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

[Mongo]

Interesting exercise but Mongo does not understand the purpose. Would it not be a fairer and a more relevant comparison to compare the f2 Milvus to a contemporary Nikon 50mm f1.8 G  instead of a 40 year old Nikon ??   The fact that one is AF and the other manual is of little relevance to a direct comparison of similar and contemporary lenses. The fact that one gives AF for a little over $200 in total compared to the other that is approximately $1250 in total is just another reason to really compare what each offers for the money, size , weight and IQ.

Not sure what the 50mm  f1.8 Ai cost but the new G model could not have been much more even at twice the cost of the Ai.

Mongo has always been a strong advocate of the older lens treasures but even in that case, it makes far better sense to buy the much newer model when it performs so much better for so little extra cost. The Nikon 50mm f1.8 G is such an example. It is a different matter when it comes to considering a Nikon 105 f1.4 compared to the performance of say, a 105 f1.8 or even a 105 f2.5. In Mongo's view, there is not enough difference in performance to justify the inordinate price difference.

[Roland Vink]

I think it is interesting to see how well a highly regarded old lens stands up to a modern design, regardless of how much or little they cost.

[Airy]

Indeed, my intent was to look back into history (even though the Milvus is a refinement of an older design, not a radical departure like the Tamron 45/1..

I routinely use old Nikkors on my Df.  My most used 50mm Nikkor is the 50/1.2 AI; best performer at f/2, and here the comparison with the Zeiss certainly makes more sense, I mean: is less predictable. My guess (from long usage of both) is that the Zeiss is unbeatable in the center, but the Nikon has a more even rendering (sharpness and illumination). That holds for daylight and distant scenes. Closer or at night, it becomes more complicated.

but Mongo can rest assured I'll also include the 50/1.8G in the comparisons. I did test the 50/1.8G with others last Sunday, but the shots were not usable: for some reason, the 50/1.8G that I focussed using LV (after having it switched to MF) went off focus in the process. This is why I insisted that having a lens with a somewhat stiff focus ring (as has the Zeiss) is not necessarily bad. Making a series of shots without having to re-adjust the focus is not infrequent a situation. Older MF lenses (teles, especially) often had an AF lock button, by the way.

The only thing I can say now is that the 50/1.8G probably delivers the best bokeh - circular, least outlining, etc. But anyway that's for a later edition. Today I got the Tamron 90/2.5 on the camera, and the 50/1.8 AI in the bag just in case.

[Mongo]

thank you Airy - understood. You mentioned the Tamron 90mm f2.5. Mongo is a great fan of that lens too but Mongo owns the first AF version instead of the manual version. It is light and very cheaply constructed relatively speaking but delivers amazing results and great to use.

Look forward to your other tests in due course.

[Airy]

If it is AF, then probably 90/2.8 ? The first MF version, which I own, is built like a tank. And contrast may be better than I thought : despite the cleaning done at the shop, and a further one by myself, I noticed yesterday (under strong light) that the front lens, while looking clean, was slightly milky. I suspect it got cleaned with one of those pre-impregnated towels like I bought long ago in a shop (a photographer, not a grocery) and indeed left some veiling behind, which is difficult to get rid of. Never again.

After using my lens pen again, it seems that I got it right now. We'll see if it makes a difference. Otherwise the lens (52B version) is known for its propensity to flare (coatings are just average), but it is more than usable.

[David H. Hartman]

Lenses are built to a price point. The Zeiss had better out perform the Nikkor(s).

KEH.com ....... 50/1.8 AI Nikkor Ex+ condition ............................... $133.00 (USD)
B&H Photo ..... AF-S 50/1.8G Nikkor ............................................. $217.00 (USD)
B&H Photo ..... Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/2M ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F ........ $1283.00 (USD)

Sept 9, 2016 as I type

1283.00/133.00=9.65
1283.00/217.00=5.91

Dave

I'd also like to see a comparison of the AF-S 50/1.8G to the 50/2.0 Zeiss Milvus.

