David Murphy
Veteran
This is a great discussion about viewfinders, vignetting, and brightness issues. I understand the points being presented and they are all good ones. I went ahead and bought the 50/1.2 AIS. I'll post a few photos on this thread when I get them. My F finder is a the standard non-metered eye level prism (I'm pretty old-school). I'm not sure which screen I have - I'll research it. I'll try to do some actual brightness testing with this lens and slower Nikon primes and report back.
As far as DOF and focusing is concerned, this is certainly a challenge at F1.2, but in practice I find that extra bit of speed is often the make-or-break factor in a natural light shot. One way to mitigate focus and DOF problems is to rattle off a lot of frames and just concentrate hard on keeping up with the subject.
As far as the GAS argument by Roger and others is concerned, yes I admit to a little of that, but I have two other grown children and there were not enough baby photos of them -- I was not too active with cameras in those years. I've already used this lens with natural light portraiture so I know it's up to the task, at least the way I work. I also enjoy night photography of urban settings and occasional astro photography so this lens will get a good work out. Of the fast 50's I've tried, this one is my favorite so far and it's not radioactive. The Pentax models would still be a possibility in the future for me since I've enjoyed the performance of Pentax SLR optics in the past.
As far as DOF and focusing is concerned, this is certainly a challenge at F1.2, but in practice I find that extra bit of speed is often the make-or-break factor in a natural light shot. One way to mitigate focus and DOF problems is to rattle off a lot of frames and just concentrate hard on keeping up with the subject.
As far as the GAS argument by Roger and others is concerned, yes I admit to a little of that, but I have two other grown children and there were not enough baby photos of them -- I was not too active with cameras in those years. I've already used this lens with natural light portraiture so I know it's up to the task, at least the way I work. I also enjoy night photography of urban settings and occasional astro photography so this lens will get a good work out. Of the fast 50's I've tried, this one is my favorite so far and it's not radioactive. The Pentax models would still be a possibility in the future for me since I've enjoyed the performance of Pentax SLR optics in the past.
redisburning
Well-known
congrats on the new lens and use it in your own and your kid's good health.
David Murphy
Veteran
Finally a couple of shots with the Nikkor 50 mm F1.2 AIS on the day of my sons birth six months ago. The camera was a Nikon F with an eye level non-metered prism. The film was FreeStyle Arista 100 Ultra EDU film self developed. These shots were all taken wide open (by necessity).
I'll upload some color shots later when I process them tonight. As many have warned, one cannot underestimate focusing issues at F1.2 - I humbly admit it is a challenge. Using this lens on my Nikon FM-10 (a Cosina product I am told) is probably easier due to the brighter viewfinder - a camera 60 years newer than the F, but somewhat inferior in other respects.
I will say this about the 50/1.2, it is possible to use it in just about any reasonably bright natural room light with ISO 100 film - that is a helluva advantage despite the challenges otherwise.
I'll upload some color shots later when I process them tonight. As many have warned, one cannot underestimate focusing issues at F1.2 - I humbly admit it is a challenge. Using this lens on my Nikon FM-10 (a Cosina product I am told) is probably easier due to the brighter viewfinder - a camera 60 years newer than the F, but somewhat inferior in other respects.
I will say this about the 50/1.2, it is possible to use it in just about any reasonably bright natural room light with ISO 100 film - that is a helluva advantage despite the challenges otherwise.
lynnb
Veteran
Hi David,
I love that second shot (both are special). And my belated congratulations on your new son.
Have you thought about the 105/2.5 or 85mm yet? (with apologies for kindling any more GAS)
Cheers,
Lynn
I love that second shot (both are special). And my belated congratulations on your new son.
Have you thought about the 105/2.5 or 85mm yet? (with apologies for kindling any more GAS)
Cheers,
Lynn
David Murphy
Veteran
Lynn, thanks for the remarks. Well yes I've thought of these lenses. I've owned the ancient rangefinder versions (the 85mm F2 in Contax rangefinder mount no less) - to the extent these have any overlap with the later day SLR versions, but I don't have any now. I do own a Soligor 135 mm F2 in Canon FD mount which I've not used too much, I bought it for astrophotography. It's really a little too long for portraiture in close quarters, but the speed is nice.
The AIS Nikon and Zeiss 85 mm F1.4 models seem to be the ones for low light - not terribly pricey for what they are.
The AIS Nikon and Zeiss 85 mm F1.4 models seem to be the ones for low light - not terribly pricey for what they are.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Don't forget Samyang's 85mm f/1.4 offering. Seems to be a hell of a lot of lens for the money.
I use the 50/1.2 AIS Nikkor on an F2 and an F3, and can heartily recommend the appropriate E screen for low-light work; but I'll happily trade the lens's better sharpness for the screw-mount Canon 50mm f/1.2's less busy rendering.
I use the 50/1.2 AIS Nikkor on an F2 and an F3, and can heartily recommend the appropriate E screen for low-light work; but I'll happily trade the lens's better sharpness for the screw-mount Canon 50mm f/1.2's less busy rendering.
