Yes, and I deliberately chose a moderate distance of about 5 feet from the subject -- not too far and not too near. Any 50mm lens shd perform well at this distance?
We love our manual focus Nikkor lenses!
- Thread starter COBALT
- Start date
Yes, and I deliberately chose a moderate distance of about 5 feet from the subject -- not too far and not too near. Any 50mm lens shd perform well at this distance?
Zichar
Senior Member
Hmm don't really know, not a test kinda person. Was thinking along the lines of maybe one's better than the other at different ranges. Have also read many positive reviews about the AFS 50 f/1.8
Re-read my own post, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm questioning the results, more curious to know why it is so.
Oh, no worries. I have also read some very positive reviews about the AFS 50/1.8, and so was surprised by the results I obtained. Perhaps mine is a bad copy (altho the lens performed very well otherwise). Appreciate if other more knowledgeable users can share their views. Thks
Sorry, another necessary update on my Ai vs AFS 50/1.8 comparison. I would like to apologise for posting incomparable results earlier -- they were misleading, sorry. The bros were right -- my earlier photos taken with the AFS lens (using AF) was mis-focused. Just slightly off, but that explains why they were terribly soft.
Did the tests again, but this time using live view and MF. The differences are now much reduced. The AFS 50/1.8G image is now almost on-par with the old Ai 50/1.8, at f2. I tried a few shots but I could not get the AFS image to exceed that taken by the 30-year old Ai lens. To my eye, the old lens still delivers a slightly sharper and more contrasty image at f2. At f2.8, I cannot tell the difference anymore -- they appear identical. Hope these results are useful to some.
Simple conclusion is that 50mm lens technology has not changed much after all these years, aspherical element or not! Thks.
Again, these are 100% crops of the centre, taken with D800 at ISO 200.
1. Ai 50mm f1.8 at f2
2. AFS 50mm f1.8G at f2
3. Ai 50mm f1.8 at f2.8
4. AFS 50mm f1.8G at f2.8
Did the tests again, but this time using live view and MF. The differences are now much reduced. The AFS 50/1.8G image is now almost on-par with the old Ai 50/1.8, at f2. I tried a few shots but I could not get the AFS image to exceed that taken by the 30-year old Ai lens. To my eye, the old lens still delivers a slightly sharper and more contrasty image at f2. At f2.8, I cannot tell the difference anymore -- they appear identical. Hope these results are useful to some.
Simple conclusion is that 50mm lens technology has not changed much after all these years, aspherical element or not! Thks.
Again, these are 100% crops of the centre, taken with D800 at ISO 200.
1. Ai 50mm f1.8 at f2
2. AFS 50mm f1.8G at f2
3. Ai 50mm f1.8 at f2.8
4. AFS 50mm f1.8G at f2.8
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
Thanks for the retest. Confirms my suspicion that the AFS 50/1.8 does not perform too differently from the Ai 50/1.8. From my limited knowledge of optics, it is clear that "normal" lens or standard lens are relatively easy to design - one does not bend light a great deal (as in wide angle) or collect from far away (as in tele) but merely focus the light in the "normal" area ahead, especially when coupled with moderate aperture (e.g. f/2). So really there is no great need for exotics such as aspherical elements - unless you are gunning for large aperture like f/1.1. Take the extreme case of a fisheye lens, 180 deg, the light gets bent at a maximum of 90 deg from the corners, or a long telephoto, like 500mm, when the lights coming to the sensor travels a great distance so that the differences in refractive index for different wavelength becomes significant (and bring about CA) - just like the primary school experiment when white light goes through a prism and a rainbow comes out at the other end. So exotic lens elements are really needed when performing optical stunts like very large aperture, complex zoom, ultra wide and super tele. See how cheap a 85mm f/1.8 is compared with 85/1.4, 50/1.8 compared with 50/1.2.
I will dig and find one or two old 50mm shots (as in old 50mm) and post for views. Ben Ang put up a few very old 50mm shots earlier.
(Later) Nothing fantastic, a shot from a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S Nippon Kogaku Japan lens, late model ~1970-72 or 40+ years old, straight from camera (D5000)
100% crop
I have never compared them side-by-side, but I think my AFS 50/1.4G should perform slightly better than this lens.
I will dig and find one or two old 50mm shots (as in old 50mm) and post for views. Ben Ang put up a few very old 50mm shots earlier.
(Later) Nothing fantastic, a shot from a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S Nippon Kogaku Japan lens, late model ~1970-72 or 40+ years old, straight from camera (D5000)
100% crop
I have never compared them side-by-side, but I think my AFS 50/1.4G should perform slightly better than this lens.
Last edited:
Thanks -- agree totally! It sure is hard to correct all the optical aberrations at a large aperture like f1.4. To my knowledge, only Leica can do so, and they don't come cheap. Probably, like Nikon demonstrated with the 58mm f1.2 Noct, other camera makers are able to do the same, but how many of us will fork out more than $4k for the pleasure of shooting nice contrasty images at f1.4 or 1.2?
Last edited:
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
I know I won't fork out $4k for the Noct Nikkor, nor would I fork out the thousands of dollars for a Leica lens as well. And lens performance is only one part of the equation - right now it seems Nikon and Canon are way ahead of Leitz in sensor technology, so even if the lenses are great, it is still the system approach that matters. Some years back I invested into a Contax with 50mm f/1.4 Planar Carl Zeiss T*. I was then using a 50mm f/1.4 Ai on an FE2. After a few rolls of film concluded that they are really not too different. If anything, the Planar has lower contrast, but gave a more pleasant rendetion of colours. Give and take. Decided to stick with Nikon, and I am glad I did.
OT liao.
how old you looking at? ^^ so far the oldest i ve used is the Nikkor S 5cm f/1.4 for the nikon S series rangefinders, followed by the Nikkor-S 5cm f/2 9-blade version for Nikon F, and the Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4 also for nikon F. the newest i ve used seriously is the CZ 45mm f/2.8 (pancake) and the 50mm 1.2 AIS. im not one to be concerned with 'sharpness'; i tend to think its over rated. whats important to me is the rendition and character of the lens, and for that i will carry the 50 1.2, 5cm f2, and 45 2.8 all in one day to achieve different renditions and looks. the 50 1.2 is for clear, crisp shots that still capture the atmosphere; its also the most versatile, turning into a high contrast, no nonsense lens when stopped down. the 5cm f2 has a more stand-off rendition, best for mood and emotion. the 45 2.8 is for crisp and clear shots for vibrant, bright atmosphere. some ideas of what each does:
50 1.2 AIS
5cm f2, 9 blade
CZ 45mm f/2.8 (originally C/Y, but converted)
if sharpness is important to you though, then you ll find that the difference in the lenses doesnt come in the center, but rather in the corners. the 50 1.8G and 1.4G beat the Nikkor S 50 f/2 and 1.4 in the corners, and the 5.8cm 1.4 is simply awful on FX though is v good as a DX lens. as for the 50 1.2 AIS, nail the focus and you ll have plenty of resolution; i still get surprised by the clarity when i get it spot on. simply put, none of them are lacking in center performance, choose the one that give you the rendition you need/want and dont worry about sharpness.
on an off note, if you re seriously considering fast glass, go change the focus screen.. the canon EC-S is one of the best for f/1.4 lenses
Last edited:
cichlid
Senior Member
how old you looking at? ^^ so far the oldest i ve used is the Nikkor S 5cm f/1.4 for the nikon S series rangefinders, followed by the Nikkor-S 5cm f/2 9-blade version for Nikon F, and the Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4 also for nikon F. the newest i ve used seriously is the CZ 45mm f/2.8 (pancake) and the 50mm 1.2 AIS. im not one to be concerned with 'sharpness'; i tend to think its over rated. whats important to me is the rendition and character of the lens, and for that i will carry the 50 1.2, 5cm f2, and 45 2.8 all in one day to achieve different renditions and looks. the 50 1.2 is for clear, crisp shots that still capture the atmosphere; its also the most versatile, turning into a high contrast, no nonsense lens when stopped down. the 5cm f2 has a more stand-off rendition, best for mood and emotion. the 45 2.8 is for crisp and clear shots for vibrant, bright atmosphere. some ideas of what each does:
CZ 45mm f/2.8 (originally C/Y, but converted)
if sharpness is important to you though, then you ll find that the difference in the lenses doesnt come in the center, but rather in the corners. the 50 1.8G and 1.4G beat the Nikkor S 50 f/2 and 1.4 in the corners, and the 5.8cm 1.4 is simply awful on FX though is v good as a DX lens. as for the 50 1.2 AIS, nail the focus and you ll have plenty of resolution; i still get surprised by the clarity when i get it spot on. simply put, none of them are lacking in center performance, choose the one that give you the rendition you need/want and dont worry about sharpness.
on an off note, if you re seriously considering fast glass, go change the focus screen.. the canon EC-S is one of the best for f/1.4 lenses
Hey Ben
Of all the lovely photos that you post, the CZ one really has the pop or 3D effect! Is it expensive to convert CY to F mount?
mm.. the CZ has a certain pop to it, i think its the fact tt its only got 3 elements and the T* coating. i did the conversion on my own, but ht elens is hard to come by. i actually did quite a number of conversions awhile back so i do use some konica Hexanon and Minolta Rokkor glass as well
Zichar
Senior Member
Another from the roll of Ilford Delta 3200 and at the airport, T1
Waited for the 'rain' to get into position too ... was a lil' surprised the man held his pose so long!
FE2 + 35mm f/2 AI
Waited for the 'rain' to get into position too ... was a lil' surprised the man held his pose so long!
FE2 + 35mm f/2 AI
The old mf 85/1.8 works well with the d800. I had almost sold this off. Now the only fly in the ointment is that when you do close to minimum distance shoots the viewfinder nor the focal aid green dot is not accurate enough. You need to use live view and zoom in to be abel to judge if the lens is in focus.
this one is using the view finder at abt 5 to 6 ft.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150980159041819&l=f9b7bb5e71
this one is using the view finder at abt 5 to 6 ft.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150980159041819&l=f9b7bb5e71
thats a v good lens, overshadows the newer 85 f2 AIS by a fair margin. the Nikkor H.C. would be the 'best'.
Zichar
Senior Member
Well here's one with the HC 
At the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple:
At the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple:
Similar threads
