50mm f/1.2 Nikkor vs. 58mm f/1.4 Nokton SL II

jrose125

jrose125

Established
Local time
5:50 PM
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
192
I'm looking at potentially purchasing a new F-mount "normal" focal length lens. I currently have a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor Ai, but am considering a 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor Ai or a 58mm f/1.4 Nokton SL II to switch things up.

Does anyone here have experience with one or both of these lenses? If so, I'd love to hear your experiences/opinions! Sample images would be wonderful too if you had them.

Thanks in advance!
 
I once went from a 50mm f1.4 AI-S to a 50mm f1.2 AI-S (9 blades). The 1.2 has a very smooth rendering, sharp enough in the center, lots of coma wide open though. Plenty of distortion as well. I suspect the Voigtlander outperforms it in every way except maybe transition/falloff, it just looks a little more modern and, well, boring. I am very interested in picking up the Voigtlander, and if I do I will add more about it. For what it’s worth, my only normal SLR lenses right now are the micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 and Nikkor-S 5cm f2.
 
keytarjunkie said:
I once went from a 50mm f1.4 AI-S to a 50mm f1.2 AI-S (9 blades). The 1.2 has a very smooth rendering, sharp enough in the center, lots of coma wide open though. Plenty of distortion as well. I suspect the Voigtlander outperforms it in every way except maybe transition/falloff, it just looks a little more modern and, well, boring. I am very interested in picking up the Voigtlander, and if I do I will add more about it. For what it’s worth, my only normal SLR lenses right now are the micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 and Nikkor-S 5cm f2.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the reply! I too have a 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and a 50mm f/2 (Nikkor-H), both great pieces of glass.

Do you think a 50mm f/1.2 would be redundant if I also have a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor in the collection? I realize it's a "character" lens, so I'm not necessarily needing a lens that is razor sharp wide open.
 
No, they perform quite differently wide open. But, at least in my opinion, the Voigtlander is more of a direct upgrade from your Nikkor 1.4, whereas the Nikkor 1.2 is more of a tangent.
 
keytarjunkie said:
No, they perform quite differently wide open. But, at least in my opinion, the Voigtlander is more of a direct upgrade from your Nikkor 1.4, whereas the Nikkor 1.2 is more of a tangent.
Click to expand...

Again, I appreciate the info! I was leaning a bit toward the Voigtlander to begin with, it does seem like the better overall piece of glass. Easier to justify as well, being a slightly longer focal length and all ;).
 
I have the 50 1.2 ais. It is very good stopped down to f/2 and smaller. Wide open I find it very hard to use on my F2. The rate of misfocused shots is too high in my opinion, even when carefully focusing. I suspect there is some considerable focus shift, given that your viewfinder does not utilize the full aperture (meaning you focus at about f2.8 even wide open). If you hit it, its fun and looks nice. But more often than not, the image has little sharpness due to misfocusing, not due to reduced overall sharpness of the lens (which is to be expected).

Another possibility is that your mirror needs to be perfectly calibrated for this lens. If the angle is not perfect, you can theoretically also get misfocused images... So be aware that using the lens to its fullest capabilities is not easy.
 
lukx said:
I have the 50 1.2 ais. It is very good stopped down to f/2 and smaller. Wide open I find it very hard to use on my F2. The rate of misfocused shots is too high in my opinion, even when carefully focusing. I suspect there is some considerable focus shift, given that your viewfinder does not utilize the full aperture (meaning you focus at about f2.8 even wide open). If you hit it, its fun and looks nice. But more often than not, the image has little sharpness due to misfocusing, not due to reduced overall sharpness of the lens (which is to be expected).

Another possibility is that your mirror needs to be perfectly calibrated for this lens. If the angle is not perfect, you can theoretically also get misfocused images... So be aware that using the lens to its fullest capabilities is not easy.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the info! You've further made the case for the 58 f/1.4 for me.
 
I have both lenses. The 50 1.4 was never a lens that I liked - very hazy and flare prone wide open. The 50 1.2 is much more usable at 1.2, and sharper than all of the other Nikkor 50 mm lenses (even the 1.8) up to about f/4. It has a lot of barrel distortion though.

The 58 mm Voigtlander is a really outstanding piece of glass. I think I own two of them. Usable at all apertures, sharp, contrasty, and will more moderate distortion. However, if you want more moody pictures, then the 50 1.2 will deliver for you.
 
I’d echo all the above. Owned the 50/1.2; lots of veiling flare at f/1.2 though still amazingly sharp in the center. Coma like crazy! It’s a more atmospheric lens wide open but this cleans up at f/2 and it’s sharper that all but the latest Z mount 50’s. Can’t comment on the CV except for the FL; I own a NOCT. The slightly tighter angle of view is something I prefer for portraits. Lloyd Chambers reviewed the CV 58/1.4 extensively on his pay site.
 
james.liam said:
I’d echo all the above. Owned the 50/1.2; lots of veiling flare at f/1.2 though still amazingly sharp in the center. Coma like crazy! It’s a more atmospheric lens wide open but this cleans up at f/2 and it’s sharper that all but the latest Z mount 50’s. Can’t comment on the CV except for the FL; I own a NOCT. The slightly tighter angle of view is something I prefer for portraits. Lloyd Chambers reviewed the CV 58/1.4 extensively on his pay site.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the information! I've all but for sure decided that i'm going with the 58 1.4 Nokton.
 