CamB
Member
Nice pics - I have an unscanned roll where I have done the same (newborn, 50/1.2 AIS).
I missed this thread the first time around, but would say:
- watch out for focus shift - I checked mine on digital and it back focuses by slightly more than depth of field at F2.8 and F4 at 1m
- on an FM2 or FE2 if you press the stop down lever the screen stops getting brighter after F2 (so you see F2 depth of field at F1.2-2.0 I think?)
- I sold the Voigtlander 58/1.4 mentioned when I bought the 50/1.2. I have a suspicion it is the better lens (haven't taken enough photos to tell yet) but the 50/1.2 looks so nice on the camera and was a great price
- if you go wider I agree with the post above recommending the 28/2.8 if you don't want to spend too much money
I missed this thread the first time around, but would say:
- watch out for focus shift - I checked mine on digital and it back focuses by slightly more than depth of field at F2.8 and F4 at 1m
- on an FM2 or FE2 if you press the stop down lever the screen stops getting brighter after F2 (so you see F2 depth of field at F1.2-2.0 I think?)
- I sold the Voigtlander 58/1.4 mentioned when I bought the 50/1.2. I have a suspicion it is the better lens (haven't taken enough photos to tell yet) but the 50/1.2 looks so nice on the camera and was a great price
- if you go wider I agree with the post above recommending the 28/2.8 if you don't want to spend too much money
Mark C
Well-known
Nice shots. I like and use fast lenses and have been thinking about one of the Nikon 50/55's 1.2's as much for the look as the speed. I recently got a 28 f2 Nikkor for an amazing price from KEH and really like that lens. The 35 1.4 would probably be next for my use, but I do have that focal length and speed in Leica so not a priority.
The fast and wide combinations seem really useful to me; the fast longer lenses less so. I actually traded my 85/1.4 Zeiss for the 35 Summilux. The 85 was a wonderful lens, but was never useful to me; the 35 gets constant use. The 28 Nikkor is a bit of a learning experience for me, but I think it is going to be very handy at a very low light event this weekend.
The fast and wide combinations seem really useful to me; the fast longer lenses less so. I actually traded my 85/1.4 Zeiss for the 35 Summilux. The 85 was a wonderful lens, but was never useful to me; the 35 gets constant use. The 28 Nikkor is a bit of a learning experience for me, but I think it is going to be very handy at a very low light event this weekend.
ian_watts
Ian Watts
Both photos are great and, frankly, all the better for not being perfectly focussed or stopped down pixel perfect sharp.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Exactly. I have this lens and like it a lot.
I don't use it as much as my Summilux-R 50/1.4, however, because the 'Lux is lighter and a bit smaller.
I use both of them mostly fitted to a Sony A7 body, although I have Nikon F and Leica R8 bodies to use them with as well.
G
raid
Dad Photographer
Congratulations on getting a son, Dave.
David Murphy
Veteran
Raid thanks. Can't resist two more. The first is natural light and the second with a cheap flash on the F held slightly off the camera. The natural light shot really shows the interesting DOF issues at F1.2, and the flash show shows what a wonderful lens this Nikkor is stopped down a bit - one amazing performer really. Excuse the slightly cheesy color - home processed C41 and color adjusted a bit in Gimp - I need to get that Blix timing adjusted right.
David Murphy
Veteran
Whoa! I just checked the prices on the Samyang - I had no idea it was so inexpensive for what it is. The images on flickr taken with it certainly look nice.
DNG
Film Friendly
I have a Konica AR 57mm f/1.2, I use on my Fuji X-E2 (85/1.2 fov)...
But when I take photos of peoples heads, I use f/2.8-4 to insure good dof from the mouth, nose and eyes at least.
Yes, it is easier to focus at f/1.2 and close down, but, on a mirrorless, seeing the dof on a head shot is important to me.
The Bokeh at f/1.2 is very busy, but, cleans up by f/2.8 to be smoother
f4, profile, focus is on the temple/frame of glasses
Notice the nose piece is in focus also
CC14-Lr-010-2014 Dec 25-DSCF8570-Xmas at J-L-Jdns-XE2-KonicaAR57mm f12 by parbib-Non Street, on Flickr
f/1.2, same focus...(A tad soft also). but the nose piece is out-of-focus
CC14-Lr-008-2014 Dec 25-DSCF8567-Xmas at J-L-Jdns-XE2-KonicaAR57mm f12 by parbib-Non Street, on Flickr
Anyway, Nikon made a few versions, as did Canon, with different price points...the more expensive ones had more exotic glass (read man-made) in them.
Oh, the Canon L FD 50mm f/1.2 can have a cam that can get bent, and requires a donner lens of the same version to fix it., plus they are over priced anyway..
The Nikon may be the way to go...
But when I take photos of peoples heads, I use f/2.8-4 to insure good dof from the mouth, nose and eyes at least.
Yes, it is easier to focus at f/1.2 and close down, but, on a mirrorless, seeing the dof on a head shot is important to me.
