David Murphy
Veteran
I have a son due next month and I plan (for a while) to move more away from my passion for collecting (mostly) 35mm rangefinder cameras and lenses and back to taking photos (where I started!). I've found in the past that a 35mm SLR + 50mm F1.2 + fast film + natural light makes an excellent combination for photographing children at home. I own the Canon 50mm F1.2 in LTM and while it's a fantastic lens and I love it, I would be the first to admit it's not up to par with modern SLR super-speed lenses for critical work when used at its fastest settings. My budget would allow me to purchase a used Nikon 50mm F1.2 AIS or a Konica Hexanon 57mm F1.2. I once borrowed Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS on an F body and was deeply impressed by its quality wide-open (amazed in fact), but I don't have any experience with the Konica 57/1.2, although I do own some slower Konica lenses and have always admired the quality of the results they produce.
The Konica 57/1.2 seems to come in black or chrome ringed versions and I was wondering what the differences were optically if any. There is a gentleman named Weber who is hawking restored versions of these lenses, at steeper prices than usual, but perhaps they are worth it since he claims to refurbish them well. The other super-speed I might consider would be a Pentax for K mount, based on the awesome results I've had from Pentax SLR lenses in the past. Any thoughts or experiences to relate are welcome!
The Konica 57/1.2 seems to come in black or chrome ringed versions and I was wondering what the differences were optically if any. There is a gentleman named Weber who is hawking restored versions of these lenses, at steeper prices than usual, but perhaps they are worth it since he claims to refurbish them well. The other super-speed I might consider would be a Pentax for K mount, based on the awesome results I've had from Pentax SLR lenses in the past. Any thoughts or experiences to relate are welcome!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Photographing unpredictably moving subjects (small children) with a extremely shallow DOF lens might be considered a art of its own. But if you aren't into particularly difficult lens juggling and "nailed the eyes in spite of the dynamics of the situation" accomplishments, any f/2 (which you'll presumably already have by the dozen) would give you a much higher percentage of at least as good portraits.
That is, you'd better admit that you suffer a bout of GAS, and buy what you really dream of, for whatever irrational reason - the technical pretext is not going to work out the way you make believe, and rationalizing your decision might have you end up with the less desirable choice...
That is, you'd better admit that you suffer a bout of GAS, and buy what you really dream of, for whatever irrational reason - the technical pretext is not going to work out the way you make believe, and rationalizing your decision might have you end up with the less desirable choice...
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143144
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143144
Totally agree!
The first pix of my daughter were with a Canon 50mm f1.2.
I used my old side kick, Ziggy the M3.
I wish I had used a less dreamy look lens..
One needs depth of field, not out of focus globes..
A f2 lens is usually sharper and better at every aperture.
I hate the look of "fast" lenses.
I have used the 50mm Noctilux f1.0 (Leitz loaned me one)
The Pentax f1.2 on a Pentax.
The Canon f1.2 collimated to my M3.
The depth of field is minute.
Time flies and the baby is replaced with a very fast moving child.
If you pose children, then you need nothing more than a Brownie box camera, sun behind your shoulder!
Enjoy your child, frustrations come with the territory!
Carry a camera at all times.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143144
Totally agree!
The first pix of my daughter were with a Canon 50mm f1.2.
I used my old side kick, Ziggy the M3.
I wish I had used a less dreamy look lens..
One needs depth of field, not out of focus globes..
A f2 lens is usually sharper and better at every aperture.
I hate the look of "fast" lenses.
I have used the 50mm Noctilux f1.0 (Leitz loaned me one)
The Pentax f1.2 on a Pentax.
The Canon f1.2 collimated to my M3.
The depth of field is minute.
Time flies and the baby is replaced with a very fast moving child.
If you pose children, then you need nothing more than a Brownie box camera, sun behind your shoulder!
Enjoy your child, frustrations come with the territory!
Carry a camera at all times.
sparrow6224
Well-known
I'm with Sevo that you're as well off with a 50/2 -- but of course your son won't be that mobile for almost a year or more: they reach a moment where it appears their faces simply never stop moving but not for a while. Even while they're crawling they're pretty easy to get. I love the AIS Nikkor 50/1.2. If you have an F or F2 I also love the 85/1.8. You can occasionally find one that's been Ai'd if you have a later camera. The 50 requires you to be closer, to the point where you're going to distract the child (again, later in his life, past 1 year). 85 and 105 might prove more useful. The Nikkor 105/2.5 in any version is justly legendary but there's something about 85 that is just a good length for kids.
sparrow6224
Well-known
By the way, the 50/1.2 Nikkor is superb at f/2, better at that aperture than any other Nikon 50.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Desr David,
First, congratulations: May your son bring you joy.
Second, how "critical" is baby portraiture? I'd have thought that mood and the moment would trump everything. In other words, what are you worrying about? Are you sure that you are not just suffering from GAS?
