benji77
@R.F.F
A few years ago, I sold my F3HP to buy an M-mount body. I miss my F3. It is robust and extremely reliable.
I avoid reading this thread as it brings about GAS attack. But when I read the comparison with the D3(s), I just had to read on. I still own the D3s as well as the 50/1.2. An excellent combination. I sold the 105/2.5, and regret that as well. Those of you who are contemplating the D3, I say go for it. It is an excellent camera. The handling is better than a D700+grip, and the small MP count is more than sufficient.
Image with the D3 + 50/1.2
I avoid reading this thread as it brings about GAS attack. But when I read the comparison with the D3(s), I just had to read on. I still own the D3s as well as the 50/1.2. An excellent combination. I sold the 105/2.5, and regret that as well. Those of you who are contemplating the D3, I say go for it. It is an excellent camera. The handling is better than a D700+grip, and the small MP count is more than sufficient.
Image with the D3 + 50/1.2
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
A few years ago, I sold my F3HP to buy an M-mount body. I miss my F3. It is robust and extremely reliable.
I avoid reading this thread as it brings about GAS attack. But when I read the comparison with the D3(s), I just had to read on. I still own the D3s as well as the 50/1.2. An excellent combination. I sold the 105/2.5, and regret that as well. Those of you who are contemplating the D3, I say go for it. It is an excellent camera. The handling is better than a D700+grip, and the small MP count is more than sufficient.
Image with the D3 + 50/1.2
Thanks for the post. In regards to GAS your post makes me want to buy a 50/1.2 AIS as a substitute for the Noct-Nikkor I traded away that I now deeply regret.
Nothing renders like a Noct-Nikkor though and it is the best at F1.2.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
So yeah I tried the Brenizer method, D7000 and 55 1.2 wide open. This was stitched from about 21 images. Very hard to do when background has no texture and we are too close to the object.
Jonathan,
I agree with Dirk. The trick here is to get bokeh happening in the background, yet close focusing on the subject to establish shallow DOF. From small format to medium format you loose 2 stops of DOF. Unless you shallow out the DOF by shooting wide open you will not get the large format look. This is why the Noct-Nikkor is the perfered lens, although perhaps alternatives could be perhaps an 85/1.4 AIS or a 105/1.8.
A great example I saw was a bride and groom shot on top of the "Mall" in Central Park in NYC. It was perhaps a 7-8 shot panorama shot with a Noct-Nikkor. The subjuects were shot full body, but also understand that the finished print displayed a lot of the OOF background that was rendered in a spectacular way. This photographer really captured dreamyness, the OOF was extra creamy, and because perhaps 3-4 shots comprised the bride and groom the sharpness, resolution and detail were all in the realm of large format.
I can only imagine that this is not easy to do, but large format is mucho expensive... Then again a Noct-Nikkor is mucho expensive, but it is the normal lens that gives the extra creamy OOF and bokeh that resembles a much longer lens shot wide open.
Cal
Last edited:
menos
Veteran
Great photographs benji77! The second shot shows how different the 50/1.2 from the 58/1.2 … entirely different character (both of which lovely in their own right).
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
A few years ago, I sold my F3HP to buy an M-mount body. I miss my F3. It is robust and extremely reliable.
I avoid reading this thread as it brings about GAS attack. But when I read the comparison with the D3(s), I just had to read on. I still own the D3s as well as the 50/1.2. An excellent combination. I sold the 105/2.5, and regret that as well. Those of you who are contemplating the D3, I say go for it. It is an excellent camera. The handling is better than a D700+grip, and the small MP count is more than sufficient.
Image with the D3 + 50/1.2
GAS ALERT: Even though I'm totally broke, I want another Noct-Nikkor and now a D3.
As far as D3S or D3X I'm on the fence about high ISO with the big pixel size of the D3S verses the higher resolution but lower ISO's of the D3X. Right now I think I favor the D3X for resolution because I want to print big, but then again I live in NYC and like shooting mucho street. Perhaps I really need two D3's: a "S;" and a "X."
I also shoot a Leica Monochrom, but I seldomly pump the Iso past 800 anyways because I hate the didital artifacts that come with anything higher than 800 ISO.
Cal
menos
Veteran
Don't go for the D3x. Nikon practically killed that body by selling a D800(e) much more capable if high res is what you are really after (question your pursuit of high res first - do you really print regularly larger than 13x19 ?).
The D3s is a better D3 and with the price difference on the used market I think is worth to pay the difference. Mainly you gain ~ another stop and you have less sensor dirt.
