Found a Noct...

[longzoom]

   It is almost, word-in-word, what I have found inside my own experience. Some reservations, still,  towards 58/1.4 - it should be even softer, than charts suggested. With all due respect to your choice of 50/1.2, but with its max at 4-5.6, why do I, personally, need to pay for  1.2?  Special characters of old Noct or 50/1.2 are not working for me, on this stage. Today I need fully sharp wide open 50 1.2-1.4 AF lens.  Otus is great, but I can't use manual lenses anymore. Sigma is very good, but it is at its max at 2.8-4.0. So I should wait for new REAL NOCT AFS 55-58, 1.2-1.4.  Hope I'll survive till it appears... Thank you so much, Jack!   LZ

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Any reason to quote an entire long post without adding anything of your own, LZ? Either edit it or remove as being a double post, please.

Edited the post as per instructions from JK.

[Michael Erlewine]

The MTF charts show why I use and prefer the Noct. I don't care about corner sharpness with a lens like this; in fact I like it. What I do care about is the much sharper capability of the Noct 1.2 at wider apertures. The AIS f/1.2 is not sharp wide open, which is where I need it to be to stack razor-sharp DOF. The Neo-Noct is sharp wide open, but never gets nearly as sharp as you narrow the aperture.  I would chose the Noct, next the Neo-Noct, and last the AIS f/1.2... for the work I do. I imagine a lot turns on what kind of photography you are doing.

[John Koerner]

Bjorn;

Buried in the quote, LZ said this:

• "It is almost, word-in-word, what I have found inside my own experience. Some reservations, still,  towards 58/1.4 - it should be even softer, than charts suggested. With all due respect to your choice of 50/1.2, but with its max at 4-5.6, why do I, personally, need to pay for  1.2?  Special characters of old Noct or 50/1.2 are not working for me, on this stage. Today I need fully sharp wide open 50 1.2-1.4 AF lens.  Otus is great, but I can't use manual lenses anymore. Sigma is very good, but it is at its max at 2.8-4.0. So I should wait for new REAL NOCT AFS 55-58, 1.2-1.4.  Hope I'll survive till it appears... Thank you so much, Jack!   LZ"

Many people don't know how to use the quote feature

[longzoom]

Any reason to quote an entire long post without adding anything of your own, LZ? Either edit it or remove as being a double post, please.

Edited the post as per instructions from JK.

   Sorry but it was not my fault. LZ

[John Koerner]

The MTF charts show why I use and prefer the Noct. I don't care about corner sharpness with a lens like this; in fact I like it. What I do care about is the much sharper capability of the Noct 1.2 at wider apertures. The AIS f/1.2 is not sharp wide open, which is where I need it to be to stack razor-sharp DOF. The Neo-Noct is sharp wide open, but never gets nearly as sharp as you narrow the aperture.  I would chose the Noct, next the Neo-Noct, and last the AIS f/1.2... for the work I do. I imagine a lot turns on what kind of photography you are doing.

That is reasonable, and these tests make me want to buy the Noct

However, some of what I do is reverse macro shots, and I happen to use f/4-f/5.6 as exactly the aperture I use for these types of shot, where across-the-frame sharpness matters, and is where the Ai-S excels.



I also take single-image nature shots where across-the-frame sharpness matters.

It is nice that that site ran Imatests on all of these lenses, because it puts into perspective the strengths and weaknesses of each

The 58mm does appear to be a "poor man's" Noct ... but its very balanced low-end is perhaps why it will never produce the character of the imbalanced Noct.

Jack

[Tristin]

I know we are all eager to talk shop, but this horse's remains have been beaten to quite an extreme.   

[John Koerner]

I know we are all eager to talk shop, but this horse's remains have been beaten to quite an extreme.   

I disagree.

There is so much similarity and discussion about the 3 lenses, precisely because they are so close in so many ways, that protracted discussion is needed to harvest the differences.

