And now for something totally different..

robert blu said:
I think when you have the 1.4 you do not need the 1.2 as for the increased low light capacity.

What makes me curious about that 1.2 lens is the 9 instead of 6 aperture blades.

Just curious by now ...
Click to expand...

Robert,

The Nikkor 50/1.2 Ai-s is nice enough that is one of the few Ai-s lenses that Nikon still produces, new, today.
The difference between it and the 1.4 isn’t so much about the small extra light capturing ability as it is about the rendering, which is fairly different from the 1.4. Most think so, anyway.
You can get some idea of the differences by comparing them on flickr, looking up results for each lens.

First the 1.2
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nikkor 50mm f1.2 Ai-s

Then the 1.4
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nikkor 50mm f1.4 Ai-s

If you want creamy bokeh, the 1.2 Ai-s is hard to beat. YMMV as always.
 
Thanks Larry for the links. I went through the many photos and for sure the 1.2 has a very nice rendering, the 1.4 is not bad but in certain light situation exagonal shapes appear in the background.
 
So I scanned my film with the shots that I took with the 50mm 2.5 Despina..

And.
Amusingly normal. Sharp. Even wide open. No weird bokeh. No vignetting. No swirls. I couldn't even make it do anything weird with the drop in shaped aperture plate. Guess that needs bright back lit high light type scenarios.

So after all this, the 50 just behaves like a normal lens. But is a bit of a pain to use! (just cuz it does not have auto stop down).

Shot using Nikon N2000, Lomo Despina 50 2.8, Ilford Pan F 50, Cinestill DF96 Monobath







 
Your photos are good, not surprise for me that Lomo can make interesting lenses, I "admit" to own and use sometimes a couple of them !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom