleasure and caution for years, but could not get such results "straight out of the camera", at least not by f/1.2. Stopped down, I pointed out several times, also here, that the rendering of the 50/1.2 could be amazingly good especially in high contrast situations (another example below that gives me that strange 3D feeling), but that is of course not the "normal" reason to buy a fast lens.

[John Koerner]

Please, stop harping on why nobody should buy a Noct. I'm sure your points have come across to us all by  now.

Bjørn;

Please stop misreading and trying to control what I say.

I have said nothing inflammatory or bad ... do I not have the right to my own opinion?

I believe people over-exaggerate the qualities of the Noct.

Despite this, I am pretty sure I have said:

• I intend to buy a Noct (so how am I trying to say "nobody" should buy a Noct, if I myself intend to buy one );
• What I have said is the Noct offers an advantage which is specialized only; the advantages are not there in every day photos;
• Because of this, the Ai-S is the better value overall.

What is your problem with a dissenting opinion?

Since the Noct is 5x more expensive, can you show me an image taken in daylight that is "5x better" than what an Ai-S can do?

Like I said, by this weekend I will post "nature" images with my 50mm Ai-S that are easily as good as what anyone with the Noct can produce.

If a person is not posting Nocturne images with the Noct, they're not taking advantage of its uniqueness.

Jack

[John Koerner]

@John Koerner, @Michael Erlewine :
Thanks for the impressive shots. In both cases, I do not clearly see the drawbacks normally associated with their respective wide apertures (purple haze for the 50/1.2, slight "glow", etc.). Did you do anything special in PP ?

Hi Airy;

No, my Lightroom workflow is minimal, actually.

I had one photo I was going to post, that I decided against, due to excessive CA, but that was it.

I have actually compared the 50mm Ai-S, reversed, against the vaulted Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Apo Macro (at 1:1), where the color, bokeh, and clarity of the 50mm eclipsed that of the Voigtlander.

Maybe I will post these findings at a later date.

I have simply found the 50mm Ai-S to be an exceptional, versatile, all-around lens ... well worth its price tag.

Jack

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have said what need to be said on this topic. All view points have been posted here for every one to digest and conclude upon.

There has never  been any correlation between the "value" of a picture and the price of the gear used to take it. The Noct is no exception to this rule.

[Michael Erlewine]

Not to fuel the fire, but to bring closure, I have a copy of the Nikkor Ai-S 50mm f/1.2, the one from after 2006, plus I also have the 2nd version of the Noct (not the recent one). Many of us probably have different lenses for different kinds of shooting. I know I do. I love the 50mm f/1.2, but it’s no Noct.

There is other uniqueness to the Noct other than low-light, IMO. I don’t care about low-light shooting, but I do care about very fast lenses that offer a razor-thin DOF, which I do value and f.1.4 (Neo-Noct) for my work is not the same. I stack the razor-thin DOF of the Noct to good purpose. Here is an example. I just like what the Noct does. It also, perhaps due to its curvature, has a style that few other lenses in my collection have.

I have an exceptional copy of the Noct, although I wish I had the earlier one, since I would like the longer focus throw. Perhaps somene wants to trade. I would consider it.

Here is something I do with the Noct that I can’t really do with any other lens, except perhaps the Nikkor-O CRT lens, which is also very fast.

[dslater]

We shouldn't lose sight of what technical marvels these lenses are. In both cases, we have a lens where the focal length is a mere 20% longer that the clear aperture. When you consider how fast aberrations increase as the f-number declines, we should be amazed that lenses this fast producing this level of quality exist at all.

[dslater]

Not to fuel the fire, but to bring closure, I have a copy of the Nikkor Ai-S 50mm f/1.2, the one from after 2006, plus I also have the 2nd version of the Noct (not the recent one). Many of us probably have different lenses for different kinds of shooting. I know I do. I love the 50mm f/1.2, but it’s no Noct.

There is other uniqueness to the Noct other than low-light, IMO. I don’t care about low-light shooting, but I do care about very fast lenses that offer a razor-thin DOF, which I do value and f.1.4 for my work is not the same. I stack the razor-thin DOF of the Noct to good purpose. Here is an example. I just like what the Noct does. It also, perhaps due to its curvature, has a style that few other lenses in my collection have.

I have an exceptional copy of the Noct, although I wish I had the earlier one, since I would like the longer focus throw. Perhaps somene wants to trade. I would consider it.

Here is something I do with the Noct that I can’t really do with any other lens, except perhaps the Nikkor-O CRT lens, which is also very fast.

Just curious, but what happens when you attempt something like this with the AiS 50mm f/1.2? Also, your example brings another variable to the table - namely close focusing performance.

[Michael Erlewine]

Just curious, but what happens when you attempt something like this with the AiS 50mm f/1.2? Also, your example brings another variable to the table - namely close focusing performance.

Close-focusing is all I care about, and the Noct admits extension (K1-Ring) with no problem. As for the difference, it would be between f/1.2 and f/1.4, enough to actually make a difference. If you can't see it in the previous photo, I don't know what else to say. 

[Airy]

John, Michael, thanks for your responses, and especially for the actual examples. It is all about pictures after all...
Michael, when you say (apropos 50/1.2) "the one from after 2006", do you refer to a technical change?

[dslater]

Close-focusing is all I care about, and the Noct admits extension (K1-Ring) with no problem. As for the difference, it would be between f/1.2 and f/1.4, enough to actually make a difference. If you can't see it in the previous photo, I don't know what else to say. 

So you're talking about the Neo-Noct, not the original Noct which was also f/1.2. Since you only have one photo, there's nothing to compare it to. Also, as I am not familiar with focus stacking, I'm unsure how going from f/1.2 to f/1.4 changes the resulting stacked image. With a focus stack, doesn't the resulting DOF have more to do with how you stacked your images than with the lenses native DOF?