I think the ability to exactly quantify their differences has clarified both the intent, and purpose, of each lens ... where each excels ... and where each is weak ... so the fancier can make a completely-informed decision.

[Michael Erlewine]

IMO, this is just what this forum is all about. Folks who find it too much, don't have to read it.

Back to business... I don't use the Noct as a "flat" lens, but rather for its curvature and sharpness....and speed wide open. I have other lenses for corner-to-corner stuff.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Imatest tells us nothing about CA, bokeh, colour, flare, long distance sharpness, or how the characteristics of the lens combine aesthetically for a particular subject. It's like looking at the world through a keyhole.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

This is what I wrote about the Noct many years ago:

The 'Noct' designation calls attention to the main application area for this super-fast lens, viz. its intended use in low-light and night photography. The front element is hand-polished to give its aspherical shape and this by necessity inflates the price of this infrequently seen optic. Improved control of coma and spherical aberration is the main reason for including the aspherical element in its optical design. This effort pays for itself by giving very sharp pictures even when the lens is used nearly wide open. In fact, performance is good even at f/1.2, really picks up at f/1.4 and simply is marvellous at f/2-f/2.8. Flare control is very good, but some ghosting can occur when extremely bright spots are included in the picture. Unusual for a normal lens, field curvature is readily apparent and focusing it closer exacerbates the situation. The prominent curvature of the field can explain why the 'Noct' scores low in tests: the corners simply are not brought into focus at wide apertures when the lens is focused on a test target. This is not the proper lens for copying or close-up photography. For shooting 3D objects however, the field curvature isn't a big issue. Beyond f/4 the image contrast also begins to decline slightly and there is a significant drop in optical quality beyond f/8. The 'Noct' is built for speed and should be used for its targeted purpose. End users also may be attracted to its special image rendition, the texture of which has an appealing 'creamy' smoothness (nice bokeh).

D2X and D200 mercilessly show that focusing accuracy is critical in order to get the maximum quality from the Noct-Nikkor. The new high-resolution D3X further underlines this fact. With such a bright lens as the Noct, manual focusing is really difficult using these cameras. This is counter-intuitive but unfortunately true.

On the other hand, if the image is properly focused, and you are aware of the strong field curvature and its possible effects on the rendition of your subject, you are rewarded with excellent sharpness and very high image contrast at settings from f/1.4 to f/4. Beyond f/4, image quality declines, after all this is a specialised design not a "normal" lens. This is further witnessed by the very good image rendition at f/1.2.

IR performance: Seems to be equally good to the visible light rendition. At f/16, and under strong contrast lighting, you might just notice the first sign of a hot spot. However, since this stopped-down setting is off-limits territory for the Noct anyway, I haven't emphasized that too much.

Who needs Imatest?

[John Koerner]

Who needs Imatest?

Who needs Imatest?

I think Imatest actually underscores your subjective impressions.

Rather than knock Imatest, if read properly, I believe it supports your opinion.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

My point, perhaps not coming through readily enough, is that Imatest is something one has to buy whilst your eyes and observation skills come for free. The graphs and figures all have to be interpreted anyway.

[John Koerner]

My point, perhaps not coming through readily enough, is that Imatest is something one has to buy whilst your eyes and observation skills come for free. The graphs and figures all have to be interpreted anyway.

Subjective opinions always carry an asterisk *

Objective measurements are far more valuable, because people can interpret the data visually, in a graph, far better than they can "think about it" from reading words.

Further, there is no spin of bias to wade through (E.g., people who only shoot wide-open will not say the same things as people who stop down.)

The Imatest graphs allow people to simply look at the facts, and decide for themselves where they want to be, without the unnecessary chaff of "opinions" and "shooting bias" clouding the issue.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

One can choose to believe facts are always to be quantitative.  I won't argue against that point of view.

However, it is not easy to extract information by wading through charts and tables to find what you need, without losing the wider picture so to speak.