Jake, I like the 1.4/58mm Nokton. The slightly longer normal focal length can be useful and gives a little different look. You might search the RFF Gallery for instances of this lens to examine.
Edit: Hmmm, 6 pages in the Gallery and all the pics but one are mine! :D
 
I still own the 1.2/50, the 1.4/58 Voigtlander and as well the Nikon 1.4/58 AFS. On AF bodies, I prefer the AFS lens. Recessed front element, relatively light weight, advantage of AF, especially on Z cameras very exact and useful.
The drawing of the lens to me is a tad more classic than the Voigtlander, but that does not help if you want to mount it on an F3 ... So ... I see myself using either the 1.2/50 or the 1.4/58 AFS. But for some reason, I cannot bring myself to sell the Voigtlander. Maybe it is just that the lens itself is so beautifully made.
 
Doug said:
Jake, I like the 1.4/58mm Nokton. The slightly longer normal focal length can be useful and gives a little different look. You might search the RFF Gallery for instances of this lens to examine.
Edit: Hmmm, 6 pages in the Gallery and all the pics but one are mine! :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment! I've been going through sample photos from the 58mm 1.4 Nokton both here and on Flickr, and have been continually impressed about the IQ of this lens.
 
Photon42 said:
I still own the 1.2/50, the 1.4/58 Voigtlander and as well the Nikon 1.4/58 AFS. On AF bodies, I prefer the AFS lens. Recessed front element, relatively light weight, advantage of AF, especially on Z cameras very exact and useful.
The drawing of the lens to me is a tad more classic than the Voigtlander, but that does not help if you want to mount it on an F3 ... So ... I see myself using either the 1.2/50 or the 1.4/58 AFS. But for some reason, I cannot bring myself to sell the Voigtlander. Maybe it is just that the lens itself is so beautifully made.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the info! I do have a number of Nikon bodies including AF capable models, but am mainly thinking of the FM3A I have incoming - so I think I would like to keep the lens manual focus, and I definitely do need an Aperture ring :)
 
jrose125 said:
Thanks for the comment! I've been going through sample photos from the 58mm 1.4 Nokton both here and on Flickr, and have been continually impressed about the IQ of this lens.
Click to expand...

Neither of the two lenses are unbearably expensive (see: Leica, Zeiss...). You might consider getting both and selling what disappoints. But I wouldn't be surprised if you will find a place for each of them as they are compelling & different enough in their own rights.
 
james.liam said:
Neither of the two lenses are unbearably expensive (see: Leica, Zeiss...). You might consider getting both and selling what disappoints. But I wouldn't be surprised that you will find a place for each of them as they are different and unique enough in their own rights.
Click to expand...

You know, I was thinking about doing exactly that. Initially I was going to go for the 50mm f/1.2 since it was a decent bit cheaper than the 58mm f/1.4 (at least used), but the Nokton seems maybe like the better all-around general purpose shooter? (correct me on that if I'm wrong)

I am in the process of getting rid of some gear, so perhaps that will allow me to test drive both before deciding a keeper... Thanks!
 
jrose125 said:
Initially I was going to go for the 50mm f/1.2 since it was a decent bit cheaper than the 58mm f/1.4 (at least used), but the Nokton seems maybe like the better all-around general purpose shooter? (correct me on that if I'm wrong)
Click to expand...

Both of them would serve that purpose, in fact. The CV 58 has a warmer rendering, tighter AOV and higher contrast wide-open than the Nikkor. The Nikkor has a dreamy quality at f/1.2-1.7 (though still resolving highly) but becomes high-contrast & razor sharp stopped down beyond f/2. Fantastic all the way to f/8-11. IIRC, the Voigtländer peaks out at f/5.6-8 or so. Both make great all-arounders; just very different at the wider apertures.
 
lukx said:
I have the 50 1.2 ais. It is very good stopped down to f/2 and smaller. Wide open I find it very hard to use on my F2. The rate of misfocused shots is too high in my opinion, even when carefully focusing. I suspect there is some considerable focus shift, given that your viewfinder does not utilize the full aperture (meaning you focus at about f2.8 even wide open). If you hit it, its fun and looks nice. But more often than not, the image has little sharpness due to misfocusing, not due to reduced overall sharpness of the lens (which is to be expected).

Another possibility is that your mirror needs to be perfectly calibrated for this lens. If the angle is not perfect, you can theoretically also get misfocused images... So be aware that using the lens to its fullest capabilities is not easy.
Click to expand...

Robert Lai said:
I have both lenses. The 50 1.4 was never a lens that I liked - very hazy and flare prone wide open. The 50 1.2 is much more usable at 1.2, and sharper than all of the other Nikkor 50 mm lenses (even the 1.8) up to about f/4. It has a lot of barrel distortion though.

The 58 mm Voigtlander is a really outstanding piece of glass. I think I own two of them. Usable at all apertures, sharp, contrasty, and will more moderate distortion. However, if you want more moody pictures, then the 50 1.2 will deliver for you.
Click to expand...

Doug said:
Jake, I like the 1.4/58mm Nokton. The slightly longer normal focal length can be useful and gives a little different look. You might search the RFF Gallery for instances of this lens to examine.
Edit: Hmmm, 6 pages in the Gallery and all the pics but one are mine! :D
Click to expand...


I'm thinking if the 58/1.4 Nokton is easier to focus full open than the 50/1.2 on a manual film camera ?
 
I ultimately ended up finding a good deal on a 50mm f/1.2 and didn't hesitate.

2kGPnKq
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom