Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: imagico on May 27, 2012, 09:42:06 am
-
Michael, i wonder if you have tried the older 55mm f/1.2. There are some who think it has a better bokeh - my impression is although it might be smoother it is not necessarily more pleasant.
And the longest production life is probably not this but the 35mm f/1.4 which is produced in the same basic design since the early 70s (and still is apparently despite the AF-S being released recently).
-
Is it me or does the bokeh look quite harsh in the posted images? Other dedicated large aperture lenses, usually have quite creamy bokeh. I don't have much reference, but my old noctilux f1 always was quite a bit softer. Even the Canon EF 50 1.2 looks softer, though more modern in its bokeh.
-
Thanks
Love the review, of one of my favorites.
In my humble opinion a lens is so much more than can be displayed on a test diagram.
And in many "professional" testing reviews the aspect that is most important to me - how the pictures look and feel - is often marginalized.
I would have loved more than three pictures.
-
Michael,
I've got this lens, along with a Samyang/Rokinon 35mm f1.4. I'll even have the Nikon D800 to attach them to on Tuesday! ;D Are you using the stock eyepiece and focusing screen, and any tips on using this lens wide open? Have you been using live view and tripod on your posted shots, or can you handhold and have a decent rate of keepers, wide open?
Thanks for any advice............Matt
-
I use the stock screen and usually just with the green dot. Magnified LV when possible.
Keeper rate is pretty good. But, I've been manual focusing lenses almost daily for some 50 years, so I've had a bit of practice.
Michael
-
Is it me or does the bokeh look quite harsh in the posted images? Other dedicated large aperture lenses, usually have quite creamy bokeh. I don't have much reference, but my old noctilux f1 always was quite a bit softer. Even the Canon EF 50 1.2 looks softer, though more modern in its bokeh.
The bokeh looks pretty nasty in most of these pictures but it is all subjective, I can safely say that I will never buy this lens however.
-
Michael, i wonder if you have tried the older 55mm f/1.2. There are some who think it has a better bokeh - my impression is although it might be smoother it is not necessarily more pleasant.
And the longest production life is probably not this but the 35mm f/1.4 which is produced in the same basic design since the early 70s (and still is apparently despite the AF-S being released recently).
Among these old nikkors, the bokeh master is probably the 58mm f1.2 Noct.
Being one of the first aspherical designs, the lens is a collector and prices can be pretty high nowadays. I owned a copy for a couple of years and liked it although it was obviously far from perfect wide open.
http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Nikon-Nikkor-AIS-58-mm-F-12-Lens-/101705861?_refkw=58+noct&_pcatid=783&_pcategid=625&_dmpt=Camera_Lenses
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Michael,
Would you be so kind to take the same image using your Nikon 50mm F1.2 and Nikon 50mm F1.4G lenses wide open just as a comparison and posting them?
Also I have ordered a Nikon D800E and MB-D12. Looking forward to getting this baby.
Cheers
Simon
-
I use the stock screen and usually just with the green dot. Magnified LV when possible.
Keeper rate is pretty good. But, I've been manual focusing lenses almost daily for some 50 years, so I've had a bit of practice.
Michael
A man after my own heart.
Rob C
-
A man after my own heart.
Rob C
Its only been 23 years, but I essentially started photography taking pictures of flying military planes with a 200mm screw type Pentax mounted on a Praktika body... Can't say the succes ratio was that impressive... Does that count? :)
cheers,
Bernard
-
Among these old nikkors, the bokeh master is probably the 58mm f1.2 Noct.
Probably - but this is a different league in price, you could finance a 50mm f/1.2 and your new 280 f/4 APO with one of those... ;) And the 58mm is said to be pretty bad stopped down while the 50mm competes very well with other 50mm at f/5.6-8.
I mentioned the 55mm partly since it can be obtained quite cheap these days - sometimes less than a new 50mm f/1.8.
