Question about the nifty fifties, old style. I have my original 50mm f/1.4 S-C Auto and was given a 50mm f/2 H-C from roughly the same time frame. Thanks to this thread I also have the 55mm f/3.5 AI Micro.
The 55 is superb. The 50's are good too, faster but speed isn't as precious on the Z as it used to be with film. I learned something this summer about the 1.4 when used wide open that I had never experienced before.
All that being said, are there reasons or situations where I would choose one over the other? If I'm expecting to use that FL range, I almost always pick the 55. The 50 1.4 is heavier than the 50 2 but that's not a usual concern. By my logic the 1.4 is a step down, and the 2 another step down. But I'm just guessing. I haven't used them back to back or often enough to learn the subtleties. If you had a choice, which would you carry?
Among the F-mount 50's, the 55 1.2 is my go to lens too! For some reason I like its background rendering slightly over the 50 1.2, and even more so than the other 50s. I never got too enamored with the 50 1.4's, or even the 50 f2 HC which a lot of people here are attached to.
James Markus wrote:
Did some more shooting yesterday. Interesting (to me) is keeper rates (first cull). The Nikkor-S.C 55mm f1.2 ai'd at iso 2500 was 37%, and the 28-200mm f3.5 afd was 61%, and I was shooting as fast as I could at 2500-8000 iso. If I compare image quality between the 55mm manual focus on the Canon 5D mark III, and the 28-200 zoom on the Nikon D850 - the 55mm is better, but the zoom is very very good - better than I expected. I can definitely make the zoom images equal the manual focus in post processing. That makes thsi zoom a keeper, Here are the Nikkor-S.C 55mm f1.2 ai'd images...Show more →
Jim, I'm sure that if you would go thru the trouble and the lower hit rate of the prime you'd have a preference for the background differences, your work here with the 1.2 is just great. Nothing wrong with mixing it up with a grandpa lens either.
---------------------------------------------
jimmuller wrote:
Awesome. Is there no end to the spectacular historic places you have photographed?
Agreed, always enjoy your travel pics Serge.
---------------------------------------------
SiMuMe wrote:
Just gorgeous.
Thanks Siphiwe. I did not expect to see this grouping of the gardens in bloom still, but there it was.
---------------------------------------------
lumenspixel wrote:
At the park playing with a lens that should see more use: the AIS 85 2,0.
jimmuller wrote:
Question about the nifty fifties, old style. I have my original 50mm f/1.4 S-C Auto and was given a 50mm f/2 H-C from roughly the same time frame. Thanks to this thread I also have the 55mm f/3.5 AI Micro.
The 55 is superb. The 50's are good too, faster but speed isn't as precious on the Z as it used to be with film. I learned something this summer about the 1.4 when used wide open that I had never experienced before.
All that being said, are there reasons or situations where I would choose one over the other? If I'm expecting to use that FL range, I almost always pick the 55. The 50 1.4 is heavier than the 50 2 but that's not a usual concern. By my logic the 1.4 is a step down, and the 2 another step down. But I'm just guessing. I haven't used them back to back or often enough to learn the subtleties. If you had a choice, which would you carry?
I never carry both, but I often carry one or the other. My choice? When I want cool old style rendering and isolation, I pick the 1.4. Otherwise, it's the 55mm Micro for just the sheer flexibility, plus the overall better optical performance.
Speaking of which, another pair from the 55mm f2.8 Micro AIS.
jimmuller wrote:
Question about the nifty fifties, old style. I have my original 50mm f/1.4 S-C Auto and was given a 50mm f/2 H-C from roughly the same time frame. Thanks to this thread I also have the 55mm f/3.5 AI Micro.
The 55 is superb. The 50's are good too, faster but speed isn't as precious on the Z as it used to be with film. I learned something this summer about the 1.4 when used wide open that I had never experienced before.