Another way of getting high res and saving that big money D3x still go for is to get a D3 (non S) AND a D7000.
But honestly, since I got that 58/1.4 AF-S I am not so sure about the Noct-Nikkor anymore. The 58 AF-S has A LOT in common in image character wight he Noct and that at half the price brand new.
The 58AF-S is substantially better than the 50/1.4 AF-S and sharper and much smoother than the other fast 50 Nikkors.
It's biggest trait in common with the Noct is that it really melts background like no other 50 Nikkor and that it renders light sources properly in low light edge to edge similar to the Noct.
street portraits with the 58 1.4 AF-S G + D800e on the first day out:
…and stopped down (f2.8 I guess):
I think if I had to shrink Nikon SLR gear to the extreme, I would sell everything except the old D3 + 58AF-S + 24AF-S and if I could I would keep that 300/2.8AF-S as well, covering everything in need.
The D3x really is a low ISO tripod camera by design, while with recent DX and FX Nikons it really is not THAT high res anymore.
By contrast the good old D3 is still VERY valid in 2014. That sensor was simply a masterpiece back in 2007 and still competes very well with many of todays high end cameras.
The biggest trouble for the next years with the D3 series bodies will be to get batteries for them as Nikon does not manufacture them anymore (new Japanese legal regulations forced them to omit the high capacity D3 series batteries in favour of smaller batteries in the D4 series).
The few original D3 batteries I still regularly though hold up well still, easily getting over 800 shots a charge(down from over 1000 new).
For the low price you get a D3 nowadays, those are real bargains - reason, why I kept mine as it's use far eclipses it's re-sale value at current prices, even in really nice cosmetic conditions from first owners they are cheap by what they used to sell for. I am happy I didn't sell mine as I planned when getting the D800e from a user perspective as well.
Somehow the Nikon DSLR full size bodies have something really nice about them -rock solid and ergonomically simply perfect.
The D800 and also the Df feel like plastic toys compared to the old D3
Be warned though, the D3 files are nowhere near as nice as the M Mono files. You will be disappointed in regards of detail and tonality - not much of a problem printing 13x19 though.
Before you go on a shopping spree, have a really, really hard, good think and approach it from the points of:
- resolution needs (print size)
- low light needs (also thin about using slower lenses in low light)
- handling preferences - if your favourite daily hauler is a pair of F3 + MD-4 you probably prefer the D3 over any small body Nikon DSLR.
If you like the F3 finder with magnifier and accessories, the D3 and D700/800 are the only game, the D3 series having a slight edge with more coverage and a better eye point
Don't rush this, D3's are getting cheaper by the day ;-)
The D3s is a better D3 and with the price difference on the used market I think is worth to pay the difference. Mainly you gain ~ another stop and you have less sensor dirt.
Another way of getting high res and saving that big money D3x still go for is to get a D3 (non S) AND a D7000.
But honestly, since I got that 58/1.4 AF-S I am not so sure about the Noct-Nikkor anymore. The 58 AF-S has A LOT in common in image character wight he Noct and that at half the price brand new.
The 58AF-S is substantially better than the 50/1.4 AF-S and sharper and much smoother than the other fast 50 Nikkors.
It's biggest trait in common with the Noct is that it really melts background like no other 50 Nikkor and that it renders light sources properly in low light edge to edge similar to the Noct.
street portraits with the 58 1.4 AF-S G + D800e on the first day out:
…and stopped down (f2.8 I guess):
I think if I had to shrink Nikon SLR gear to the extreme, I would sell everything except the old D3 + 58AF-S + 24AF-S and if I could I would keep that 300/2.8AF-S as well, covering everything in need.
The D3x really is a low ISO tripod camera by design, while with recent DX and FX Nikons it really is not THAT high res anymore.
By contrast the good old D3 is still VERY valid in 2014. That sensor was simply a masterpiece back in 2007 and still competes very well with many of todays high end cameras.
The biggest trouble for the next years with the D3 series bodies will be to get batteries for them as Nikon does not manufacture them anymore (new Japanese legal regulations forced them to omit the high capacity D3 series batteries in favour of smaller batteries in the D4 series).
The few original D3 batteries I still regularly though hold up well still, easily getting over 800 shots a charge(down from over 1000 new).
For the low price you get a D3 nowadays, those are real bargains - reason, why I kept mine as it's use far eclipses it's re-sale value at current prices, even in really nice cosmetic conditions from first owners they are cheap by what they used to sell for. I am happy I didn't sell mine as I planned when getting the D800e from a user perspective as well.
Somehow the Nikon DSLR full size bodies have something really nice about them -rock solid and ergonomically simply perfect.
The D800 and also the Df feel like plastic toys compared to the old D3
Be warned though, the D3 files are nowhere near as nice as the M Mono files. You will be disappointed in regards of detail and tonality - not much of a problem printing 13x19 though.
Before you go on a shopping spree, have a really, really hard, good think and approach it from the points of:
- resolution needs (print size)
- low light needs (also thin about using slower lenses in low light)
- handling preferences - if your favourite daily hauler is a pair of F3 + MD-4 you probably prefer the D3 over any small body Nikon DSLR.
If you like the F3 finder with magnifier and accessories, the D3 and D700/800 are the only game, the D3 series having a slight edge with more coverage and a better eye point
Don't rush this, D3's are getting cheaper by the day ;-)
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Don't go for the D3x. Nikon practically killed that body by selling a D800(e) much more capable if high res is what you are really after (question your pursuit of high res first - do you really print regularly larger than 13x19 ?).
The D3s is a better D3 and with the price difference on the used market I think is worth to pay the difference. Mainly you gain ~ another stop and you have less sensor dirt.
Another way of getting high res and saving that big money D3x still go for is to get a D3 (non S) AND a D7000.
But honestly, since I got that 58/1.4 AF-S I am not so sure about the Noct-Nikkor anymore. The 58 AF-S has A LOT in common in image character wight he Noct and that at half the price brand new.
The 58AF-S is substantially better than the 50/1.4 AF-S and sharper and much smoother than the other fast 50 Nikkors.
It's biggest trait in common with the Noct is that it really melts background like no other 50 Nikkor and that it renders light sources properly in low light edge to edge similar to the Noct.
street portraits with the 58 1.4 AF-S G + D800e on the first day out:
…and stopped down (f2.8 I guess):
I think if I had to shrink Nikon SLR gear to the extreme, I would sell everything except the old D3 + 58AF-S + 24AF-S and if I could I would keep that 300/2.8AF-S as well, covering everything in need.
The D3x really is a low ISO tripod camera by design, while with recent DX and FX Nikons it really is not THAT high res anymore.
By contrast the good old D3 is still VERY valid in 2014. That sensor was simply a masterpiece back in 2007 and still competes very well with many of todays high end cameras.
The biggest trouble for the next years with the D3 series bodies will be to get batteries for them as Nikon does not manufacture them anymore (new Japanese legal regulations forced them to omit the high capacity D3 series batteries in favour of smaller batteries in the D4 series).
The few original D3 batteries I still regularly though hold up well still, easily getting over 800 shots a charge(down from over 1000 new).
For the low price you get a D3 nowadays, those are real bargains - reason, why I kept mine as it's use far eclipses it's re-sale value at current prices, even in really nice cosmetic conditions from first owners they are cheap by what they used to sell for. I am happy I didn't sell mine as I planned when getting the D800e from a user perspective as well.
Somehow the Nikon DSLR full size bodies have something really nice about them -rock solid and ergonomically simply perfect.
The D800 and also the Df feel like plastic toys compared to the old D3
Be warned though, the D3 files are nowhere near as nice as the M Mono files. You will be disappointed in regards of detail and tonality - not much of a problem printing 13x19 though.
Before you go on a shopping spree, have a really, really hard, good think and approach it from the points of:
- resolution needs (print size)
- low light needs (also thin about using slower lenses in low light)
- handling preferences - if your favourite daily hauler is a pair of F3 + MD-4 you probably prefer the D3 over any small body Nikon DSLR.
If you like the F3 finder with magnifier and accessories, the D3 and D700/800 are the only game, the D3 series having a slight edge with more coverage and a better eye point
Don't rush this, D3's are getting cheaper by the day ;-)
Dirk,
I have no money so entertaining a Nikon DSLR rig is totally a dream right now. There is no rush here, and you are correct: Time is my friend. No shopping spree anytime soon, but like a chess player I like to think three moves ahead. Also being a creative (crazy) person I like to daydream.
I have an Epson 3880 so 17x22 is my current large print size, but the Monochrom can print bigger. I was thinking of the D3S over the D3, and I think you have me profiled correctly in that I like and perfer the heavy duty camera with the more industrial build quality that resembles my F3P/MD-4 rig. From carrying cameras I have a rather thick neck from carrying cameras, especially for a skinny guy, and because I generally go walking around carrying a camera in my right hand all day my right arm is overdeveloped and noticibly larger than my left arm. In a way I look a bit deformed.
