j.liam wrote:
At the same time, Nikon produced these AI normal lenses: 50/1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 1.8 E series, and an ƒ/2, a 55/1.2 for a while and the NOCT; most temporally overlapping the others in production.
Perhaps they divided the optimal performance over several lenses for a reason? Technical? Expansion of lens sales depending upon different needs? Makes designs simpler since each one had its specific role? Who knows. Different design philosophy.
As a rule, Nikon's had a 50/1.2 or 55/1.2, a 50/1.4 and either a 50/1.8 or 50/2 in production at any given time, there's no production crossover on those (but there was availability crossover). Essentially there was the budget model (1.8/2), the everyday model(1.4) and the specialist model(1.2).
The 50/1.8 E and Noct existed outside of that line, one as a cheap lens originally matched to the EM consumer body (although all the Nikkor 50/1.8's except the original AI and the recent G are in fact derivations of the E design) and the other as a specialist lens at a great cost (you could buy all other Nikkor ~50mm's for less than the cost of a Noct)
I'm pretty sure those are years of availability, rather than production, and even so the only crossover there is the 50/1.8 AI and 50/2. You've also conflated the 50/1.8 AI (78-82) and its AI-S version (82-85), which are related. There was production crossover between the longnose 50/1.8 and the pancake 50/1.8, but those two lenses were never available in the same market until 1985 when the last version of the pancake was introduced in all markets replacing all the previous 50/1.8's (longnose, pancake and Series E) in all markets.
Nope. Vink's compendium are of dates of production. I conflated the 50/1.8s despite design variance but because of identical FL and speed. The only two that end and begin, respectively at exactly the same time are the 55/1.2 and 50/1.2. Which makes sense given that the latter was the immediate design successor of the former.
j.liam wrote:
Nope. Vink's compendium are of dates of production. I conflated the 50/1.8s despite design variance but because of identical FL and speed. The only two that end and begin, respectively at exactly the same time are the 55/1.2 and 50/1.2. Which makes sense given that the latter was the immediate design successor of the former.
Given how Vink collects his data (mostly via reports of original lens purchases, combined with Nikon's official introduction and discontinuation dates), it cannot be accurate for actual production runs, only new availability. Only Nikon actually knows when the lenses were actually produced, and Nikon is notorious for giving production status to items that were pretty clearly no longer in production but rather were in stock, such as the F6, or most of the AI-S lenses discontinued officially in 2005.
The cutover from the 55/1.2 to the 50/1.2 was quick because these were low-production lenses. The 50/2 and 50/1.8 were made in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions (the 50/2 was the standard kit lens for Nikon's for some 19 years), so even after production switched over Nikon would have had significant stocks of the 50/2.
crazeazn wrote:
^ you are shooting it as its intended!
Wasn't it meant to be well corrected for coma at infinity? This talk of what the lens was intended for is BS in my opinion. MFD is 0.5 meter and of course "Noct" was only marketing. You can use it for anything but the characteristics makes it a less versatile lens than many other ~50 mm Nikkors.
It is indeed really nicely corrected at infinity for stars, and you can shoot it wide open for short exposure times to avoid star trails and not have batwings on the edges.
But of course, I rarely use it for that purpose either. And indeed, for more "normal" situations I often reach for an autofocus 50mm 1.8.
Makten wrote:
Wasn't it meant to be well corrected for coma at infinity? This talk of what the lens was intended for is BS in my opinion. MFD is 0.5 meter and of course "Noct" was only marketing. You can use it for anything but the characteristics makes it a less versatile lens than many other ~50 mm Nikkors.
I'm not sure I follow, as your statement is self-contradictory.
This talk of what the lens was intended for is BS...In the days where real fast color film didn't exist, the NOCT carried great meaning. Shoot a D3S or D4 where super clean files can be had at ISO 6400, it no longer has the same significance. It does then give you an extra stop or more in terms of ISO still, which is nothing to dismiss...."Noct" was only marketing...really? far more usable images at ƒ/1.2-2 than the 50/1.2 without the haze and coma....the characteristics makes it a less versatile lens than many other ~50 mm Nikkors"...exactly. It isn't as versatile as slower 50s that do better stopped down and corner-to-corner sharp without the FC, therefore talking about what the lens was intended for is not BS.
j.liam wrote: This talk of what the lens was intended for is BS...In the days where real fast color film didn't exist, the NOCT carried great meaning. Shoot a D3S or D4 where super clean files can be had at ISO 6400, it no longer has the same significance. It does then give you an extra stop or more in terms of ISO still, which is nothing to dismiss...."Noct" was only marketing...really? far more usable images at ƒ/1.2-2 than the 50/1.2 without the haze and coma....the characteristics makes it a less versatile lens than many other ~50 mm Nikkors"...exactly. It isn't as versatile as slower 50s that do better stopped down and corner-to-corner sharp without the FC, therefore talking about what the lens was intended for is not BS....Show more →
It's not far more usable at f/1.2 than the 50/1.2 since it's only sharp in the middle. Which in my opinion makes the "Noct" marketing pretty useless. Who cares about low coma when everything outside the center is unsharp like hell? At f/2 I'd say the 50/1.2 is better for almost anything. If I didn't know anything about the 58 and tried it, I would have guessed that it was meant for portraits.
My take is that this lens had a particular value at the time because of what it could allow and given the constraints of the age. These days, the value is almost purely in the historical/rarity/collector's arena.
I find the drawing of OOF regions quite distracting-- even jarring. Particularly for bright shots, but even, to an extent, for dark/night shoots. I think this drawing style was a better fit in the age of film and film-grain noise; with such clean, high-ISO digital images as we see today, the peculiarities (and not in a good way... obviously a subjective thing) of this lens are more visible and come to the fore.
But, as in all things, this is subjective. I find this lens takes away from shots that I would otherwise enjoy more if shot with something else. I even see that in some of the examples posted in this thread.
In some ways I see it as analogous to the Canon EF 1200mm. Still stupid expensive, but I'd much rather have a 600mm + 2x, or 800mm + 1.4x, from an image/use standpoint.
justruss wrote:
My take is that this lens had a particular value at the time because of what it could allow and given the constraints of the age. These days, the value is almost purely in the historical/rarity/collector's arena.
I find the drawing of OOF regions quite distracting-- even jarring. Particularly for bright shots, but even, to an extent, for dark/night shoots. I think this drawing style was a better fit in the age of film and film-grain noise; with such clean, high-ISO digital images as we see today, the peculiarities (and not in a good way... obviously a subjective thing) of this lens are more visible and come to the fore.
But, as in all things, this is subjective. I find this lens takes away from shots that I would otherwise enjoy more if shot with something else. I even see that in some of the examples posted in this thread.
In some ways I see it as analogous to the Canon EF 1200mm. Still stupid expensive, but I'd much rather have a 600mm + 2x, or 800mm + 1.4x, from an image/use standpoint. ...Show more →
hmm, the bokeh looks better to me than that of most f/1.2 lenses. it also seems closer in drawing to the rokkor 58/1.2 than either of the other nikon f/1.2 lenses. speaking of which, is there a chance those of you who posted images can repost them in the f/1.2 lens thread? there isn't much representation there from this lens.
with regard to what the lens's intended use is, i'd be curious to see what a wide open starfield shot would look like with it. stars aren't going to be sharp no matter what due to atmospheric blur and any other f/1.2 i've shot with would ruin the shot with coma.