By the way the older AI version of the 50mm f/1.2 usually sells for much less than the AI-S version. It has a 7 blade aperture which is probably seen as the major disadvantage although wide open this should not make a difference. It apparently has a much longer focus throw though.
Greetings,
Christoph
-
Its only been 23 years, but I essentially started photography taking pictures of flying military planes with a 200mm screw type Pentax mounted on a Praktika body... Can't say the succes ratio was that impressive... Does that count? :)
cheers,
Bernard
Well I don't know, Bernard; I've never travelled in a military aircraft.
;-)
Rob C
P.S. Not quite true, just half-true! My very first flight was in India, in 1948 in a Dakota... it was civilian - by then.
-
"Mechanical Quality
If you've never owned or used a manual focus Nikkor from the 1950's through the 1980's then you owe it to yourself to experience the way that lenses used to be made. Click-stopped aperture rings with engraved paint-filled marking, proper depth of field scales, and silky smooth brass helicoids that allow for precise manual focusing are the order of the day. Visually as well as in terms of tactility they are a pleasure to use. Today, in the 35mm format, only Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtlander lenses offer similar aesthetic and tactile appeal."
I quote above, from Michael's report.
Another baby out with the suds.
Like I'm fond of saying, how things improve without getting any better! And one of the 'betters' was the 2/50 Nikkor. Loved the damned thing, almost as much as the 2.8/35 Nikkor.
Rob C
-
Like I'm fond of saying, how things improve without getting any better! And one of the 'betters' was the 2/50 Nikkor. Loved the damned thing, almost as much as the 2.8/35 Nikkor.
Rob C
+1 on the 2/50 and I would add to this the 2.5/105 Nikkor. I bought both way back in 1972 and had them adapted for use on my D300. Sure they don't auto focus or auto index the aperture but since I mainly shoot at f8, the latter doesn't matter much. As Michael related in his early comment on manual focusing, those of us who grew up getting the focus right really don't have a problem with manual focus. I've found that both of the above lenses perform exceptionally well with a digital camera.
-
Michael's remarks about the old manual-focused lenses with click-stopped and engraved, paint-filled aperture marks, caused me to pull out an old (and probably rather inexpensive) Nikon 50mm 1.8, and attach it to a LensBaby TiltTransformer (please don't laugh, everyone -- this was just for fun) on my Panasonic GH2 for an outing to the John Wayne Marina outside Sequim, WA. The results were splendid -- great sharpness and color rendition. I'm going to leave the lens in place for a while! --Barbara
-
I cannot appreciate this bokeh. I thought Michael was robbed with a bad lens. If these had been shot with the Leica they would be something to dwell on.
I just took 2 quick shots wide open with my old Minolta 50 2.8 macro wide open. Whether it is front OOF or Back OOF it stays smooth even on cut crystal. There is no harsh outer edge.
Ive seen canon or nikon lenses with much nicer bokeh. I don't understand why this one for this type of shot?
-
... silky smooth brass helicoids ...
Minor point of clarification - the 1960s & 1970s Nikkors I've used had aluminum helicoids. The other major 35mm camera makers of the time used brass helicoids.
-
Michael's remarks about the old manual-focused lenses with click-stopped and engraved, paint-filled aperture marks, caused me to pull out an old (and probably rather inexpensive) Nikon 50mm 1.8, and attach it to a LensBaby TiltTransformer (please don't laugh, everyone -- this was just for fun) on my Panasonic GH2 for an outing to the John Wayne Marina outside Sequim, WA. The results were splendid -- great sharpness and color rendition. I'm going to leave the lens in place for a while! --Barbara
And why ever not, Barbara?
This is with one such 1.8/50mm manual Nikkor which I believe to be one of the best lenses I've had from Nikon. The 2/50mm Nikkor was also pretty hot, but it went with my original F! I wish I'd never sold/traded-in anything!
I think I shot this at f5.6 this afternoon, but the effect comes from at least three layers of Gaussian fakery. Don't say I'm not honest as well as generous!
;-)
Rob C
-
Doing bokeh in software will (almost) always look fake. The effect depends on the aperture, the distance from the plane of focus, as well as the distance from the lens. Doing it right in the shot is far superior.
I can do a HD video of opening the raws in a converter for anyone wanting to see the bokeh of the 50, the 100, the 135, the 300 Minolta/Sony lenses. The Sig 20 or the Tamron 180 arnt bad either. You can see pixel level sharpness with smooth bokeh. I know some people want to scoff at 20 yr old minolta lenses so ask. It's easy to do.
-
Looking at my pic of the parked car again, with fresher eyes than last night when I posted it, I get the impression that the car itself doesn't look sharp at all, which rather defeats the point of posting it. However, on my monitor, the original, not transmitted file does look crisp. This unsharpness in the transmitted result is evident to me around the number plate which should be very sharp, but only manages to look somewhat grainy instead. (The background was Gaussianed to accentuate softness, so look only at the car!)
I wonder if there's something odd going on with the LuLa programme? For some reason Michael's shots with that fast 50mm optic of his don't seem (to me) to show what I imagined he was thinking that he was illustrating, which makes me wonder if it's an Internet glitch.
Rob C
-
I wonder if there's something odd going on with the LuLa programme? For some reason Michael's shots with that fast 50mm optic of his don't seem (to me) to show what I imagined he was thinking that he was illustrating, which makes me wonder if it's an Internet glitch.
Rob C
Well, why don't you re-download to your computer and compare?
-
Well, why don't you re-download to your computer and compare?
A lot of sites re-compress jpgs for file size which degrades the image. In this case I don't think that is it. I had a look at other reviews of that lens claiming it was "bokeh king" of the nikon lenses. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nikon%2050%20bokeh&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CFgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjapanorama.co.uk%2F2009%2F02%2F14%2Fthe-nikon-nikkor-50mm-f12-lens-king-of-bokeh%2F&ei=vT3GT4WPFsjm2gXVxLXnAQ&usg=AFQjCNFzDEA6gRDvozqlieTwgyDtA7sDdA (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nikon%2050%20bokeh&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CFgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjapanorama.co.uk%2F2009%2F02%2F14%2Fthe-nikon-nikkor-50mm-f12-lens-king-of-bokeh%2F&ei=vT3GT4WPFsjm2gXVxLXnAQ&usg=AFQjCNFzDEA6gRDvozqlieTwgyDtA7sDdA)
They had the same problem with what is called "nisen bokeh" except they claimed it was wonderful. ???
Here is another site talking about the hard outer edge at the bottom
http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html (http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html)
-
I have a copy of the older 55mm F1.2, it's a useful "specialty" lens but definately not something I want on my camera every day. Bokeh can be creamy in one shot and almost disturbing in the next (better at 1.4 I think). Here's my cat with the 55 1.2 at 1.2 shot with my old (stolen in Tulsa) D200. Got a tracking number for my D800E yesterday so maybe by this weekend I can try the 55mm f1.2 on that body. Since getting a 50mm 1.4D I very seldom touch the old F1.2.. Only value of the old 55mm is just the novelty and asthetics of the lens itself, not so much the pictures it helps produce.
Click image for a larger version
(http://www.pbase.com/arlon/image/98997514/medium.jpg) (http://www.pbase.com/arlon/image/98997514/large.jpg)
-
Here is a comparison of the 50 1.4 to the 50 1.8 to me these all look like poor lenses. There is a halo around the hair. The closest letters on the base (right side) also have a halo from poor corrections.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtianyves/3252971564/in/set-72157613583223840/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtianyves/3252971564/in/set-72157613583223840/)
If I have my glasses on (or contacts) I never see halos around things. The transition from sharp focus to smooth OOF should be an even gradation.