My dream Nikon you mentioned: a D3S with a monochrom sensor, but a Monochrom Leica S would be really cool. Seems like big pixels is the way to go to avoid digital artifacts.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Cal, I can see this around your neck... you love monsters.
John,
You should know: you coined the phrase calling my cameras "monsters."
Phil's D3 really had a effect on me.
Anyways big heavy cameras that can be used as weapons come in handy when you need them. Last Tuesday I did some night shooting using medium format and a tripod at 125th Street and the Willis Avenue Bridge/Triborough Bridge. I didn't have any cameras that would make any good weapon, but I carried my monopod in case there was any hassle. I started walking home around 10:00 PM along the East River.
Last Sunday walked to Highbridge Park which is a rather large abandoned park that is ferrule and overgrown. Basically if there was any hassles it would of been "Gladiator Mode" meaning a fight to the death. There is good reason why this park remains unused and is empty, except for right at the entrances where all these families were roasting meat right near the park signs that clearly stated "No Bar-B-Que," it is kinda dangerous because its so empty and vacant. In a true sense it it abandoned.
I found the wooded part to be totally empty except for this one guy. He and I kept our distance, but I ended seeing him a second time further south, and again he and I kept some distance knowing that getting closer than 10 feet might mean a fight because that close a distance like radar would signal and indicate an attack.
BTW a friend of mine got stabbed in the eye and shoulder two days ago in Co-Op City ( Northern Bronx/ Westchester Avenue) where we use to go shooting. Ron had an exchange of words with another young guy and the next thing you know its a gang attack. Don't know yet if Ron will loose his eye.
Cal
redisburning
Well-known
maybe I'm missing something, but it's hard for me to understand the hype for the noct-nikkor when the 55 distagon exists.
the 55 is much better at controlling coma, especially around the edges, than either the noct or the new 58/1.4. the old noct costs about the same, too, and as far as I can see the only advantages are weight, size, and slightly higher center illumination. of course the distagon comes with a warranty and beats nearly everything for sharpness.
my f3hp has treated me well. it's a no nonsense, no gimmick camera. it's not perfect (what is other than the M3?), but as far as Nikons go, it's my favorite.
the 55 is much better at controlling coma, especially around the edges, than either the noct or the new 58/1.4. the old noct costs about the same, too, and as far as I can see the only advantages are weight, size, and slightly higher center illumination. of course the distagon comes with a warranty and beats nearly everything for sharpness.
my f3hp has treated me well. it's a no nonsense, no gimmick camera. it's not perfect (what is other than the M3?), but as far as Nikons go, it's my favorite.
gilgsn
Established
From my first roll with the F3 and 50/1.2:
Gil.
Gil.
menos
Veteran
Cal, I am sorry to hear about your friend, I hope he will recover.
This sounds like a crazy place you live in.
For the print size you mention, the 12MP D3 sensor renders very soft actually - a lot of tricky sharpening is needed to extract detail.
Your print size it can manage just about, but not if you need to crop or if you miss focus by a bit or need to shoot at ISO3200.
From my perception, the M Mono just about juices double the detail than the D3 although it has a barely higher resolution.
My dream SLR also is a Leica S Monochrom, which would let me shoot medium format at ISO 3200 and have the insane detail of the Mono sensor while even better tonality than the MMono as for true 16bit imaging.
If Leica would build something like this, I would sell my Nikon system for it to get one, Noct included.
The reason why the Noct has such a following lies in the fact that this lens has been with us for more than 30 years. A legend has been built around it and it still performs admirably.
Until the new 58/1.4 arrived, the Noct-Nikkor has outperformed every single 50 Nikon offered to that point, which is quite a feat for such an old design.
In a sense it has been the Zeiss OTUS of the 1970's.
The OTUS is a humongous lens, the size of a f2.8 zoom actually. It is much more expensive then the Noct still and also far eclipses the new 58/1.4 in size and cost.
I would like to have one if it would be half the size.
This sounds like a crazy place you live in.
For the print size you mention, the 12MP D3 sensor renders very soft actually - a lot of tricky sharpening is needed to extract detail.
Your print size it can manage just about, but not if you need to crop or if you miss focus by a bit or need to shoot at ISO3200.