All that being said, are there reasons or situations where I would choose one over the other? If I'm expecting to use that FL range, I almost always pick the 55. The 50 1.4 is heavier than the 50 2 but that's not a usual concern. By my logic the 1.4 is a step down, and the 2 another step down. But I'm just guessing. I haven't used them back to back or often enough to learn the subtleties. If you had a choice, which would you carry?...Show more →
Well, "back in the day" my answer would have been the fastest/most-corrected lens (which resulted in my purchase of the Noct 58/1.2), but with modern digital bodies freeing us from the tyranny of the film-speed/grain tradeoff, I no longer look at my lenses that way. I would plop for the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 in your position, unless I wanted a wide-open/bokeh shot, in which case I might consider the 58/1.4S (not on your list, I know). I've come to terms with my many years of shooting the 24/2 with its swirly-bokeh and soft corners: In the film era, it really gave me shots I couldn't otherwise achieve. However, now, I shoot slower/compact lenses by preference, since most of my shots are at moderate apertures anyways. Of your current crop the 50/1.4S is probably the most interesting for wide-open, but otherwise, the 55/3.5 all the way! Just MHO.
pbraymond wrote:
Jim, I'm sure that if you would go thru the trouble and the lower hit rate of the prime you'd have a preference for the background differences, your work here with the 1.2 is just great. Nothing wrong with mixing it up with a grandpa lens either.
Ray, I've been selling off gear for a few years, but adding less. The goal was to make it easier for Barb to deal with all my stuff. Wasn't planning a detour into film again, but manual focus has always been a part of my photography. AF didn't even exist when I started. I'll keep shooting MF as long as I can.
jimmuller wrote:
Question about the nifty fifties, old style. I have my original 50mm f/1.4 S-C Auto and was given a 50mm f/2 H-C from roughly the same time frame. Thanks to this thread I also have the 55mm f/3.5 AI Micro.
The 55 is superb. The 50's are good too, faster but speed isn't as precious on the Z as it used to be with film. I learned something this summer about the 1.4 when used wide open that I had never experienced before.
All that being said, are there reasons or situations where I would choose one over the other? If I'm expecting to use that FL range, I almost always pick the 55. The 50 1.4 is heavier than the 50 2 but that's not a usual concern. By my logic the 1.4 is a step down, and the 2 another step down. But I'm just guessing. I haven't used them back to back or often enough to learn the subtleties. If you had a choice, which would you carry?
Jim, I'm curious about what you learned this summer about the 50 f/1.4 SC? I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my copy, which has several qualities that I appreciate. One is that, like many 50'ish mm Nikkors, it renders photos that are sharp where they need to be (I haven't tested to find out if there are any non-sharp areas); another is its light weight, which causes me to prefer it over the 55 f/1.2 SC; the 50 1.4 can take very nice, fairly close-up photos (the micro Nikkors, like the 55 f/3.5's, are of course much better for this); and finally, its fast maximum aperture ensures that nicely blurred backgrounds are an option.
On a different note, here are several photos of sand sculptures from the annual Qualicum Beach exhibition. These were all taken with my IR-converted Fuji X-T2, ably assisted by the 2.8 f/3.5 H (first three images) and the 5.8 f/1.4 S (last two).
Went for a walk around Loveland, Colorado several days ago and took only MFNG. I was asked twice if my Zf was a film camera. I of course said no but that the lens I was using was from the film era. The lighting was harsh since this was around mid day but I got some keepers anyway.
With DIA DE LOS MUERTOS just around the corner so to speak, heres several house hold attempts. Nikon bellows 5, 135 F4 bellows lens and Godox flash.
Harry Palmer
Image one.
NIKON Z 7_2135mm f/4 lens135mmf/4.01/10s500 ISO0.0 EV
Image two.
NIKON Z 7_2135mm f/4 lens135mmf/4.01/10s1000 ISO0.0 EV
Image three.
NIKON Z 7_2135mm f/4 lens135mmf/4.01/10s500 ISO0.0 EV
mivadep wrote:
Went for a walk around Loveland, Colorado several days ago and took only MFNG. I was asked twice if my Zf was a film camera. I of course said no but that the lens I was using was from the film era. The lighting was harsh since this was around mid day but I got some keepers anyway.
Thank you all for the great answers. pbraymond wrote:
I never carry both, but I often carry one or the other. My choice? When I want cool old style rendering and isolation, I pick the 1.4. Otherwise, it's the 55mm Micro for just the sheer flexibility, plus the overall better optical performance.
Thank you. That's how I read it too except that I have no feeling for "cool old style rendering".
I'm not sure I could draw a line between old style and new. My pictures have always been whatever I could see, imagine and then capture. I tend not to see bokeh quality as part of the picture except to isolate the main subject, the main subject being the whole point anyway. ("A year ago I couldn't even spel bokuh, now I are one." - usually applied to injuneering students.) I never cared or even noticed whether bokeh balls are swirly or have 6 blades or 7 or 9 or are round; it's part of the picture, an artifact of photography. I supposed I should start thinking about it more or risk losing all respect from the present company.
---------------------------------------------
grantgoodes wrote:
Well, "back in the day" my answer would have been the fastest/most-corrected lens...
Of your current crop the 50/1.4S is probably the most interesting for wide-open, but otherwise, the 55/3.5 all the way! Just MHO.
Thank you. That's what I keep thinking. If I want a "wide-open" shot for narrow DOF I'll usually do it with one of the tele's.
---------------------------------------------
GroWeb wrote:
Jim, I'm curious about what you learned this summer about the 50 f/1.4 SC? I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my copy, which has several qualities that I appreciate.
I got lots of film mileage out of my 50/1.4 because it was my only "normal" lens, at first my only lens. Since buying the Z I have used it almost never. I have carried the 50/2 only once and to no great effect. (It currently has a polarizing filter; I wanted to see if it could penetrate the surface of vernal pools. It does but I saw nothing interesting.)
To answer your question, after my friend gave me a second 1.4 and the 2.0 I conducted a comparison shooting the bird feeder in the back yard on a bright day, distance maybe 10 meters. His 1.4 had a few flaws, was in worse shape than mine so I decided to use mine exclusively though I don't recall seeing any differences in the images. IIRC (last summer was years ago), the 1.4 and 2 were similar when stopped down, and the 55 and 105 were better than both at capturing fine detail. However at f=1.4 every bright area had a glow around it which hurt the apparent sharpness. I posted that observation here and someone responded that it was a known feature of the 1.4 when used wide open, that photographers used it to make softer pics for weddings and portraits and the like.
Well, I never took portraits or formal wedding shots. I rarely if ever used it wide open since most of my pics were outdoors and the camera almost never had tungsten film. Since I shot slides any subtleties like edge to center sharpness would have been lost on me. When I bought my Nikkormat the lens choice was between the 2 and the more expensive 1.4. I selected the 1.4 because it was recommended as "better" and for the possibility of shooting in low light. The 2 might have been just fine and I would never have noticed the differences. Nevertheless, the 1.4 has been a good workhorse, now mostly retired.
So the question is still whether to carry either 50 at all, and if so which one. If they render the same at 2.0 or smaller, then take the lighter one. But maybe I'm missing something like weddings or old style, which is why I posed the question.
I just purchased my first MF lens since being out of photography for 15 years. I find myself gravitating more towards "medium telephoto" type of shooting as I get really frustrated by landscape photography (the sky never seems to play nice with me, and I don't have the patience to drag the gear with me needed to get good bracketing shots). I'm also 6'2" so the extra reach means I maybe don't have to bend over "as much" sometimes?
Long story short I have a 135mm 2.8 AIS on the way. I've got the 50 1.8d, 85 1.4d and 105 2.8d and find that shooting with the 105 when something catches my eye, I pull the camera up and the framing just seems to be correct for me. 50mm seems to be too wide, 85mm is ok but isn't always what I'm hoping for, and 105mm seems nice. Hoping the 135mm focal length will feel the same way.
jonshonda wrote:
Long story short
Ha! jonshonda wrote:
I have a 135mm 2.8 AIS on the way. I've got the 50 1.8d, 85 1.4d and 105 2.8d and find that shooting with the 105 when something catches my eye, I pull the camera up and the framing just seems to be correct for me. 50mm seems to be too wide, 85mm is ok but isn't always what I'm hoping for, and 105mm seems nice. Hoping the 135mm focal length will feel the same way
Sounds like you are a bit like me: Never was into the nifty-fifty, and 85mm just doesn't click (despite owning the lovely 85/1.4) while 105mm "seems nice" indeed (so much so that I have 7 or 8 105mm Nikkors). I think you will find the 135mm not that big a difference from the 105mm, and possibly you should consider a 180/200mm or the 75~150/3.5E. For me, my ideal longer lens is 180mm, and I have the 180/2.8 ED as well as what has become my standard telephoto, the rare Voigtländer 180/4 APO-Lanthar. As much as I love the rendering, I find the 180/2.8 ED just too big, and a bit tricky to nail focus, so the compact 180/4 just suits me better (note that it is smaller/lighter than your 105/2.8D).
