Found a Noct...

[Michael Erlewine]

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?

I made clear that I was not talking about the Neo-Noct, but rather the 2nd version of the original Noct, the one with a shorter focus throw. Think of shallow DOF, razor thin, and then stack it incrementally where you want there to be focus. That is the value of f/1.2 in stacking focus. In a way, I paint focus where I want it. Aside from that, the Noct has a style of its own that I consider lovely as well.

[dslater]

I made clear that I was not talking about the Neo-Noct, but rather the 2nd version of the original Noct, the one with a shorter focus throw. Think of shallow DOF, razor thin, and then stack it incrementally where you want there to be focus. That is the value of f/1.2 in stacking focus. In a way, I paint focus where I want it. Aside from that, the Noct has a style of its own that I consider lovely as well.

So where did the f/1.4 you spoke of come from??? I thought you were comparing the AiS 50 f/1.2 to the Nost-Nikkor F/1.2.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The "Neo-Noct" is f/1.4.

[Akira]

According to Nikon's official "1001 Night" and Roland's serial number list, Noct Nikkor was discontinued in 1997 or 98.  So, there shouldn't be any "2006-" version.

The "second version" Michael is referring to should be the later, 9-blade Ais version as opposed to the earlier, 7-blade one.

I used the later Noct, Ais 9-blade version on Kodachrome 25.  It was an amazing lens.  It was not only sharper than 50/1.2 wide open, but its color rendition was noticeably different from that of "usual" Nikkors, thanks to its excellent contrast and acuity.  The 8-milimeter of difference of focal length was larger than you would imagine.  The shallowness of DOF would be well comparable to that of Leica Noctilux 50/1.0.

What I didn't like about Noct was that its huge barrel-shape distortion when used at closer range, maybe 1-2m and closer.  Also, I didn't like the cut-out of the bokeh circle caused by the symbiosis of its huge rear element and mirror box.  The cut-out would disappear in close ranges where the rear element gets further away from the opening of the mirror box, but not in the portrait range.  I thought that a rangefinder camera without the mirror box (in the film era) was more suitable body for such a fast Gaussian design lens.  In this digital era, a mirrorless body should be more suitable for the same reason.

According to "1001 Night", Nikon used specialized equipments to test the optical performance of Noct Nikkor.  I also felt that its mechanical parts like the focusing helicoid and the aperture ring were made under tighter tolerance and their operations was well comparative to that of Leica M lenses.  In short, it was of a different class in every respect.

[Michael Erlewine]

That was my mistake, confusing the f/stops, when I know better. Apologies. The character of the Noct, to my eyes, differs from the 50mm Ai-s f/1.2 enough that although I have them both, I seem to always prefer the results of the Noct. Both are beautifully made lenses. As mentioned, perhaps it is the field curvature that gives it the character that I like. I will look at the 50mm f/1.2 again, when I get a chance. Right now busy packing equipment for a two-week project where I will be shooting still-life. I should stick to my packing and leave this conversation be as it is.

[Akira]

No worries, Michael!  Hope you enjoy the long-term project.

I've heard that Noct of the earlier version is easier to flare and suffer from low contrast when used in the daytime.  I didn't have any of these problems with my 9-blade Ais.  Thanks to the ISO25 films, I could use Noct even in a sunny day, which is tricky in the digital era. 

I haven't used Neo-Noct, but my impression is that the current 58/1.4 is more "general" than the original Noct.  So far as the speed is concerned, there should be no practical difference between f1.4 and f1.2.  But, for the image rendition and the shallowness of DOF, the difference should be bigger than one would imagine.

[Michael Erlewine]

No worries, Michael!  Hope you enjoy the long-term project.

I've heard that Noct of the earlier version is easier to flare and suffer from low contrast when used in the daytime.  I didn't have any of these problems with my 9-blade Ais.  Thanks to the ISO25 films, I could use Noct even in a sunny day, which is tricky in the digital era. 

I haven't used Neo-Noct, but my impression is that the current 58/1.4 is more "general" than the original Noct.  So far as the speed is concerned, there should be no practical difference between f1.4 and f1.2.  But, for the image rendition and the shallowness of DOF, the difference should be bigger than one would imagine.

