I also got this lens a couple of months ago and just didnīt find it to pop out at me. There was nothing wrong, just nothing great... Your shot seems fine to me though, I guess it is just an issue of expectations. After using the 58mm Rokkor for 3/4 of a year now, I think the only way up is the Noct-Nikkor.... And not even that I am sure about...
I guess a slightly soft focus is worth the speed. I am expecting too much. I have the 50mm f1.2 also. I need to do a bit of test on that with the same camera. I also need to compare the Nikkor with the Canon 50 mm f1.2 L and see if there is a big difference. I am starting down the slippery slope of f1.2 lenses and it is hard to stop.
If you really want sharp wide open at 50mm it seems that the new Sigma 50 1.4 is the way to go. The dpreview comparison of 50mm lenses is very interesting.
I realize that 1.4 isn't 1.2, but I don't know any lens that's sharp at 1.2. Considering the price difference between 1.2 and 1.4 it's important to define what one is looking for. With current ISO performance lens speed is not as critical as it was to get the shot. I like 50 1.2 and 85 1.4 for a soft look shooting people. But for most very low light I would rather stop down a bit and up the ISO rather than shooting wide open.
HansenTsang wrote:
Yup, Sigma 50mm f1.4 is on my list to acquire. So far the reviews have been very favorable. I am collecting 50 mm f1.2 simply for the fun of it.
Well then you will need to get the radioactive Oly 55 1.2. A few years ago these were very inexpensive. Don't know the current pricing. I feel a little radioactivity brings excitement to collecting.
I have a Pentax screw mount Super Tak 50 mm f1.4 on the way. I am hoping that it is the radioactive version but won't know until it shows up. I just picked up a Cosina 55mm f1.2 for the Pentax K mount. It is testing pretty nice on my Pentax at f2. Unfortunately it is really really soft at f1.2.
mawz wrote:
The 55/1.2 is a nice lens, but not noted for extreme sharpness. Either of the other Nikkor f1.2's are better performers at f1.2
I tried a Nikkor 50/1.2 AI yesterday, and I don't think it was any better than my 55/1.2. While the 55 gives heavy spherical aberration, the 50 seems "overcorrected" and gives more of a double image, like a shadow around all details instead of the usual veil. The 50 has better contrast though. They have very similar bokeh, but I think I prefer the 55 that seems to render slightly softer OOF CoC:s.
I believe all of these lenses are grossly overhyped. You ain't gonna get sharp and clean images from an old, barely coated, f/1.2 lens.
Makten wrote:
I tried a Nikkor 50/1.2 AI yesterday, and I don't think it was any better than my 55/1.2. While the 55 gives heavy spherical aberration, the 50 seems "overcorrected" and gives more of a double image, like a shadow around all details instead of the usual veil. The 50 has better contrast though. They have very similar bokeh, but I think I prefer the 55 that seems to render slightly softer OOF CoC:s.
I believe all of these lenses are grossly overhyped. You ain't gonna get sharp and clean images from an old, barely coated, f/1.2 lens.
Both the 55 and the 50 are multi-coated designs, the 50 being a relatively recent one (early 80's design). And yes, the 50 is overcorrected, it's a sharpness/contrast oriented design (and much better than the equally overcorrected 50/1.4), the older 55 design's got the nicer bokeh at the cost of centre sharpness and contrast wide-open.
mawz wrote:
Both the 55 and the 50 are multi-coated designs, the 50 being a relatively recent one (early 80's design). And yes, the 50 is overcorrected, it's a sharpness/contrast oriented design (and much better than the equally overcorrected 50/1.4), the older 55 design's got the nicer bokeh at the cost of centre sharpness and contrast wide-open.
The 55 is certainly not multi-coated, but coated in some simple way. Mine is an early Nikkor-S from 1967, but the later Nikkor-S.C. probably has better coating, since "C" stands for coated.
I don't know about the center sharpness, but I think my 55 is fairly sharp wide open. Contrast on the other hand, is very low. But it depends very much on the shooting conditions. In low light, contrast is quite OK actually. Here's an example from this evening, and a 100% crop. Wide open on D700:
Even the 'single-coated' Nikkors of that vintage have 4-layer coatings. It's not nearly as good as the S.C's NIC coating though, but it's not the simple single coating it's usually made out to be.
Nikon didn't start advertising coatings until Pentax forced them (along with everyone else) to in the early 70's.
mawz wrote:
Even the 'single-coated' Nikkors of that vintage have 4-layer coatings. It's not nearly as good as the S.C's NIC coating though, but it's not the simple single coating it's usually made out to be.
Nikon didn't start advertising coatings until Pentax forced them (along with everyone else) to in the early 70's.
Ah, that's interesting! I had no idea. The coating is probably the akilles' heal of the 55. The second worst thing is the brutal coma. You really don't want any peripheral light sources at f/1.2. So, landscapes and stuff like that is just a waste of time (and megabytes? ) at wide apertures, but I guess most people would use f/1.2 mainly for short DoF these days. With film, it's another thing since f/1.2 could be really useful at ISO 400 or so.
Here's an example of the coma at f/1.2. Check out the lights to the right:
Anyhow, I love this lens despite its shortcomings. I don't recommend it for sharpoholics, but it certainly has a character of its own. Mine gives a quite strong yellow cast too, which could ruin the use of it for some photographers. I think I like it.
And now for something that could be of interest, too:
) at wide apertures, but I guess most people would use f/1.2 mainly for short DoF these days. With film, it's another thing since f/1.2 could be really useful at ISO 400 or so.