grantgoodes wrote:
Sounds like you are a bit like me: Never was into the nifty-fifty, and 85mm just doesn't click (despite owning the lovely 85/1.4) while 105mm "seems nice" indeed (so much so that I have 7 or 8 105mm Nikkors). I think you will find the 135mm not that big a difference from the 105mm, and possibly you should consider a 180/200mm or the 75~150/3.5E. For me, my ideal longer lens is 180mm, and I have the 180/2.8 ED as well as what has become my standard telephoto, the rare Voigtländer 180/4 APO-Lanthar. As much as I love the rendering, I find the 180/2.8 ED just too big, and a bit tricky to nail focus, so the compact 180/4 just suits me better (note that it is smaller/lighter than your 105/2.8D). ...Show more →
When I sold all my gear 15 years ago I was in my mid 20's and pretty consumed with the latest and greatest gear from Nikon, and it wasn't until right before I sold everything off that I started to appreciate manual focus lenses. I recall having the 28 2.8, 105 2.5, and 400 3.5 and liking each one of them. I remember the D700 amazing hi-iso allowing me to play much later into the day (worse light) then my D300 did, and loved the look with the manual focus glass.
Now that I've gotten neck deep into the hobby again with a few lenses including the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, I'm remembering why I liked the smaller MF lenses. I just need to get out and shoot more, and determine what I really like to shoot.
I really want the 105 2.5 to compare against the 2.8d, and want to get my hands on a 180 2.8ED as I've heard soooo many good things about it.
jonshonda wrote:
I really want the 105 2.5 to compare against the 2.8d, and want to get my hands on a 180 2.8ED as I've heard soooo many good things about it.
As I said above, I'm a _bit_ of a Nikon 105mm fan. The only AF-D 105 I own is the renowned 105/2 DC, but I do have the original Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 AiS, and can say that I vastly prefer the 105/2.5. In fact, I originally sold my 105/2.5 AiS to fund the purchase of the Micro-Nikkor, and regretted that decision so eventually had to re-purchase the 105/2.5. I also have the Bellows-Nikkor 105/4 which is the exact same optical design as the Micro-Nikkor 105/4, and it is an excellent lens, but obviously being a bellows lens I only use it for macro shots. My experience is that the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 is great in the macro range up to 1:2, but since it is a CRC focus design image quality degrades with extension from 1:2 to 1:1. Also, the 105/2.5 has superiour rendering for typical portrait and landscape shots IMO.
Of all my 105's, the 105/2.5 AiS is my favourite, and I consider it a must-own MF Nikkor.
And for the 180/2.8 ED, it definitely lives up to the hype, but I do find it a bit of a handful so don't shoot mine very often any more.
GroWeb wrote:
Jim, I'm curious about what you learned this summer about the 50 f/1.4 SC? I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my copy, which has several qualities that I appreciate. One is that, like many 50'ish mm Nikkors, it renders photos that are sharp where they need to be (I haven't tested to find out if there are any non-sharp areas); another is its light weight, which causes me to prefer it over the 55 f/1.2 SC; the 50 1.4 can take very nice, fairly close-up photos (the micro Nikkors, like the 55 f/3.5's, are of course much better for this); and finally, its fast maximum aperture ensures that nicely blurred backgrounds are an option.
On a different note, here are several photos of sand sculptures from the annual Qualicum Beach exhibition. These were all taken with my IR-converted Fuji X-T2, ably assisted by the 2.8 f/3.5 H (first three images) and the 5.8 f/1.4 S (last two)....Show more →
Those are really neat sculptures, thanks for sharing them.
---------------------------------------------
mivadep wrote:
Went for a walk around Loveland, Colorado several days ago and took only MFNG. I was asked twice if my Zf was a film camera. I of course said no but that the lens I was using was from the film era. The lighting was harsh since this was around mid day but I got some keepers anyway.
