just in theory - trading 1.2 for 1.5?

[Rafael]

I can lend you a good J-3 if you just want to try out the Sonnar look for a while. 🙂

I may be missing something here, but the 50/1.4 that Noci already has is a Sonnar.

 

[noci]

I thought the 1.4 is a Gauss design or something like that..

 

[Rafael]

No, the Nikkor 50/1.4 is a Sonnar. See HERE (you have to scroll down a bit).

 

[ferider]

Like Marc said: it's a "Sonnar design" (have to be careful here not to offend any Nikkor fans ...) lens. Similar to the Canon 50/1.5 with some differences wrt flare, speed, close up performance and optimized aperture.

Roland.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What: swap one grievously outdated fast lens for another?

Why bother? Of its time -- half a century ago -- the Canon was pretty good (though I'd back an original 50/1.5 Nokton against it any day). If you can't take good pictures with the Canon, you ain't likely to take better pics with anything else of similar vintage.

On the other hand. almost any modern lens is better. Either stick with the Canon or buy a C-Sonnar or new Nokton instead.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The later S-Mount Nikon 50/1.4 that came out ~1964 was the same optical formula as the Canon 50/1.2, as per "Photographic Lenses", Neblette 1965 edition. This lens was never available in Leica thread mount. The new S-Mount Nikkor 50/1.4 is a "tweaked" version of this lens, and is the sharpest Nikon F1.4 lens to date.

The original Sonnar formula lens is quite good, optimized for close-up and wide-open. Popular Photography did a test of this lens in ~1992, and it gave quite credible performance. The 1950 Nikkor 8.5cm F2 performed quite well, surprisingly close to the AF-Nikkor 85/1.8.

 

[dexdog]

What: swap one grievously outdated fast lens for another?

Why bother? Of its time -- half a century ago -- the Canon was pretty good (though I'd back an original 50/1.5 Nokton against it any day). If you can't take good pictures with the Canon, you ain't likely to take better pics with anything else of similar vintage.

On the other hand. almost any modern lens is better. Either stick with the Canon or buy a C-Sonnar or new Nokton instead.

Cheers,

R.

I agree that almost any modern lens is better- but sometimes, better is not what I am looking for. I like old RF Canon, Nikon and Contax cameras because of the way the lenses made for these cameras render images. Example: I am struggling about whether to keep or sell my Millenium Nikkor 50/1.4- While I think that the new lens is superior to the older one in many respects (especially resolution of fine detail), I actually use it less often than the original version.

Same situation with the CV 25mm LTM vs the old Canon 25mm LTM. The CV kicks the Canon's butt on resolution and contrast, but I sold the CV and kept the Canon.

I also prefer old camera bodies to new ones- I have a bunch of Contax RF bodies, as well as a Bessa R2C. The R2C is rarely used, while the Contax II bodies (3 in all), get used all the time.

I offer this in response to your "on the other hand " comment. If I want a modern rendition in a photo, I will use a Canon 40D and 17-55 lens.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've got most of the Modern Nikon Macro lenses, the 60/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4, 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom. They are sharp. I use them for work. At home, I prefer lenses were not designed using a computer. Although, I did pull out the 1970 Pentax 85/4.5 Ultra-Achromatic today. It's just different. Probably one of the last uncoated camera lenses ever made.

 

[noci]

I agree with dex on many counts.. like him, I am interested in the rendition of images that vintage lenses produce. I have enough modern glass, too, so the original thinking about swapping the 1.2 for something else was just based on my initial experiences of its special kind of outdatedness. have no worries, I do not believe in the glass determining my artistic performance.. 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree with dex on many counts.. like him, I am interested in the rendition of images that vintage lenses produce. I have enough modern glass, too, so the original thinking about swapping the 1.2 for something else was just based on my initial experiences of its special kind of outdatedness.

But this is so personal that the only way to find out is to try. You'd feel a right charlie if you swapped the 1,2 for a 1,5 and then found you preferred the 1,2.

So the choices are:

1 Swap, and see if you're right.

2 Buy the 1,5 as well, and sell the one you like less.

3 Stick with the 1,2 and concentrate on taking pics with it.

Personally I'd back 3, followed reasonably closely by 2, followed at a long remove by 1.

EDIT: Actually, there's Choice 4, implicit in your post -- use a modern lens as well as the old one... But the OP appeared to ask for better quality in some way, and 'better' as distinct from 'different' points strongly towards 'newer' as far as I am concerned, based on sharpness, contrast, illumination, etc.

Cheers,

R.

 

[noci]

ah no, you must have misread my initial post, as there I was placing the 1.2 as actually not differentiated enough against the other lenses I have- if I was looking for formal qualities I'd use a 35 1.2 nokton or something like that, which'd beat the Canon on all counts.
I'll vote for pt. 3 and get out more 😉

best wishes,

Max

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The signature of the 50/1.2 is fairly unique. Lower contrast, does well on highlights and shadow detail. But there's something about the out-of-focus areas that is unique. Use it up to F4 for portraits/close-ups, and the background disintegrates into a matte screen.

 

[noci]

so, been shooting more with it, recently, and am really glad I didn't give this lens away- thanks for the sound advice, guys! .. pictures coming up, really incredible ....

Max

 

[rxmd]

Hi Max,

I'd like to borrow that lens at some point for a roll or two if that's fine with you. (I can offer you a good J-3 in the meantime in exchange, for that 1,5 Sonnar look. 😉)

Philipp

 

[noci]

yep no prob., let's meet next week for coffee or so & look at our 1.2 results at a later date!

 

[Sonnar2]

I wouldn't trade my 50/1.5 Canon for any 50/1.2 with exception of the 1st gen. Noctilux. 😉

It's a very usefull lens for almost any use except close focus and wide open, and delivers bright performance and pleasant results.

 

[bubba got a P]

rxmd: ''May contain traces of nut'' -- that's funny.

rxmd: ''May contain traces of nut'' -- that's funny.

Pardon, I tried to post a NT title, but apparently there has to be a message.:bang: