So as an illustrative example of why it matters but it’s also still about the photographer…
Years ago we went to a Christmas Light show at Brookgreen Gardens. Not thinking critically but knowing I’d be shooting a lot of bokeh/shallow DoF and low light, I chose the 58mm f/1.4 for its great bokeh primarily. I didn’t consider how it also have have severe or at least above average LoCA and some onion ring structures. All of the lights in the background of every picture drove me mad, kind of ruined a lot of shots and honestly killed my enjoyment of the lens. My own fault, and it doesn’t take away from its excellent bokeh without point sources oof, but it just irked me bad.
Now would that ruin great shots for a non photographer? Maybe not, but it added ALOT of distracting color artifacts as well as structure to areas that should have been creamy and OOF, and I do think even subconsciously that takes away from the photos even if the viewer can’t identify why.
My take away is that if you know your lenses, how they behave and when to use (Leighton’s bag of 5) then it’s a non issue. On the other hand, I enjoy trying lenses precisely to see how they behave. But to the core question, is there difference absolutely, does it matter, maybe. Will a new lens help? Maybe, just make sure you define what improvement looks like to your photography. Some of the new aspherics that don’t have onion rings and low LoCA sure would have made a difference that night…
I’ll wrap with some on topic images. Fun to take but modern glass would have been cleaner and sharper for sure. 28mm f/2 K Mount.
jimmuller wrote:
I would love to see some direct comparisons. If you don't want to post them publicly or they aren't MFNG, send me a message offline. (jimmuller @ rcn . com)
---------------------------------------------
Thank you both for replying. Technical details like "... bokeh, sharpness, spherical aberrations and contrast..." are real of course but only if visible. Purple fringe on a white object isn't good. A family portrait in which the people in the center are in focus but those on the edges aren't is just an amateur picture. I'm not sure I'd recognize spherical aberration unless the image content.made it obvious. Those technical details don't jump out at me unless botched (which I do often enough). Maybe the ability to use f/1.4 or even f/1.2 instead of f/8 is great if those wide apertures work okay. In the old days that was all about getting enough light.
The aesthetic effect of an image is a different matter. DOF, yes by intent. Bokeh balls with 6 edges or 7 or 9 or none? If the image is composed well that won't matter except to another photographer who looks for details like that.
I asked because I'm always musing about whether to spring for a Z-mount AF lens. Other than the luxury of AF, would a new (expensive!) 50mm f/1.2 S (for example) be that much better than my faithful MF 50mm f/1.4 for most of the pics I take? Maybe wide open or facing the sun. At f/2.8 would the color rendition or contrast be noticeably better with a new lens? Probably not that I could see, or not enough that a finished image would be aesthetically preferable.
When I read reviews of modern lenses my reaction is usually "Really?" That's why I'm curious about what contributors to this thread have to say. The great images tell me y'all know what you are doing. If you had two 50's for a particular shot, would you have reason choose one over the other except to post in this MF thread? I wouldn't, but then, I don't have those choices. Like Leighton I have 5 lenses, 3 of which I've used for half a century so I know what they can do and I have to live within their limitations. None are redundant because they cover different lengths. I choose one for the image I'm trying to get, not because I think one will provide better color rendition or less spherical aberration or better bokeh. Composition takes more thought which point-AF-click would discourage, a win for MF. If I can't see any improvements with a new lens, then it's not a win. But I might just be deluding myself.
Sorry about the length. This is a fun subject for me and pertinent to a MF thread. I haven't been able to get out with my camera for some days so this is a substitute for it....Show more →
AdaptedLenses, pbraymond, DeltaSigma (Colin), I do appreciate your responses. Thank you! I certainly see what you describe. Appreciating those pics is like trying to judge a bourbon's taste after you've already had too many shots. My retinas are numb!
Okay, I stand corrected. The technical differences are visible, at least for some of those subjects. Would they make an aesthetic difference? For those pics, yes (but not for those two Las Vegas shots). For much of what I've been shooting? Maybe. Since I've always lived within my limitations I'd say no but they might expand those limitations.
Now the problem is like so many forums. Members are always ready to spend another member's money! I'll have to keep thinking. What lens next? What lens next? A prime or a zoom? What lens next?
Well it doesn’t have to be gobs of money. Depends what you prioritize.
Also, do some research, buy smart and if you don’t like it, resell. Think of it as a rental fee and can often be immaterial cost to try something for months (or years!)
jimmuller wrote:
AdaptedLenses, pbraymond, DeltaSigma (Colin), I do appreciate your responses. Thank you! I certainly see what you describe. Appreciating those pics is like trying to judge a bourbon's taste after you've already had too many shots. My retinas are numb!
Okay, I stand corrected. The technical differences are visible, at least for some of those subjects. Would they make an aesthetic difference? For those pics, yes (but not for those two Las Vegas shots). For much of what I've been shooting? Maybe. Since I've always lived within my limitations I'd say no but they might expand those limitations.
Now the problem is like so many forums. Members are always ready to spend another member's money! I'll have to keep thinking. What lens next? What lens next? A prime or a zoom? What lens next? ...Show more →
jimmuller wrote:
AdaptedLenses, pbraymond, DeltaSigma (Colin), I do appreciate your responses. Thank you! I certainly see what you describe. Appreciating those pics is like trying to judge a bourbon's taste after you've already had too many shots. My retinas are numb!
Okay, I stand corrected. The technical differences are visible, at least for some of those subjects. Would they make an aesthetic difference? For those pics, yes (but not for those two Las Vegas shots). For much of what I've been shooting? Maybe. Since I've always lived within my limitations I'd say no but they might expand those limitations.
Now the problem is like so many forums. Members are always ready to spend another member's money! I'll have to keep thinking. What lens next? What lens next? A prime or a zoom? What lens next? ...Show more →
This will set you back $85 (includes shipping), and it is good for 9 inches to infinity. Late model ai. On landscapes you may have to back off the hard stop a tad for critical focus. These are sharper lenses than almost any lens I have used from any manufacturer, and I still have two of them. All kinds of unverifiable stories about them - like one was used for the opening 1977 Star Wars pan across the battle cruiser.
James Markus wrote:
This will set you back $85 (includes shipping), and it is good for 9 inches to infinity. Late model ai...
Thanks for the link. I googled for reviews of that lens and what I found made it seem quite impressive!
The first title that popped up was by Josh Solomon, Feb 2020 (Casual Photophile) for a non-AI version. He raved about it. Then a few pages into the history of Nikon's 50mm he had a link to his review of the 50mm f/1.4 S, Dec, 2017. That's the 50mm I have, except that my SN is almost double his, it was made in the early 70's, is multi-coated, and had a name change to S-C Auto. For comparison I read that review too.
In both the title and the second paragraph he called the 50m f/1.4 S his favorite lens. Granted it was 8 years ago and things change. Still, there must have been a reason at that time. By his description it has some great qualities and a few flaws. Multi-coating partially negates his complaint about flare. The rest of his description, the images, and the video all looked like what I'm familiar with, wonderfully smooth, seemingly in focus even if not digital-camera razor sharp. I rarely used it at f/1.4 except in low-light, not so much a limitation with the Z5-II like it was with film. So the limitations when wide open aren't so significant. It worked for me as a go-to lens for 50 years.
So I ask myself, do I need a possibly sharper but still MF 55mm when I'm happy with my 50? For length between 50 and 200 I have a Tamron 90mm macro, so neither length nor macro-ness is an attraction. As awesome as that 55 seems I can't convince myself to jump at it.
After all that, the real reason I'm saying no is that it is MF. If I'm going to acquire a Z-mount lens it should be AF. And for general use it should probably be a zoom like the 24-70 f/4 S, even though it's not cheap. One lens to rule them all, or at least be useful for them all.
This has been very educational. Thank you, James Markus and everyone else!
The Christmas balls on 6th Avenue behind Rockefeller Center. This is the first time in a few years that was able to capture them snow capped. It was on the cool side at 25 degrees but very windy.
jimmuller wrote:
Thanks for the link. I googled for reviews of that lens and what I found made it seem quite impressive!
The first title that popped up was by Josh Solomon, Feb 2020 (Casual Photophile) for a non-AI version. He raved about it. Then a few pages into the history of Nikon's 50mm he had a link to his review of the 50mm f/1.4 S, Dec, 2017. That's the 50mm I have, except that my SN is almost double his, it was made in the early 70's, is multi-coated, and had a name change to S-C Auto. For comparison I read that review too.
In both the title and the second paragraph he called the 50m f/1.4 S his favorite lens. Granted it was 8 years ago and things change. Still, there must have been a reason at that time. By his description it has some great qualities and a few flaws. Multi-coating partially negates his complaint about flare. The rest of his description, the images, and the video all looked like what I'm familiar with, wonderfully smooth, seemingly in focus even if not digital-camera razor sharp. I rarely used it at f/1.4 except in low-light, not so much a limitation with the Z5-II like it was with film. So the limitations when wide open aren't so significant. It worked for me as a go-to lens for 50 years.
So I ask myself, do I need a possibly sharper but still MF 55mm when I'm happy with my 50? For length between 50 and 200 I have a Tamron 90mm macro, so neither length nor macro-ness is an attraction. As awesome as that 55 seems I can't convince myself to jump at it.
After all that, the real reason I'm saying no is that it is MF. If I'm going to acquire a Z-mount lens it should be AF. And for general use it should probably be a zoom like the 24-70 f/4 S, even though it's not cheap. One lens to rule them all, or at least be useful for them all.
This has been very educational. Thank you, James Markus and everyone else! ...Show more →
Jim, I think of lenses as brushes for light. I have 6 Nikkors in the 50-60mm range, and they all paint differently. I also love adapting old lenses from other manufacturers to my different camera bodies, because the sensors/film record the image different from each other. I have sold well over 30 lenses since September, but collected some new ones as well. (sigh) Eventually I will thin this out so my wife doesn't have to deal with it.
Jim
Santa says MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS as he checks his list to see if you have been good little boys and girls, if yes he may leave one of these gifts under your Christmas Tree, but please do not be greedy as he can only leave one gift per household. ( D850, 24-120, Godox T350+diffuser, and 55 F3.5 AID Micro lens ).
Harry Palmer
James Markus wrote:
Jim, I think of lenses as brushes for light. I have 6 Nikkors in the 50-60mm range, and they all paint differently.
James, you are convincing me. It might take me years to learn how even two lenses paint differently enough that I could take advantage of those differences, but what the heck, it's just month's worth of beer. Am I skeptical? A little but I defer to my elder's experience. Plus now I'm curious!
In the meantime, here's an impromptu shot of the living room. I took this quickly while waiting for my sweetie to gather stuff for a walk around the neighborhood. No careful setting up, no trying different perspectives or camera settings. Just aim, focus, shoot.
A common, small forest-floor inhabitant with the unlikely name Flat-Branched Tree-Clubmoss. About 300 million years ago it was responsible for most of the coal we have today. Today's version is much smaller than those during dinosaur days. 50mm f/1.4.
I had mounted the 300mm f/4.5 set to f/11 because if we saw anything interesting enough to use it I wouldn't have time to switch lenses. That turned out to be a good decision. Early in the day a hawk flew overhead. Little time to react, just zone focus and shoot. I believe this is an immature RedTail.
, and that's the sauce. And "crisper" background lights. So, you know which one's my choice now. 