Cheers,
R.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
It'll be a while before your boy is moving about enough that shooting at f/1.2 becomes challenging; and even then there'll be plenty of occasions where he loses himself completely in whatever he's doing and stays still enough for you to get the shot.
redisburning
Well-known
for this application your best bet is the Nikkor, as it's going to be the best at close distance.
the Konica, and the better Minolta f1.2, are too long to really be useful as general purpose lenses IMO. I would definitely prefer a true 50, or even a bit wider, for an f1.2 lens, but that's me.
the OM 50/1.2 is the newest of the f1.2 lenses other than the Contax 55, iirc. it is your real alternative to the Nikon, I think. It has surprisingly good performance out of the center for a fast 50, is better corrected in the focus plane for LoCA and a really nice transition to OoF which is an oft overlooked part of lenses. It also keeps contrast well enough as you approach MFD, though it is still best at infinity (unlike the Nikkor, which is the opposite).
as far as this discussion goes, whatever. sell the lens when you're done with it. I owned a 35 biogon for 1 ****ing week I was happy to try it out. It wasn't for me but I enjoyed it and paid a "rental fee" of like 20 dollars. If you own the Nikkor for a year you probably won't even lose that much. We have a classified section just for that, it turns out.
the Konica, and the better Minolta f1.2, are too long to really be useful as general purpose lenses IMO. I would definitely prefer a true 50, or even a bit wider, for an f1.2 lens, but that's me.
the OM 50/1.2 is the newest of the f1.2 lenses other than the Contax 55, iirc. it is your real alternative to the Nikon, I think. It has surprisingly good performance out of the center for a fast 50, is better corrected in the focus plane for LoCA and a really nice transition to OoF which is an oft overlooked part of lenses. It also keeps contrast well enough as you approach MFD, though it is still best at infinity (unlike the Nikkor, which is the opposite).
as far as this discussion goes, whatever. sell the lens when you're done with it. I owned a 35 biogon for 1 ****ing week I was happy to try it out. It wasn't for me but I enjoyed it and paid a "rental fee" of like 20 dollars. If you own the Nikkor for a year you probably won't even lose that much. We have a classified section just for that, it turns out.
VinceC
Veteran
What some of the nay-sayers haven't said is that a fast lens (1.2) is much easier to focus on an SLR, even if stopped down to 1.4 or 2 or whatever.
I'd go with the Nikkor unless someone chimes in with examples from the Konika. The Nikkor is a known quantity from a manufacturer that purposefully optimized its fast lenses for portrait-distance shooting.
I'd go with the Nikkor unless someone chimes in with examples from the Konika. The Nikkor is a known quantity from a manufacturer that purposefully optimized its fast lenses for portrait-distance shooting.
mfogiel
Veteran
There are a few things to remember:
1- most older f1.2 lenses suffer from the focus shift
2- as noted above, a manual focus SLR is not ideal for moving subjects (kids)
3- if you like the mellow bokeh wide open, beware of the Konica 57/1.2 because of the rear vignetting - creates quadratic bokeh
4- for reasons 1,2 and 3, I'd think about something like Nikon f100 with the Sigma 50/1.4 or even the latest Nikkor 50/1.4
5- if you want to stick to the original idea, i'd try Pentax A 50/1.2 - not super sharp wide open, but beautiful signature and a pleasure to use, plus the bodies are really cheap
1- most older f1.2 lenses suffer from the focus shift
2- as noted above, a manual focus SLR is not ideal for moving subjects (kids)
3- if you like the mellow bokeh wide open, beware of the Konica 57/1.2 because of the rear vignetting - creates quadratic bokeh
4- for reasons 1,2 and 3, I'd think about something like Nikon f100 with the Sigma 50/1.4 or even the latest Nikkor 50/1.4
5- if you want to stick to the original idea, i'd try Pentax A 50/1.2 - not super sharp wide open, but beautiful signature and a pleasure to use, plus the bodies are really cheap
Bille
Well-known
The 57/1.2 Hexanon is radioactive, all versions. Are you comfortable with that and a newborn at home?
David Murphy
Veteran
Radioactive eh - OK that's a deal breaker for me! Looks like it will be a Nikon, although I'll keep an eye out for the Pentax models. By the way, does anyone have an opinion on the Pentax SMC 50/1.2 vs. the Pentax A version (optically that is - I know there are iris control differences). The SMC's cost less - the used ones are comparable in price to the Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS.
Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouLbDd3YOTA
http://warrenlowe.com/2013/10/04/radioacitve-camera-lenses-have-you-got-one/
Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouLbDd3YOTA
http://warrenlowe.com/2013/10/04/radioacitve-camera-lenses-have-you-got-one/
craygc
Well-known
Its no easier than an f/2 lens. You cant see anymore light through the view finder at f/1.4 or f/1.2
David Murphy
Veteran
Not correct, an F1.2 lens presents brighter viewfinder image than a slower lens. With auto iris action the lens is wide open until one depresses the shutter release and then the iris instantly stops down to its user selected setting. An F1.2 lens thus admits 2.8 X as much light to the viewfinder as an F2 lens when framing and focusing (the square of the ratio of 2/1.2). Fast lenses are often dramatically brighter than slow lenses to the eye on SLR's.
grandallj
Grainy
I'd go with the Nikon, if only because it will whet your appetite for the wonderful Nikkor 85/1.4 AIS.
BillBingham2
Registered User
And then the 35/1.4.......
If you love the combo go for the Nikkor 1.2. You might look into the 85/1.8, my first and favorite lens of all time.
I wish I had gone with the 35/1.4 rather than the 24/2.8, though each are great. I have a 28/2.8 AIS that is perhaps the best wideangle lens Nikon ever built (at least IMHO). It focuses almost to macro, very little distortion (compared to my 24) and is SHARP.
I really enjoyed a Bessa L and 25/4 Snapshot lens when my kids were younger, but I agree with your approach to with a FAST 50mm lens being a great option.
Congrats on the new little one. You are a very lucky man.
B2
Robert Lai
Well-known
My experience with the Nikkors
My experience with the Nikkors
I've had all of the Nikkor 50mm lenses at one time. Both the f/1.2 AIS (not NOCT) and the 1.4 AIS lens have horrible barrel distortion and curvature of field. You cannot focus in the center using the focus aids, then recompose. You will be out of focus. The same problem happens with the 35 f/1.4 AIS.
The 50mm f/1.4 has particularly ugly bokeh also, wide open.
Those fast lenses are all gone (sold).
You really are better off with the 50mm f/1.8 AI, 50mm f/2 AI, or the 55 f/2.8 Micro Nikkor AIS. They have far less distortion, and are plenty bright to focus with.
The only Nikon mount f/1.4 lens that I found to be very nice, with limited barrel distortion is the CV 58mm f/1.4. This 7 element lens is based on a Topcon optic from the 1960s. It has higher contrast wide open than the Nikkors, which always look "dreamy". It also has a flatter field than the Nikkors.
My experience with the Nikkors
I've had all of the Nikkor 50mm lenses at one time. Both the f/1.2 AIS (not NOCT) and the 1.4 AIS lens have horrible barrel distortion and curvature of field. You cannot focus in the center using the focus aids, then recompose. You will be out of focus. The same problem happens with the 35 f/1.4 AIS.
The 50mm f/1.4 has particularly ugly bokeh also, wide open.
Those fast lenses are all gone (sold).
You really are better off with the 50mm f/1.8 AI, 50mm f/2 AI, or the 55 f/2.8 Micro Nikkor AIS. They have far less distortion, and are plenty bright to focus with.
The only Nikon mount f/1.4 lens that I found to be very nice, with limited barrel distortion is the CV 58mm f/1.4. This 7 element lens is based on a Topcon optic from the 1960s. It has higher contrast wide open than the Nikkors, which always look "dreamy". It also has a flatter field than the Nikkors.
craygc
Well-known
Nope... Everything you say is correct about how much light reaches the film/sensor but the construction of the light path through the focus screen and prism of an SLR wont allow more light than what is shown by f/2. Put the lens on a camera with DoF preview and with it depressed start opening the aperture; after f/2 the brightness wont change.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
This only depends upon the groundglass/focusing screen. Use a screen with a coarse grit like a Nikon D screen and you'll get all the light from f/1.2. Modern "britescreens" are optimized to an f/2.5 max aperture but giving the appearance of a much brighter finder. This is why using a lens faster than f/2.8 on a modern DSLR with the stock focusing screen doesn't work as well off-axis as replacing that screen with a coarser, yet dimmer alternative. If one uses exclusively fast lenses, f/1.4 or faster, the difference is amazing. My D3 is proof of this after I hacked a Canon Ec-B screen to fit into my camera.
Focusing my 50mm f/1.2 wide open then stopping down to f/2 there is an obvious dimming effect in the finder.
Phil Forrest
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
YMMV. Given that we were talking pre AF age film cameras, no. It is a design decision, no universal law of cameras - the field lens in the finder must be matched to the lens aperture, if it is too narrow angled, you get vignetting and/or a in-finder light loss with fast lenses, if it is too wide, you dim the finder image in general. But the field lenses of pre AF cameras were still reasonably well adapted to fast lenses - if only because fast primes still were the main tool in press photography and the meter systems generally relied on post-prism meter cells.
Super-fast, f/1.2 and up, always was scratching the limits, with visible vignetting and the need for exposure correction factors (by screen - Canon and Nikon had quite a few special screens in variants matched to different lenses). But by f/1.4 the loss was small enough to warrant no correcting factor.
Finder vignetting got worse by the F3HP, where a meter system independent of the screen relieved Nikon of considering screen loss factors, and where the high eyepoint created extra losses towards the edges with lens/screen mismatches. But it wasn't until their AF cameras that they threw all considerations for fast primes over board and matched the finder field lens to zooms (with a maximum f/2.8) - and even then they still had a few "fast lens" screens as F4/5 accessories.