Enjoyed your short take on Loveland, harsh sun or not.
---------------------------------------------
jimmuller wrote:
Thank you all for the great answers.
Thank you. That's how I read it too except that I have no feeling for "cool old style rendering".
I'm not sure I could draw a line between old style and new. My pictures have always been whatever I could see, imagine and then capture. I tend not to see bokeh quality as part of the picture except to isolate the main subject, the main subject being the whole point anyway. ("A year ago I couldn't even spel bokuh, now I are one." - usually applied to injuneering students.) I never cared or even noticed whether bokeh balls are swirly or have 6 blades or 7 or 9 or are round; it's part of the picture, an artifact of photography. I supposed I should start thinking about it more or risk losing all respect from the present company. ...Show more →
I don't know all the subtleties either. The "cool old style" I enjoy at times include the sharp image with spherical aberration "glow", the dramatic falloff of sharpness away from the center, the vignetting, and the isolation that comes with a large aperture lens when shot wide open. I cannot reliably distinguish the "rendering" and bokeh quality from one day to the next. I think also gentler contrast though with the right post processing that is a minor issue, if at all. Of course stopped down it's easy to tell the number of aperture blades in a lens.
No loss of respect at all with not getting into the various rabbit holes. If an image appeals to you, it appeals to you, end of story. I'm pretty sure many of my shots are yawners for a lot of viewers.
GroWeb wrote:
Jim, I'm curious about what you learned this summer about the 50 f/1.4 SC? I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my copy, which has several qualities that I appreciate. One is that, like many 50'ish mm Nikkors, it renders photos that are sharp where they need to be (I haven't tested to find out if there are any non-sharp areas); another is its light weight, which causes me to prefer it over the 55 f/1.2 SC; the 50 1.4 can take very nice, fairly close-up photos (the micro Nikkors, like the 55 f/3.5's, are of course much better for this); and finally, its fast maximum aperture ensures that nicely blurred backgrounds are an option.
On a different note, here are several photos of sand sculptures from the annual Qualicum Beach exhibition. These were all taken with my IR-converted Fuji X-T2, ably assisted by the 2.8 f/3.5 H (first three images) and the 5.8 f/1.4 S (last two)....Show more →
I do not have the SC 1,4 nor the Micro Nikkor. But my copy of the AI 50 1,4 is excellent and while my 50 2,0 HC is very good it is a notch down compared to the 1,4. If this helps.
pbraymond wrote:
No loss of respect at all with not getting into the various rabbit holes. If an image appeals to you, it appeals to you, end of story. I'm pretty sure many of my shots are yawners for a lot of viewers.
He! I did put a big-grin emoticon at the end of that sentence. Regardless (and all seriousness aside ) and FWIW, I stand by all the pictures I've posted, as I'm sure we all do. Your pictures are never yawners, but are instead subtle and lovely images of your part of the world. I aspire to do the same but do not expect to reach that level of perfection.
I'm going to go off on a tangent here.
I believe I've mentioned this before but I'll mention it again because it is pertinent. I often think about why I take the pictures I do and why anyone else takes theirs. I know why I take mine whether anyone else understands them or not. I do NOT understand some others' pictures. If the subject is neither lovely to see nor thought-provoking nor a good memory nor a unique way of seeing something nor an interesting subject in itself nor a commonplace but evocative scene then it is pointless. I do not need to see most insects under a severe macro lens. I don't need to see random blobs of color that could just as easily be done with a drawing program. And I don't get it that great bokeh is more important than the subject itself. It's not about the technique or the lens but about the subject. I should stop typing now.
---------------------------------------------
lumenspixel wrote:
I do not have the SC 1,4 nor the Micro Nikkor. But my copy of the AI 50 1,4 is excellent and while my 50 2,0 HC is very good it is a notch down compared to the 1,4. If this helps.
That does help. Thank you. Just curious, is your 2.0 "a notch down" at all apertures? At all distances?
) and FWIW, I stand by all the pictures I've posted, as I'm sure we all do. Your pictures are never yawners, but are instead subtle and lovely images of your part of the world. I aspire to do the same but do not expect to reach that level of perfection.