Zeiss 50/2 (Milvus) vs. Nikkor 50/1.8 AI

[Airy]

Resuming the A/B comparisons, now that I got a decent copy of the 50/1.8. Opposing to the latest Zeiss is unfair - they are nearly 40 years apart. On the other hand, the Zeiss is probably the only multipurpose, (relatively) light modern 50mm MF lens around (the Voigtländer 40/2 and 58/1.4 do not count, given their very different FL).

First an overall view of the scene, at f/2 in either case. It appears that the Zeiss underexposes slightly and still has that warmish color rendering (the former 50/2 ZF2 was even more yellowish). And of course, there is the trademark (high) Zeiss vignetting, while the 50/1.8 has much less: at f/2, the perceived vignetting of the Nikkor is much reduced - it gets us rid of that "central hot spot" impression.

[Airy]

Now looking at the center, right side, and lower left corner. The details on the right side are somewhat in front or behind the focus plane, so you won't expect perfect sharpness anyway. The Zeiss looks consistently better (more contrasty, somewhat sharper). The background blur in the centre shot looks different; the Nikkor exhibits purple fringes, while the Zeiss exhibits better delineated CA.

[Airy]

Now concerning sharpness over the f scale : in the focussed areas, the Zeiss at f/2 is equivalent to the Nikkor at f/4 ; the gaps narrows then progressively to one stop (Zeiss f/4 equivalent to Nikkor f/5.6 and so on). The following shows 100% crops of the Eiffel tower shots at f/2, 2.8, 4; Zeiss is always on the left hand side. Last shot is the full field t f/2.

[Airy]

The difference in the corners is less, because the Zeiss, while excellent in the center, shows some significant performance drop in the corners wide open (it gets sharp all over at f/4). By the way the selected corner is not perfectly in focus, but the difference is nevertheless apparent. The Nikkor still exhibits some of the purple haze that is even more present at f/1.8. (By the way, the 50/2 AI is about as sharp, but has even more haze at f/2).

[Airy]

One more remark : for all practical purposes, at f/2.8, most Nikkors can be called sharp when mounted on the Df. In the "Eiffel tower" shorts, the high contrast edges cause some bleeding that reduces the sharpness, and it is more pronounced with the "old" lens, as one would expect. Another series (not yet published) shows that, on overcast days with lower contrast subjects, lenses are closer.

This thread will continue with short range shots, where the Zeiss is expected to shine. It being so good at long distances is certainly more surprizing. Zeiss MP should maybe read "multipurpose" rather than "macro planar"...

[Akira]

Considering more than 10x of price difference between Milvis 50/2.0 and Ai 50/1.8, the latter seems to perform admirably, and its cost performance is excellent.

[Airy]

Agreed. I see no valid reason for not using the Nikkor 50/1.8 AI, on Df, in daylight, and in a distance, and from f2.8, and if you are sure you have got a decent copy. QC of Zeiss seems good and consistent, while the poor Nikkors had to go through many experiences and owners.

The Nikkor will not ruin any shooting under those conditions. Also, shooting against the light does not seem to induce another possible performance gap (I also got evidence yesterday, not however the time to process it). I have yet to check the bokeh, but that's more a short range shooting issue.

So the main reason for choosing one lens or the other is a secondary one: price, availability, size, overall rendering, other goals of the shooting session... under the above mentioned conditions.

I do not yet know how they will compare when one or more of the above conditions change.

Meanwhile I better understand why Björn rates the 50/1.8 Nikkor that highly. The pancake AIS I had (and still have) is definitely different, and is less satisfactory, so one should not draw conclusions from that version as I did before in my ignorance.

[Airy]

Considering more than 10x of price difference between Milvis 50/2.0 and Ai 50/1.8, the latter seems to perform admirably, and its cost performance is excellent.

I was happy enough to buy the Milvus used (!!). Some buyers in Paris happen to have too much money, buy on a whim and resell when they discover that MF requires practice...

[Akira]

I was happy enough to buy the Milvus used (!!). Some buyers in Paris happen to have too much money, buy on a whim and resell when they discover that MF requires practice...

Admitting that Milvis is an excellent lens also for more general purposes, it would be difficult to focus manually at middle to distant ranges because of the very short focus throw between 5m and infinity.  The focus throw of Ai 50/1.8 in the same range is roughly twice as long as that of Milvis.  That's why I prefer Ai 50/1.8 to Ais one.

[Akira]

I just learned that Zeiss was releasing three new Milvis lenses: 15, 18 and 135mm, and the equivalents of Classic versions was discontinued.  Apparently the optical designs of 15mm and 135mm remain the same, but 18mm is newly designed and is f2.8 now.

[Airy]

Admitting that Milvis is an excellent lens also for more general purposes, it would be difficult to focus manually at middle to distant ranges because of the very short focus throw between 5m and infinity.  The focus throw of Ai 50/1.8 in the same range is roughly twice as long as that of Milvis.  That's why I prefer Ai 50/1.8 to Ais one.

To me the short throw is OK, with one reservation.

It is OK because there is no slack in the action and because it is rather stiff. Nice consequence is, the lens is not easily knocked off focus (quite unlike my 50/1.4 AIS for instance). Moreover, because the lens is quite sharp in the center wide open, focussing is made easy and the focus confirmation dot provides more usable indications.

One reservation is, moving subject. In that case, I also prefer a long focus throw and light action.

[Roland Vink]

The focus throw of the Zeiss 50/2 macro is very similar to the Nikon AI and AIS 55mm macro lenses - all are more or less standard lenses which focus by extension to 1:2 magnification. As Airy suggested, the focus throw is adequate for these lenses if the focus ring is well damped and there is no slack in the focus mechanism. No doubt the longer focus throw of the AI 50/1.8 does make focusing easier at far distances.

A comparison between the Zeiss 50/2 and AIS 55/2.8 would be interesting, apart from the extra speed of the Zeiss, they have very similar specifications.

[Akira]

Indeed the focus throw of Ais55/2.8 is as short as that of Zeiss MP 50/2.0.  But the viewfinder image of the former is very contrasty and flare-free, and DOF is a bit deeper at f2.8 wide open (even though it is a bit longer which make DPF a bit shallower).  All these make the MF very comfortable.

That said, my eyes were less declined when I used my Ais 55/2.8 Micro, so I cannot say for sure if there would be any difference.   

[Ron Scubadiver]

I wonder how much all of this matters, and which parts of it matter considering that Ps can make one look like the other unless there is a material difference in sharpness.  A lot goes into a photograph with the most important part being the person behind the camera.  Then again, if you think some lens has a special magic, it might improve your shooting because of the effect it has on your outlook...

I shoot a lot with my totally non exotic 50mm f/1.4G.  I have seen some nice shots Fons takes with his 58mm f/1.4G.  It also has AF which I must have for street shots.  Too bad it costs 4 times what the 50 goes for.

You can't take a picture without a camera and a lens, but a lot of the stuff is just amazingly good.  It was also good 40 years ago....

[Tristin]

Even if you could PS images from a lens to look like another lens, you would adding a lot of extra PP time.  Quality costs, and the last %5 always costs way more than the first 95%.