The Bokeh at f/1.2 is very busy, but, cleans up by f/2.8 to be smoother
f4, profile, focus is on the temple/frame of glasses
Notice the nose piece is in focus also
CC14-Lr-010-2014 Dec 25-DSCF8570-Xmas at J-L-Jdns-XE2-KonicaAR57mm f12 by parbib-Non Street, on Flickr
f/1.2, same focus...(A tad soft also). but the nose piece is out-of-focus
CC14-Lr-008-2014 Dec 25-DSCF8567-Xmas at J-L-Jdns-XE2-KonicaAR57mm f12 by parbib-Non Street, on Flickr
Anyway, Nikon made a few versions, as did Canon, with different price points...the more expensive ones had more exotic glass (read man-made) in them.
Oh, the Canon L FD 50mm f/1.2 can have a cam that can get bent, and requires a donner lens of the same version to fix it., plus they are over priced anyway..
The Nikon may be the way to go...
David Murphy
Veteran
Stunning results. There is no question about the AR 57/1.2 living up to its rep. I agree that stopping down just a tad really snaps those low light portraits into focus neatly - not possible with all light and all films, but certainly something to keep firmly in mind technique-wise.
I have a Konica AR 57mm f/1.2, I use on my Fuji X-E2 (85/1.2 fov)...
But when I take photos of peoples heads, I use f/2.8-4 to insure good dof from the mouth, nose and eyes at least.
Yes, it is easier to focus at f/1.2 and close down, but, on a mirrorless, seeing the dof on a head shot is important to me.
The Bokeh at f/1.2 is very busy, but, cleans up by f/2.8 to be smoother
f4, profile, focus is on the temple/frame of glasses
Notice the nose piece is in focus also
CC14-Lr-010-2014 Dec 25-DSCF8570-Xmas at J-L-Jdns-XE2-KonicaAR57mm f12 by parbib-Non Street, on Flickr
f/1.2, same focus...(A tad soft also). but the nose piece is out-of-focus
CC14-Lr-008-2014 Dec 25-DSCF8567-Xmas at J-L-Jdns-XE2-KonicaAR57mm f12 by parbib-Non Street, on Flickr
Anyway, Nikon made a few versions, as did Canon, with different price points...the more expensive ones had more exotic glass (read man-made) in them.
Oh, the Canon L FD 50mm f/1.2 can have a cam that can get bent, and requires a donner lens of the same version to fix it., plus they are over priced anyway..
The Nikon may be the way to go...
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
About six or seven years ago, i bought a new Nikkor 50/1.2, inspired by seeing a good number of other photographers' images online. My own efforts, however brief, did not reward me similarly. I did not like the results at 1.2, and i already had other 1.4 and f2 lenses that did those apertures better and with less size/weight, so i sold the lens.
I don't know if the late manufacture lenses are different from the early versions, but i just didn't get images that were sharp enough, and the bokeh just didn't please me. As above, YMMV, but i wouldn't expect this lens to be a magic bullet in any sense.
If i were in your position, i'd get an AF camera with an AF 50/1.4 or 1.8 and figure the AF will get you more keepers than a slightly faster aperture. A Canon 50/1.4 or 1.8 is the bees'. If you're stuck on Nikon, a small F80 with the 50/1.8G would be nice. If you want to stay with manual focus, a Contax Aria and the Zeiss 50/1.4 will give you sharp images at 1.4, as opposed to the soft stuff you'll likely get from the Nikkor at 1.2-2.
I don't know if the late manufacture lenses are different from the early versions, but i just didn't get images that were sharp enough, and the bokeh just didn't please me. As above, YMMV, but i wouldn't expect this lens to be a magic bullet in any sense.
If i were in your position, i'd get an AF camera with an AF 50/1.4 or 1.8 and figure the AF will get you more keepers than a slightly faster aperture. A Canon 50/1.4 or 1.8 is the bees'. If you're stuck on Nikon, a small F80 with the 50/1.8G would be nice. If you want to stay with manual focus, a Contax Aria and the Zeiss 50/1.4 will give you sharp images at 1.4, as opposed to the soft stuff you'll likely get from the Nikkor at 1.2-2.
David Murphy
Veteran
One more with dim room light and Kodacolor 200. I need to get a cooling filter working if it doesn't cut the light all back all that much. This was handheld with an F, with some stupidly slow shutter speed for handheld use (probably 1/15 - I remember leaning on the wall to brace myself), and the focus was probably off (not easy to focus I can tell you). Still I like this lens. This was actually my 16 y/o son's birthday cake, but the baby was mesmerized by it.
I picked up a Nikon FM10 body recently and it might be an easier focus with it's 21st century viewfinder.
[/URL]
I picked up a Nikon FM10 body recently and it might be an easier focus with it's 21st century viewfinder.
David Murphy
Veteran
I'm an all mechanical shutter, manual focus guy, but I'd certainly like to try some Zeiss SLR lenses like the 50/1.4, which seems to have a following indeed - on the Contax S2 perhaps. It's on the wish list - with a lot of other stuff - funds limit such ambitions of course! Nikkor lenses may not be the best, but they are damed good for the money, mainly because of the large numbers produced for almost all of them which keeps prices within reason for the budget minded.