Ricoh
Well-known
Not sure if this fits within the Optics Theory topic area (theory is more to do with lens equations, right?!) but where else to post...?
I’ve got the gas again and have been looking at the results wide open from the f1.2 version, thinking how can I justify spending the dosh when I already have the f1.4?
The difference is only 1/2 a stop, but fully wide-eyed the 1.2 is a stunner. But is the difference worth it ....any opinions supported by images?
PS I started looking at the 2nd hand prices on eBay and then did a Google search to establish the 50mm f1.2 Ai-s is still manufactured. On the one hand I’m staggered at the low price differential between 2nd hand and new, and on the other that Nikon still make this lens.
I’ve got the gas again and have been looking at the results wide open from the f1.2 version, thinking how can I justify spending the dosh when I already have the f1.4?
The difference is only 1/2 a stop, but fully wide-eyed the 1.2 is a stunner. But is the difference worth it ....any opinions supported by images?
PS I started looking at the 2nd hand prices on eBay and then did a Google search to establish the 50mm f1.2 Ai-s is still manufactured. On the one hand I’m staggered at the low price differential between 2nd hand and new, and on the other that Nikon still make this lens.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
There’s a reason that the 1.2 is still manufactured, and there is a reason that used 50/1.2 Ai-s lenses cost more than the 1.4, and the reason isn’t rarity. It’s not the half stop that matters (and a half stop in and of itself obviously wouldn’t matter, it’s just a half stop); it’s a very different overall rendering.
I’m sure I have 1.4 lens images here and there, but they aren’t catalogued for easy access, so I’m useless for comparison images in this case, but following flickr tags for both lenses will yield hundreds of images for both lenses, so the comparison is pretty easy to find.
Whether it matters enough to pay the extra freight is a separate issue, and it’s certainly possible someone might like the 1.4 more, though personally I don’t know why one would, outside of cost. I’ve kept the 50/1.2 Ai-s , which I bought a newly manufactured sample of a few years ago, after having an early one, just because I liked it so much, and sold off the 1.4.
Everybody’s different, that’s just my take, but I’m “overly” concerned with bokeh, and how the picture looks.
I’m sure I have 1.4 lens images here and there, but they aren’t catalogued for easy access, so I’m useless for comparison images in this case, but following flickr tags for both lenses will yield hundreds of images for both lenses, so the comparison is pretty easy to find.
Whether it matters enough to pay the extra freight is a separate issue, and it’s certainly possible someone might like the 1.4 more, though personally I don’t know why one would, outside of cost. I’ve kept the 50/1.2 Ai-s , which I bought a newly manufactured sample of a few years ago, after having an early one, just because I liked it so much, and sold off the 1.4.
Everybody’s different, that’s just my take, but I’m “overly” concerned with bokeh, and how the picture looks.
lukx
Well-known
I have the lens, it is nice, well made with nicely dampened focus. But very heavy.
Positive:
- 9 blades help avoid the 'geometric' bokeh shape that many Nikon lenses have (that I dislike a lot)
- creamy look wide open
- nice and sharp stopped down
- Build quality
Negative:
I find it hard to focus wide open; I suspect that there is some focus shift. Since even SLRs are not "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" regarding focus because you see through the lens at about f2.8, this can be frustrating at times. I find myself stopping down to f2 often to get more predictable results.
It is heavy and I think it looks a little goofy with its rounded shape. (The contemporary cameras were blocky, so I want blocky lenses!)
Since you mention price: it seems these lenses will not lose much value when you use them carefully. So you could think of it as binding capital rather than spending the money never to be seen again. But then again, with this rationale we'd all be broke in no time with shelves full of nice gear...
Positive:
- 9 blades help avoid the 'geometric' bokeh shape that many Nikon lenses have (that I dislike a lot)
- creamy look wide open
- nice and sharp stopped down
- Build quality
Negative:
I find it hard to focus wide open; I suspect that there is some focus shift. Since even SLRs are not "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" regarding focus because you see through the lens at about f2.8, this can be frustrating at times. I find myself stopping down to f2 often to get more predictable results.
It is heavy and I think it looks a little goofy with its rounded shape. (The contemporary cameras were blocky, so I want blocky lenses!)
Since you mention price: it seems these lenses will not lose much value when you use them carefully. So you could think of it as binding capital rather than spending the money never to be seen again. But then again, with this rationale we'd all be broke in no time with shelves full of nice gear...
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Well, when you need it, you need it. I buy lenses. In general, I don't sell them. And for the first 10 years of my photography, I got by without a 1.4 lens. Then I went along just fine for another 15 years of so, before considering an f:1 lens. And then another 10 years before I came across a Nikon 50/1.2. Didn't "need" it. But definitely wanted it. So now I have it. And I won't be letting it go.
Bottom line, it isn't about speed -- and it never is. You can always buy a tripod for $50 that will cost much less than a lens that is faster than what you already have. It is instead about the optical rendering of that lens at that maximum aperture. Remember, as you stop a lens down, the difference between your $1000 optic and a free pin-hole made out of tin foil diminishes considerably.
Bottom line, it isn't about speed -- and it never is. You can always buy a tripod for $50 that will cost much less than a lens that is faster than what you already have. It is instead about the optical rendering of that lens at that maximum aperture. Remember, as you stop a lens down, the difference between your $1000 optic and a free pin-hole made out of tin foil diminishes considerably.
Robert Lai
Well-known
Back in 2006 or so, I did a comparison of the 50 1.2 AIS, 50 1.4 AIS, and 50 1.8 AI at night. Range about 100 feet to the target (my home), and with street lights in the picture to check flare.
From f/1.2 (clearly), to about f/2.8, the 1.2 lens was the clear winner.
The 1.4 lens was the worst, with a lot of veiling flare wide open.
The 1.2 lens had greater contrast than even the 1.8 lens at 1.8 or f/2.
I've seen this replicated elsewhere online, and they came to the same conclusion. At the wide apertures, the 1.2 lens is far better than the 1.4, and even the 1.8.
The only downside to the 1.2 is that there is a lot of barrel distortion. Don't take pictures of people. It makes them look "fat".
I've sold the 50 1.8, and the 50 1.4. I still own a 50mm f/1.2.
From f/1.2 (clearly), to about f/2.8, the 1.2 lens was the clear winner.
The 1.4 lens was the worst, with a lot of veiling flare wide open.
The 1.2 lens had greater contrast than even the 1.8 lens at 1.8 or f/2.
I've seen this replicated elsewhere online, and they came to the same conclusion. At the wide apertures, the 1.2 lens is far better than the 1.4, and even the 1.8.
The only downside to the 1.2 is that there is a lot of barrel distortion. Don't take pictures of people. It makes them look "fat".
I've sold the 50 1.8, and the 50 1.4. I still own a 50mm f/1.2.
This is my experience, too, with all three lenses.
I actually like the rounded shape.
Ended up going with the 1.8 pancake, sold the 1.4 and 1.2.
I actually like the rounded shape.
Ended up going with the 1.8 pancake, sold the 1.4 and 1.2.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Here's a comparison of the f/1.2 AI-S lens with the f/1.4 AF-D, the Zeiss f/1.4 Planar, and the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokon: https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/...-a-set-of-superior-50mm-lenses-of-the-f-mount. Based on this article, if I was going to invest $400+ in a fast 50-ish manual focus lens, I would go for the Voigtlander. (I'm quite happy with my f/1.4 AI-S, though.)
Ricoh
Well-known
Only gone and ordered the 50 f1.2 from that long river in Brazil. Quick delivery by Jeff Bezos. He can have a ‘nice cup of tea’ when he arrives!
Ricoh
Well-known
Thanks all for your thoughts in reply (I forgot to mention earlier).
AAlfano, I found your comparison interesting at various aperture settings, but I think the single reason I want the f1.2 is for the wide-eyed experience, and I’m with Larry Cloetta in the ‘I like bokeh’ user group.
AAlfano, I found your comparison interesting at various aperture settings, but I think the single reason I want the f1.2 is for the wide-eyed experience, and I’m with Larry Cloetta in the ‘I like bokeh’ user group.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
I'm sure you'll love the f/1.2 then. Post some photos when you get it!
As for myself, I have a hard enough time focusing accurately at large apertures, so I'll stick with my 50mm AI-converted f/2 and f/1.4 AI-S lenses and keep lusting after the Nokton.
Last edited:
Ricoh
Well-known
Will do, I’m hoping Mr Bezos will hand deliver this weekend!
gavinlg
Veteran
I never liked the f1.4 ai-s. Actually preferred the very old Nikkor-s f1.4's. I'd be interested in your findings with the f1.2!
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
gavinlg
Veteran
I found it fairly unusable at a f1.4 basically. Glowy and hazy and lacking 'structure'.
Ricoh
Well-known
Ah, no problemento hijacking the thread, please broaden as anyone sees fit.
PS Mr Bezos is delivering tomorrow - just one more sleep!
Timmyjoe
Veteran
This was my experience with the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AIS lens as well. Never felt I nailed focus wide open, or even at f1.4. Ended up using it from f2, which kind of killed the whole point of an f1.2 lens. So I sold it.
Best,
-Tim
Ricoh
Well-known
So why exactly does one see through the lens at f2.8 when the lens is fully open at f1.2, (as lukx posted earlier, and Timmyjoe agrees)?
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I bought the Nikon Ais 1.2/50 new some 12 years ago. It's a keeper. It's on my FM3A. Lock down rules permitting, I'll take it for a walk in the coming days. Cheers, OtL
lukx
Well-known
Someone with more more knowledge might correct me on this, but I think it's because of the way the mirror and prism directs the light. I am not certain on the details, but basically you are not looking through the lens at "full width", but get more light from the center than you get from the edge of the glass, which is equivalent to stopping down the lens. So if the lens has a little focus shift wide open as is common, the point of focus will be slightly off.
I found that when you use a fast lens and press the depth-of-field preview button while looking through the viewfinder, you can turn the aperture ring and will see that viewfinder image only darkens noticeably after f2.8. Before that it will be the same brightness, no matter whether you set f1.2 or f2.8.
Look here, too
But you can lern to predict this behaviour and ever so slightly adjust focus. It will mostly matter when shooting people wide open and up close.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Ah, that makes sense. I generally try to shoot around f/2.8 to f/8 and only use f/1.4 when absolutely necessary due to low light, in which case I'm happy to get a decent exposure at all. (Maybe my standards are too low.) I do appreciate the nice bright viewfinder with the f/1.4 lens though.
I just picked up a 50mm f/2 AI converted "K" lens and am looking forward to trying it out and comparing to the f/1.4 AI-S.