Fooling around with a Noct-Nikkor

[Airy]

... very much at daytime, for now. I got mixed feelings : on a high MP camera, it does not look good, compared with e.g. the 50/1.2 or the Voigt 58/1.4. On a low MP camera (Df), I won't say it shines, but the results are more attractive. Contrast wide open is relatively high, and it does not flare easily.

The first two at f/1.2, last one at f/2.8 ; #2 is slightly cropped.

[F2F3F6]

A dreamlens, Airy, congratulations ! But it seems it is best for poor light conditions, where it really shines !
What about comparison with your 1,4/58 Voigt and your Nikkor 1,2/50 ?
Amitiés, Didier

[pluton]

The first two shots are amazingly good considering they are at f/1.2.

[Airy]

Honestly, direct comparison (using D800, LV with Zacuto) was a disaster.

1) brickwall shooting, 1.5m distance : Noct displays significant field curvature and focus shift. Worse, focussing (via LV) close to the distant edge will reveal that it never gets sharp there. By comparison, the Voigtländer has no significant focus shift (the focus point remains in the sharpness zone), has a flat field, and does no mush near the far edges. I never bother about the corners, by the way, where it would be vain to expect decent sharpness wide open ; these are no OTUSes.

2) close focus shooting (about 0.5m) : focus shift gets even worse (to the point that the focus point will be outside, and in front, of the sharp area). All lenses display lots of LoCA, the Voigt being most "baroque" (LoCA seems to be from Rubens' palette, but the pics have better contrast). But I do not really care, because I see no relevant "use case" for a Noct at such a distance, opposite to 1.5m (portraits).

On the other hand, doing real shots using the Df, the Noct does not disappoint. More examples to follow. I have the impression it is a good portrait lens, if you overcome the focus shift, which is possible by combining training (focus in front of the desired sharpness plane) and "statistical shooting".

So far, I have not made up my mind, whether I should keep it or not. So I keep shooting.

[Airy]

The first two shots are amazingly good considering they are at f/1.2.

I confirm, f/1.2
But since the pics are not really tests, but honest attempts to get decent images, I pushed the sharpening and clarity a little bit. These won't turn mush into crispness. So when you see sharpness, it means the lens is sharp indeed. Downsampling helps too (pixel size = 1600, long edge)

The figures (in LR6) : the bar & wine store, sharpness at 35. The two fatties : sharpness 45, clarity +7.

By the way, it took me 7 attempts to get the one with the fatties sharp (the scene was not strongly lit, while the ambience was sunny). DOF is ridiculously low, and LoCA will immediately deteriorate the blacks.

[Airy]

This one at f/1.4. For some reason, the door, which I thought I had brought into focus, does not look very sharp (setting  = +30 in LR6 ; shadows raised) ; focus shift is minimal between f/1.2 and f/1.4, so blame my poor eyesight. I was more interested in getting a smooth light background.

Bokeh is so-so, because of strong outlining of shiny points ; the outline is green due to LoCA behind the focus plane.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The Noct on D800 is indeed a disaster in terms of getting the proper focus. Same story on an A7 Sony, by the way, so we cannot just put the blame on the OVF it seems. LiveView on D800 is also a hit-and-miss affair.

On my Df, the Noct is easy to focus and I have no problems getting the focus where it should be.

I did careful comparison with Noct and the 'Neo-Noct' on a D800, by selecting a test subject that was pretty flat and inclined. As the 'Neo' had AF, it could be focused more precisely in this case, but apart from that, the old lens did well against its modern counterpart and in fact was sharper at f/1.2 than the other at f/1.4 for the on-axis part of the subject. Stronger field curvature than the 'Neo' was obvious though. I ended up keeping my Nocts and declined the offer of the AFS 58/1.4 at a good price.

[Airy]

With the Zacuto, a tripod and lots of patience, focussing on the D800 remains possible - the other problem being the short throw of my AIS version... But that does not explain it all (I mean, the poor results). Shooting at an angle did not provide evidence that my Noct was better than the other two. Once again, in the field and with the Df, it is another story. I have yet to understand why.

[Airy]

Attempted subject isolation at f/1.2. Framing is not quite OK : the "V" of the two guys in front is part of the intention ; I should have paid more attention to the arcades in the background and to the column that interferes with the player's profile. But I could not stay much longer. Also, the sharpness of the player could be better, but you got the idea.

[Airy]

Another one at f/1.2. Note the slightly "swirly" bokeh, caused by the catseye effect, and enhanced by the decent vignetting: we have no "clipped corners" effect, unlike 50/1.2. Sharpness +45, but contrast and clarity settings left at their standard level.

This kind of pics makes me feel special about the Noct, even at daytime.

[Airy]

Still f/1.2. Absolutely no tricks - standard contrast and sharpening, no clarity push. No vignetting change (there is no profile for that lens in LR, by the way)

[Airy]

I did careful comparison with Noct and the 'Neo-Noct' on a D800, by selecting a test subject that was pretty flat and inclined. As the 'Neo' had AF, it could be focused more precisely in this case, but apart from that, the old lens did well against its modern counterpart and in fact was sharper at f/1.2 than the other at f/1.4 for the on-axis part of the subject. Stronger field curvature than the 'Neo' was obvious though. I ended up keeping my Nocts and declined the offer of the AFS 58/1.4 at a good price.

I tested the "Neo" and found the tested copy rather impressive ; impression shared by an employee (and Noct owner) at my favourite shop in Brussels, who also made a comparative report for a Belgian photo magazine. Whatever the difference may be, my impression is that for night shots, lenses such as the Tamron 45/1.8 made the (Neo)noct look older, if not obsolete. With good coma correction, good coatings, and stabilization, such kind of lenses pretty much fill the bill. This is also why I keep investigating the daytime behaviour of the Noct: the Tamron is very neutral (too neutral maybe) and opens at f/1.8, whereas the Noct has an interesting personality.

[David H. Hartman]

The DoF at 50mm f/1.2 is so shallow I found I can't stand free and expect to hold the focus. Slight body movement easily moves the focus point of the lens before or after the chosen focus spot on the subject. At the least one must sit down or brace against a solid object to keep the camera position from moving during and after focus. The DoF of a 50mm (51.6mm) lens at f/1.2 and a focus distance of 1.5 meters is 0.06 meters, 60mm or 2.36 inches. A 58mm at f/1.2 drops to 0.05 meters, 50mm or a tiny bit less that 2 inches. I cannot stand steady enough to hold the focus.

I found on my D300s I could focus better than I could stand still. Trying to hand hold a 50/1.2 at f/1.2 and 1.5 meters is photographer error for me. Others may have less problems standing perfectly still. I'm guess I'm just wobbly. If I lean on a counter or sit in a chair the number of in focus frames markedly improves. The first time I tried my 50/1.2 AIS on a friend's D300 I missed the focus four times. Then I leaned on a kitchen counter and nailed the focus. I wish that meant I could nail the focus 100% of the time by just bracing myself.

I don't find the focus screen on the D800 or D300s to be nearly as good as the one in my D2H. Also with the D2H I could use the DK-17m (1.2x) eyepiece. I own a 1.2x eye piece for the D300s and the DK-17m fits the D800 but I can't see the data in the finder with these.

Dave Hartman

I used DOF Master and a circle of confusion of 0.03mm. I believe the calculator is for an 8x10 inch print. 0.03mm is probably out of date so generous. Maybe I should have used 0.025mm? The DoF figures are certainly not for 100% viewing of a D800 file.

[Airy]

David, you are absolutely right, and this is why I keep shooting without any tripod - but taking enough shots so I can select a sharp one.

Against camera shake, I typically shoot twice (at 1/FL speed) or three times (at 1/(2*FL)) just to be on the safe side.

Against focus errors when shooting those things wide open, I repeat until the image I get and zoom on the rear screen is sharp enough. So yes, 7 shots happen to be necessary at times. But it is still less cumbersome a procedure than lugging a tripod.

With models, one has to select patient ones. For family shots, better grab the 50/1.8 G anyway.

[Tristin]

Against camera shake, I typically shoot twice (at 1/FL speed) or three times (at 1/(2*FL)) just to be on the safe side.

Funny how skyrocketing ISOs have been balanced by skyrocketing resolution demanding higher shutter speeds.  ISO 12.8k is nice, but gone are my days of shooting a 50mm at 1/50!

Lens looks to perform quite nicely.