I can use the Noct on a focus rail or manually (with care), but the short focus throw is a problem. I just finished testing some eight or so high-end enlarger (barrel) lenses and they are incredibly good and incredibly inexpensive. If I were looking for a very well-corrected lens (not too fast, however), these represent the best bargain that I have seen to date. The Schneider Digitar Compnon-s (like the 80mm) are approaching the El Nikkor APO lenses in quality, IMO.

[Akira]

Yes, the shorter focus throw of Ais in general makes it (very) difficult to focus, especially with fast lenses like Noct.

[longzoom]

No worries, Michael!  Hope you enjoy the long-term project.

I've heard that Noct of the earlier version is easier to flare and suffer from low contrast when used in the daytime.  I didn't have any of these problems with my 9-blade Ais.  Thanks to the ISO25 films, I could use Noct even in a sunny day, which is tricky in the digital era. 

I haven't used Neo-Noct, but my impression is that the current 58/1.4 is more "general" than the original Noct.  So far as the speed is concerned, there should be no practical difference between f1.4 and f1.2.  But, for the image rendition and the shallowness of DOF, the difference should be bigger than one would imagine.                 

.   Yeah, old one flares more with lowering of contrast.  But bokeh looks nicer with old one, especially transition areas. For streets light at dark time, new one 1.2 looks interesting. But if you close it down, all of magic is gone. As I already said, I've no use to both of my Nocts wide open.  Curvature of field is too high for my style, in this case. So I let them stay on the shelf.  THX!   LZ

[Erik Lund]

....
I've heard that Noct of the earlier version is easier to flare and suffer from low contrast when used in the daytime.  I didn't have any of these problems with my 9-blade Ais.  Thanks to the ISO25 films, I could use Noct even in a sunny day, which is tricky in the digital era. 

I haven't used Neo-Noct, but my impression is that the current 58/1.4 is more "general" than the original Noct. ...

I have never heard or seen anything about low contrast with the Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1.2 Ai  - contrast is as one would expect,,, sure there is a small technical difference in coatings but I think it is far more important how you work with the light - Just like Michael does with his indoor neutral window light scenes. A very good use of the Noct-Nikkor IMHO.

The 58mm 1.4 AFS it is extremely close to the Noct-Nikkor both Ai and Ais for all intended purposes for the image it renders, Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1.2 Ai and Ais has a little more curvature of field up close - There should be a thread somewhere where Bjørn tested this,,, Again here the difference in coatings might give a slight difference in the output image and also here; Work with the light.

The difference that matters for the rendered image between 50mm 1.2 and 58mm 1.2 is the overall optical design and the hand grinded aspherical element. And yes also I my opinion there is a big difference between them,,,

I don't see how the price of the lenses matters here,,, They are different tools for different purposes - Some tools are just more expensive than others.

[Erik Lund]

.   Yeah, old one flares more with lowering of contrast.  But bokeh looks nicer with old one, especially transition areas. For streets light at dark time, new one 1.2 looks interesting. But if you close it down, all of magic is gone. As I already said, I've no use to both of my Nocts wide open.  Curvature of field is too high for my style, in this case. So I let them stay on the shelf.  THX!   LZ

Colour and tone transitions is one of the points where the Noct-Nikkor and the 58mm 1.4 excels.

I have not see the difference to the Ais for this, have you tested this with identical scenes?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Imparting quite high contrast wide open is one of the aspects one associates with the Noct. It also has a limited amount of focus shift. The curvature of field is a blade that cuts both ways as it prevents copy work of flat subjects (at the larger apertures at least), yet adds a nice 3-D feeling for more natural subjects.

A comparison of the Noct (AI) and the "Neo-Noct" in the near range (wide open f/1.2/1.4 and stopped down to f/2.8, respectively). Centre of frame, taken with D800.  The old lens has nothing to be ashamed of vs its modern cousin.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Night scenes are of course what one tends to associate with the Noct. It handles such scenery with aplomb, producing extremely smooth tonal gradients and the usual signs of coma and flare at wide apertures are kept well under control.

This is a test shot at 15:15 hours towards the end of November, a time of the year when darkness descends very early. The Noct loves such scenes. I stopped down a little to get everything into adequate sharp focus.

(Nikon Df, f/4, 1/60 sec, ISO 1250).

[Erik Lund]

Noct-Nikkor Ai shot in the morning wide open

_EGL4907 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

[Erik Lund]

Noct-Nikkor Ai at night wide open - Again the colour transitions are very creamy and subtle

_EGL5739 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr