In my other thread I asked about the Cosina 55 f/1.2, but I hate the bokeh I saw. Now I've come across a very minty Nikkor 50 f/1.2 AI-S, and the more I read about it the nicer it looks. I am still agonising over the Sigma but this Nikkor keeps calling my name. They are similar price too.
The Nikkor has a slightly dreamy look at f/1.2 but is still quite sharp and seems amazingly sharp at f/2 and looks like it might be better as a landscape lens too. Would it be in the Zeiss class stopped down? How would the Sigma and Nikkor compre between f/1.4 and f/2.8 for sharpness and bokeh (I'm sure the Sigma is smoother)?
Andreas has posted some very nice shots from the Nikkor in the admirable blur sthread. So far I haven't seen many negatives.
The bokeh of the Sigma is more consistent over the aperture range, while the Nikkor changes character very much upon stopping down. Sharpness is quite equal from f/2 and on, with a slight lead for the Nikkor. At f/1.4 the Sigma is clearly better.
I sold my Sigma for the Nikkor, mostly because of the bulkiness of the Sigma. But I actually like the bokeh possibilities of the Nikkor. It has more of a personality, but isn't at all as smooth as the Sigma.
Makten wrote:
The bokeh of the Sigma is more consistent over the aperture range, while the Nikkor changes character very much upon stopping down. Sharpness is quite equal from f/2 and on, with a slight lead for the Nikkor. At f/1.4 the Sigma is clearly better.
I sold my Sigma for the Nikkor, mostly because of the bulkiness of the Sigma. But I actually like the bokeh possibilities of the Nikkor. It has more of a personality, but isn't at all as smooth as the Sigma.
I don't mind the Sigma bokeh, but I agree it can be boring sometimes. I like the Nikkor's character in the few shots I've seen and the 9 bladed aperture gives lovely circular OOF highlights. It's certainly better than my old Zeiss 50 f/1.4 in this regard.
Did you post some Nikkor shots in the admirable blur thread I could see?
So, don't get fooled by closeups! They don't tell the whole story. I actually think the chaotic bokeh is cool. It makes the background look much more blurry than if it is smooth. But it can as well be distracting of course.
Greg Feldman wrote:
What are these "larger distances" of which you speak? I've glued my focus ring to MFD.
Then you'll never see the chaos. I haven't really evaluated the bokeh over distance, but the harsh ones above are shot at like 2-3 meters, i think.
Edit: Oh, you can get chaos at MFD too, but then it'll just be nice. The Sigma would have made this to a much less interesting picture, with smooooth blur all over.
Makten wrote:
Oh, you can get chaos at MFD too, but then it'll just be nice. The Sigma would have made this to a much less interesting picture, with smooooth blur all over.
I don't mind the bokeh in some of those shots, but in those cases I don't think it's doing any better than my old Zeiss C/Y 50 f/1.4. Up close though it's nicer and I love the look of that last shot. The manifold translucent overlapping highlights is pleasijg to me.
Now alexandre has spoilt things by bringing up another lens, the Pentax 50 f/1.2. How is the performance between 1.2 and 2.8 aside from bokeh?
The Pentax is a nice lens, and I'm a big fan of Pentax in general, but quite honestly I think the Nikon outclasses it in every way. (Not everyone agrees with me there, but I _have_ used both, for what it's worth.)
I actually think the chaotic bokeh is cool. It makes the background look much more blurry than if it is smooth. But it can as well be distracting of course.