[Airy]

OK, you'll get the comparison.
Concerning the price point, your observation is correct and that is why I buy *second hand* Zeiss. Finding a 35/2 was easy, a 25/2 much less, and the brand new Milvus 50/2 was sheer luck.

[Mongo]

If it is AF, then probably 90/2.8 ? The first MF version, which I own, is built like a tank. And contrast may be better than I thought : despite the cleaning done at the shop, and a further one by myself, I noticed yesterday (under strong light) that the front lens, while looking clean, was slightly milky. I suspect it got cleaned with one of those pre-impregnated towels like I bought long ago in a shop (a photographer, not a grocery) and indeed left some veiling behind, which is difficult to get rid of. Never again.

After using my lens pen again, it seems that I got it right now. We'll see if it makes a difference. Otherwise the lens (52B version) is known for its propensity to flare (coatings are just average), but it is more than usable.

Airy, it is definitely an f2.5. Mongo just assumed it was one of the first AF models because it was still f2.5 (and not f2.8 like later AF models) like the original manual version of this famous lens. Could post an image of it if you wish. This is a link to some info about this not often seen lens: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-90mm-F2.5-macro_lens363.html  (released in about 1990)  and same lens with different model Number here: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-90mm-AF-F2.5_lens365.html (released in about 1994)

[Frank Fremerey]

I'd also like to see a comparison of the AF-S 50/1.8G to the 50/2.0 Zeiss Milvus.

Me too. The 1.8/50G is a very good lens.

[simsurace]

the 50/1.2 AI; best performer at f/2

I wonder whether this has actually been measured, it keeps getting stated as a fact but I've never seen this tested and keep getting back to Ken Rockwell when I search for it, who also just states it as a fact. If anyone knows where this observation originates from, I'd be happy to have that information!

I believe the statement is usually qualified as "out of all Nikon 50mm lenses".

[Akira]

Another vote for 50/1.8G, although the sample I had bought new and had used with D610 seemed to suffer from the uneven field curvature.  My current one used with D750, bought new and calibrated at Nikon service, renders the entire image frame evenly.  Even my earlier sample showed nice bokeh as seen in this attached sample.

[Frank Fremerey]

Akira: mine had to see Nikon Service before it had its plane of focus perfectly aligned in parallel to the recording chip.

Yet I took a lot of magic bokeh shoty with it too.

above 1.8 the character is very straight an sensibly high res.

[Airy]

I wonder whether this has actually been measured, it keeps getting stated as a fact but I've never seen this tested and keep getting back to Ken Rockwell when I search for it, who also just states it as a fact. If anyone knows where this observation originates from, I'd be happy to have that information!

I believe the statement is usually qualified as "out of all Nikon 50mm lenses".

.

I have seen one serious site stating it and providing evidence (MTF curves). Hope to retrieve the url. In another publication (by JM Sépulchre, a serious tester at the "Monde de la photo" magazine), things were not clear cut. Personal experience is, with my two copies of the 50/1.2, I was always impressed by the image quality at f/2. I am only trying to understand why. Zeiss may well be sharper, but from experience (having used the 50/2MP extensively) I prefer to stop it down. Maybe the vignetting spoils the broth. But wait until you see the pics. And no, the website you are referring to is not my source of information (even though it may be a funny read).

[David H. Hartman]

I wonder whether this has actually been measured, it keeps getting stated as a fact but I've never seen this tested and keep getting back to Ken Rockwell when I search for it, who also just states it as a fact. If anyone knows where this observation originates from, I'd be happy to have that information!

I believe the statement is usually qualified as "out of all Nikon 50mm lenses".

I believe Ken Rockwell is the origin.of this statement and it may be correct as of the date it was first published.

Ken Rockwell like Moose Peterson used to review lenses he never touched. Ken also states as fact what is really opinion. There is also a lot of outdated statements on his site. He is however capable of doing a careful review.

Before putting your money down do some cross checking

Dave

[David H. Hartman]

Oops! Accidental post.