Noct is a collector's lens. If you think it's worth the money, then get it. ;p
Nikon 58 f1.2 Noct-Nikkor
- Thread starter AYC Nee
- Start date
- Status
Noct is a collector's lens. If you think it's worth the money, then get it. ;p
I own one a while back and sold it to a collector that can appreciate it more than me.
Personally with development of sensor nowadays , there are no point of using 1.2 lens anymore .. especially with MF ones.
@ f/2.0, they were on par with my AFD 50/1.4 hence can't justify keeping it.
And with Zeiss ZF able to deliver similar oldies feel, why not use Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 is you really want the nostalgic effect of using manual focus lens
http://tinyurl.com/q67o3d was some sample shot I took.
Personally with development of sensor nowadays , there are no point of using 1.2 lens anymore .. especially with MF ones.
@ f/2.0, they were on par with my AFD 50/1.4 hence can't justify keeping it.
And with Zeiss ZF able to deliver similar oldies feel, why not use Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 is you really want the nostalgic effect of using manual focus lens
http://tinyurl.com/q67o3d was some sample shot I took.
Ansel
Senior Member
Hi there
I have been so often tempted to buy the 50mm f/1.2 AIS, I love my 50mm f/1.4 (brilliant for 3/4 body portraits with some of the environment in the photos).. I have read about the 1.2 being soft, how soft is soft? Do you have a pic (un-cropped and unmodified) from FX where the centre (you meant the centre or the edges or the whole picture being soft at f/1.2) is in focus and it is soft for us to examine? That would be of great help..
Vignetting.. I love it.. as long as it is not too much I am ok with it, it saves photoshop time..
-- Marios
I have tried my friend's some years back.
Actually all Planar formula lenses will be soft when fully opened (applies to the 1.4 too). Close it down half or one stop and you will be stunned. I didn't like it due to the difficulty in focusing because the dof is paper thin. Like one poster above said even your breathing in and out can affect focus.
marios_pittas
Senior Member
Dude
I am not sure of who tried what.. What I can tell you, is that I have used Zeiss on Contax AX extensively (I mainly shoot that rig with the 18mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 - everything else was a nuisance) and based on the very large large prints the 50mm 1.4 CZ Y/C (made in Japan) is NOT soft at 1.4. Other configurations may vary.. on other cameras digital etc may vary BUT the 50mm f/1.4 CZ on Y/C was NOT soft at 1.4
Maybe one day we all have a get together, put all 50mm lenses on a camera one by one, placed on a tripod, and test-shoot them. We all take a copy of the photos and come up with our own conclusions (probably each concludes something different
LOL ).-- Marios
Bobby, I would like to see that 9-blades effect...
[addition] You can skip or read a lot of the other stuff he writes, but his 50mm f/1.4 comes with pictures for comparison purposes http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/sharpness.htm
Last edited:
Ansel
Senior Member
Dude
I am not sure of who tried what.. What I can tell you, is that I have used Zeiss on Contax AX extensively (I mainly shoot that rig with the 18mm f/4, 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 - everything else was a nuisance) and based on the very large large prints the 50mm 1.4 CZ Y/C (made in Japan) is NOT soft at 1.4. Other configurations may vary.. on other cameras digital etc may vary BUT the 50mm f/1.4 CZ on Y/C was NOT soft at 1.4
Maybe one day we all have a get together, put all 50mm lenses on a camera one by one, placed on a tripod, and test-shoot them. We all take a copy of the photos and come up with our own conclusions (probably each concludes something different
-- Marios
Bobby, I would like to see that 9-blades effect...
[addition] You can skip or read a lot of the other stuff he writes, but his 50mm f/1.4 comes with pictures for comparison purposes http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/sharpness.htm
Haven't got a Y/C CZ 50/1.4 but I do have a Contax mount CZ 50/1.7. Will double check.
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
The CZ Y/C 50f1.7 is the sharpest lens according to many test sites. At 16:9, the f1.7 MTF is better than the f1.4 ( http://www.welsh4.com/index.php?vie...hart&option=com_content&Itemid=2&limitstart=2).
It's sharp at f1.7 and peaks at f4-f5.6. The most fasinating 50mm lens I have ever used and it's truely a value for money lens, simple to use with beautiful contrast and color rendition. But I love all my 50s as each has its own character. My 50f1.4 Ai is also another fantastic lens for $180.
