How good is your 50mm f1.4 Ai Nikkor?

I have an AI'd 50mm 1.4 SC that I bought new in 1973, and it has veiling flare, low contrast, etc. When you shine a bright light through it you can see that it also has an even coating of very fine dust all over at least one of the interior groups. It is the only 1.4 lens that I own, so I'm thinking about getting it cleaned. However, I also have the 50mm 2 AI, a 50mm 1.8 AIS, and an AI'd 55mm 3.5 micro lens, so I'm probably crazy.
 
I've got the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor-S Auto non-AI and it positively glows wide open. Not from internal dust, because it has been rebuilt and cleaned thoroughly. I think it's just the design of the lens. It sharpens up nicely at f2, and is like a modern lens from f2.8 on up. Also have the 50mm f1.2 AIS lens. It too is pretty soft at f1.2, but doesn't glow like the non-AI does. It also needs to be stopped down to f2 to be practical on my D700.
 
mine its too soft wide open but it looks decent at f2.8

Nikkor-s Auto non-AI 50mm f/1.4 @2.8 // Nikon F
Portra 400
img035i.jpg
 
Depends on what you're shooting. That's what I like about the Nikkor-S Auto, when you want that soft focus glow, you've got it at f1.4. When you want it sharp, go to f2.8 and above.

Did a series on an Iowa town on a foggy night, and the glow at f1.4 was perfect. Also, street portraits of folks in their later years are more flattering with the added softness.
 
kshapero said:
yes keep it at f2. With the D700's superior low light performance it should be find. Or better yet get an AIS 50/1.8. Smaller, cheaper and sharper.
Click to expand...

Agreed agreed agreed. garbage lens. 1.8 or early 2.0 way better.

It is the worst Nikon lens I own. I use it for a paperweight.
 
I've had the 50 1.8 series E which I sold when I got a 50 1.4 AI, and I liked them both so much that the 1.4 has been sitting in a drawer for the last twenty years.
In my opinion the 50 is a useless focal length (too short to be long and too long to be wide) regardless of its image quality.
 
rbsinto said:
I've had the 50 1.8 series E which I sold when I got a 50 1.4 AI, and I liked them both so much that the 1.4 has been sitting in a drawer for the last twenty years.
In my opinion the 50 is a useless focal length (too short to be long and too long to be wide) regardless of its image quality.
Click to expand...

I think the exact opposite just long enough and just wide enough!
 
Range Loser said:
I recently sold my 50mm f1.4 Ai Nikkor. When used wide open on my D700 it was quite soft and hazy, highlights glowed like ghosts!
Click to expand...

From the excellent tests online by Marco Cavina, it seems that the 50/1.4 AI favored resolution over contrast wide-open, while the previous 50/1.4 Nikkor-SC had more contrast wideopen (particularly in corners) with less resolution (center resolution indeed lower wideopen).

BTW there are at least two optical versions of the pre-AI 50/1.4 lenses, the switchover done around 1967.

Enjoy:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Nikkor_50_1,4_S_Auto/00_pag.htm

PS - Marco Cavina, if you're reading this -- you're my hero!

stupid leica said:
i've had or used pretty much every Nikon F mount 50mm.
5.8cm f1.4 NKJ -great lens, but can be finicky
50mm f2.0 H AI -one of Nikon's best ever in my opinion
Click to expand...

Agree with the assessments above.

I owned the 50/1.4 Nikkor-S and found it a good lens, now i have the Nikkor-SC which i have not used enough because i find the 50/2 more convenient. Also the S-C is a giant monster compared to my (insert superlative here) Canon FD 50/1.4.

On the other hand my old 5.8cm f1.4 Nikkor-S is... well i'd rather keep hush about this lens. Suffice to say that i will never sell it.

I also had the 50/1.8 AI with "long nose" design and it was probably the sharpest 50/1.8 or 2.0 lens I owned. But the rendering was too "harsh" for me for some subjective reason, so I sold it.

rbsinto said:
In my opinion the 50 is a useless focal length (too short to be long and too long to be wide) regardless of its image quality.
Click to expand...

That's the idea, that's why it's a "normal" lens, for when you don't want to have neither wide or long-focus effects.

I found 45mm to about 55mm my most used FL. I would say 80% of my pics were made with a normal lens, and I own 45 SLR lenses, spanning the angles of view from 19mm to 300mm.
 
I have the earlier K type 1.4/50 as well as the AI-S version. I prefer the former, but both are not up to the Canon FD 1.4/50, nor to the Nikkor 1.8 and 2.0 50...
 
I have been collecting nikon 50mm ai and ai-s lenses lately. ive been given one for free, got two that were used as lens caps for cheap film bodies I bought (so basically free as well) and found a year ago the first version, the long nose one, of the 50mm-e lens still in the box with my dads old telescope stuff. All have performed well for me. and shooting in B&W I have not really found much difference in the 6 I own once I stop down to F4. I very rarely shoot wide open so I have different needs than those who do. Funny, I seem to prefer the E lens lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom