Fooling around with a Noct-Nikkor

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The Noct never was conceived as a "flat-field" design. Despite its current popularity as a lens for portrait and dreamlike close-ups, it shouldn't be compared to lenses designed for those purposes.

[Airy]

... however, what I was referring to is *center sharpness*. I thought naively that lens ranking would remain the same, no matter the sensor resolution; on low resolution sensors, the gap might decrease, and on very low resolution sensors, the performance might get identical (when sensor resolution gets lower than both lenses resolving power).

In reality, I observed a reversal, the best becoming the worst, and this is surprizing: Voigt best and Noct worst on D800 by a wide margin, the contrary on Df by a narrower margin. I'll redo the test this afternoon and share the results. No direct comparison with the 50/1.2 because of FL difference, requiring even more precautions. Common wisdom is, the 50/1.2 overtakes all other Nikkors (50-58) at f/2.0.

[Airy]

The Noct never was conceived as a "flat-field" design. Despite its current popularity as a lens for portrait and dreamlike close-ups, it shouldn't be compared to lenses designed for those purposes.

Of course not, and that's not an issue I'd want to raise any further. See crops (center and right side) of previous picture; on the right, the focus zone is slightly moved forward, and good sharpness, while still there on the left part of the right side crop gets completely lost on the right side (the outermost, and darkest, by the way) :

For flat field, go for Voigtländer 58/1.4 for instance, or most 50-55 macro lenses.

[David H. Hartman]

Common wisdom is, the 50/1.2 overtakes all other Nikkors (50-58) at f/2.0.

I believe that originates with Ken Rockwell. I don't believe it includes 58mm lenses, only 50mm lenses, and I don't believe this includes recent G-type 50mm Nikkors.

Dave Hartman

[Airy]

It does not originate from Mr. Rockwell, but from another tester who compared several fast fifties including a Noctilux. The MTF charts dealt only with the center.

You are right in saying that this older test, which I published somewhere on Nikongear, did not include the "Gs"; nor did it include the Summilux-R, Summicron-R, Zeiss, Voigtländer and others.

[Airy]

A 100% crop from a pic (lower), only the center part being relevant here. Camera was the Df. Left, Voigtländer 58/1.4; right, Noct Nikkor. Aperture is f/1.4 in both cases.

The Noct resolution is a bit lower, but contrast is higher. That sums it up.

At f/2.0 (third picture, this one using the D800), the situation remains the same.

[Airy]

Just made a quick & dirty comparison of center sharpness and contrast, on D800 and at about 1.4m distance: Noct, 50/1.2 AI, 50/1.8G, Zeiss Milvus 50/2, and Summicron-R (Leitax mount)

The Noct is distinctly more contrasty than all others, except Zeiss 50/2 that is both sharper and more contrasty at f/2. The 50/1.8G is on a par with the Noct.

At f/1.2 and f/1.4, the Noct is less hazy than the 50/1.2. At f/2.0, where the 50/1.2 is supposed to overtake the competition, The Noct is still more contrasty, and a wee bit sharper too. The difference is such small that it could be due to focussing precision. By the way, the 50/1.2, being an AI lens with longer focus throw, is generally easier to focus. I often read that, but direct comparison makes it obvious.

At f/2.0, the Noct and the 50/1.8G are roughly equivalent. At the same aperture, the Summicron is slightly sharper, but displays some haze and blue-ish fringes.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Most of these 'normal' lenses are pretty much similar in performance once you get to f/5.6 or perhaps a bit earlier. However, shooting night scenes makes the difference immediately obvious. The 50/1.2 really has bad coma, other f/1.4 Nikkor normals less so, and the Noct shines above them all.

Apart from the focusing throw, I see little difference between my Nocts (currently, one AI, one AIS). My sample of the AI is a tad sharper in the centre than the AIS, but has more field curvature. For night shots they are pretty much the same in their behaviour.

I have a feeling the Nocts do somewhat less well on digital than on film, particularly off axis. However, unfortunately at present I cannot examine that surmise further. Perhaps other Noct users can pitch in here?

[Airy]

I confess I never had a film Nikon. My brother did, though. I started with Canon (AE1 borrowed from my father, then T70, T90) before going digital.

[David H. Hartman]

It does not originate from Mr. Rockwell, but from another tester who compared several fast fifties including a Noctilux. The MTF charts dealt only with the center.

You are right in saying that this older test, which I published somewhere on Nikongear, did not include the "Gs"; nor did it include the Summilux-R, Summicron-R, Zeiss, Voigtländer and others.

NO! Ken Rockwell didn't credit his source?

[Airy]

I did not say that. He may have come to similar conclusions on his own, but he generally does not care about measurements.

[Airy]

By the way, did somebody keep a copy of the "tales of the 1001 nights" page about the Noct ?

[simsurace]

The internet never forgets:
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160315172834/http://www.nikkor.com:80/story/0016/

EDIT: Modified link to better version with samples

[Airy]

Gracias !

[JJChan]

Airy
I've never done direct comparison with D800E or Df and when I shot on film I never got critical focus with it so EVERYTHING was out of focus.

I'm not unhappy with it on the D800E - still brings out that 3D roundness (have written about it before) that the other 50s (apart from Neo-noct) can't do well even on subjects 50m away. Getting correct focus is really hard and doubly so on the D800E which is very discerning. But that character or 'drawing' or whatever one wants to call it, is unique.

Mine does lose contrast wide open which is much more noticeable on D800E vs D700 or Df

JJ

These D800E and 100% crop