Sadly, this is true... The rationale for having an aperture of f/1.2 is so that it can shorten the exposure for astro shots because of the reciprocity failure of film which makes long exposure even longer. Having an extra half a stop can shorten the exposure time significantly.
Now with digital sensors and good high ISO performance, there is no reciprocity failure and we could capture what took hours in just mere minutes.
Is it true just for astro shots? What about for normal photography? Why do people use 1.2 lenses then despite going digital?
For the kicks perhaps or for some special effects, eg razor thin DoF or some other characteristics of the lens, eg soft focus. In fact, other than the Noct and the 50mm, Nikon doesn't have any thing faster than f/1.4.
Ansel
Senior Member
I may invite flames with this remark, but I think Nikon feels f1.2 to be more prestige than anything because the difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is a mere 1/3rd stop. Nikon, being the practical lens manufacturer has chosen to not waste time on too many of these prestige lenses and focus more on "real" lenses that photographers can afford to buy and use on a daily basis.
:sweat:
Leong23
Senior Member
No lah, what you said is somehow true, it is about business and making profit, that why many company are launching entry level camera at a fast speed.
The major downside of this lens is the minimum focus distance.....just as bad as the 85mmf1.4...
This taken at minimum focus distance with FX and uncropped.
For some, the bigger the better.. Nikon is targetting the pros who needs to get the picture, not the collectors who just wants to show off their equipment and their associated prices. How many times do people shoot at f/1.2? I have several f/1.4 lenses but I hardly shoot at f/1.4 unless I need the shallow DoF.
Practicality wise, the DoF at f/1.4 is too shallow for many purposes. Focusing becomes a hit and miss thing and the tendency to miss is higher than getting a hit. In studio applications, the flash are usually too bright for f/1.4. So? Either stop down the lens or use ND filters. Daytime shots, even at ISO100, shutter speed is like 1/1000 or higher.
The only reason fast lenses are good is lowlight applications. Then the spherical aberration kicks in at that kind of aperture which renders the image not as sharp. f/1.2 and f/1.4 may only be a third of a stop but in long exposure, a stop can be the difference between a 15 minute exposure and a 30 minute exposure. But that's for very specialised applications. More often than not, half a stop is almost negligible for many.
For general night photography, DoF becomes an issue again. Usually, I shoot at f/2.0 and opening up to f/1.4 only when there is no other choice or I want a shallow DoF effect. The DoF at f/1.4 is already very shallow, at f/1.2 it's razor thin. I try to keep my shutter speed around 1/30 and 1/15 using ISO to compensate (I love digital, don't you?.. ;p)
I like Nikon's philosophy. When you want to build something, build it good. No point having a lens, say, with an aperture of f/2.8 when it's useless. That's why Nikon rather build kit lenses with maximum aperture of f/3.5 and having decent quality at f/3.5 and not only after stopping down a stop or 2 like many of the competition.
Yes, it may be expensive to build f/2.8 zooms to be perfect but for people who really need it, they will buy it.
Last edited:
Ansel
Senior Member
No lah, what you said is somehow true, it is about business and making profit, that why many company are launching entry level camera at a fast speed.
The major downside of this lens is the minimum focus distance.....just as bad as the 85mmf1.4...
This taken at minimum focus distance with FX and uncropped.
Sob...sob...:cry:
I really miss the kopitiam teh.....:cry:
Yes, Nikon has good philosophy. Actually I must say all of Nikon's 50mm are good, unlike some of the competition.
AYC Nee
Member
Hi Seniors
Many thanks for the good discussion. Although some mentioned that the fastest lens Nikon has ever made is f1.2, I noted that there is an older Nikon lens known as TV-Nikkor 35 f0.9. This is really mind boggling! See the following link:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/tv.html
I guess this lens has already disappeared some time back, or has gone to the Nikon museum.
AYC
Many thanks for the good discussion. Although some mentioned that the fastest lens Nikon has ever made is f1.2, I noted that there is an older Nikon lens known as TV-Nikkor 35 f0.9. This is really mind boggling! See the following link:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/tv.html
I guess this lens has already disappeared some time back, or has gone to the Nikon museum.
AYC
Never knew such a lens existed. :thumbsup:
no one talk abt the 55/1.2?:dunno:
marios_pittas
Senior Member
See.. you should have stayed put...
marios_pittas
Senior Member
I really hope one day we all share tests... I am interested in buying one of these 1.2 things, but I have learned that it is best to test before you buy
there are lame lenses around -- Marios
Wasn't that pre-AiS?
- Status
Similar threads