From my perception, the M Mono just about juices double the detail than the D3 although it has a barely higher resolution.
My dream SLR also is a Leica S Monochrom, which would let me shoot medium format at ISO 3200 and have the insane detail of the Mono sensor while even better tonality than the MMono as for true 16bit imaging.
If Leica would build something like this, I would sell my Nikon system for it to get one, Noct included.
The reason why the Noct has such a following lies in the fact that this lens has been with us for more than 30 years. A legend has been built around it and it still performs admirably.
Until the new 58/1.4 arrived, the Noct-Nikkor has outperformed every single 50 Nikon offered to that point, which is quite a feat for such an old design.
In a sense it has been the Zeiss OTUS of the 1970's.
The OTUS is a humongous lens, the size of a f2.8 zoom actually. It is much more expensive then the Noct still and also far eclipses the new 58/1.4 in size and cost.
I would like to have one if it would be half the size.
redisburning
Well-known
every noct sample I've seen has been significantly worse outside of the center than the 50/1.2, though.
and a quick look at sold ebay listings puts the noct at 26 to 45 hundred, and the otus retails for 4000, so more or less similarly priced.
I mean I get people like the lens and all it's just there are a ton of unsubstantiated claims as to how good it is but when it comes to real samples the humble 50/1.2 always seemed to do better in real world shooting despite the noct having the advantage in nighttime infinity shots.
if someone has examples of a shot that only that lens could have done until even the last decade, please share it with me. I've never owned one myself and have legitimate interest in any ~50. but I suspect they will be mostly technical images, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
and a quick look at sold ebay listings puts the noct at 26 to 45 hundred, and the otus retails for 4000, so more or less similarly priced.
I mean I get people like the lens and all it's just there are a ton of unsubstantiated claims as to how good it is but when it comes to real samples the humble 50/1.2 always seemed to do better in real world shooting despite the noct having the advantage in nighttime infinity shots.
if someone has examples of a shot that only that lens could have done until even the last decade, please share it with me. I've never owned one myself and have legitimate interest in any ~50. but I suspect they will be mostly technical images, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Montag006
Established
Gil,
I like your recent photo of the lady holding her kitten.
Dogs are wonderful, but IMHO there is something special
in the way people hold cats/kittens.
Keep up the good work and
enjoy the F 3 and fantastic lens!
David
I like your recent photo of the lady holding her kitten.
Dogs are wonderful, but IMHO there is something special
in the way people hold cats/kittens.
Keep up the good work and
enjoy the F 3 and fantastic lens!
David
menos
Veteran
I doubt that.
The Noct is not just about the ability of drawing light sources in proper shapes (the new 58 is even better than that).
One major advantage of the Noct is it's high contrast from wide apertures on, easily bettering vintage fast 50s and being almost on par with Nikon's 50/1.4 AF-S.
What the Noct is about for me is that (apart from it's newer 58 AF- incarnation) provides the creamiest background rendering of all fast 50 Nikkors.
No other Nikkor 50 apart from the newest 58 can touch it for the background rendering.
The 50/1.2 never had the ability to replace it for that reason (ugly points of light toward the edge, lower contrast at wide apertures, funky background rendering).
Don't misunderstand me, the 50/1.2 is a nice lens for what it is, but it is no Noct (price differences, cult, internet myths aside).
The OTUS is an impressive lens with beautiful rendering (and creamy backgrounds to boot) and one will have to think which lens is better value, a Noct-Nikkor or a new OTUS.
I understand your point.
I would think you can't compare these two lenses in terms of rendering.
One has a distinct beautiful character with some impressive modern traits thanks to it's hand ground exotic elements.
The other is simple optical perfection at what is optically possible today.
Mind you it has also scalpel like precision sharp details, which is not always what is preferable.
It is a bit like old Leica Noctilux f1 vs new Noctilux f.95.
I take a Noctilux f1 over the new Noctilux any day.
Lenses are not like burgers, where getting more burger for your money is always better.
Maybe some like the specific taste of a certain burger over the two for one offering from another restaurant?
gilgsn
Established
Thanks David. It was easy to say I wanted a picture of the cat, but she is an interesting character.. I cut her eyes out of the frame (thanks to the F3HP full frame precise viewfinder) because I did not want viewers to concentrate on her face but look around instead... People with pets are easier to approach on the street. You can always say you want a photo of their pet and include them too..
Gil.
Gil.
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
Cal, sorry about your friend. Please stay safe, I remember you saying you got quite some muscle around the neck and arm area, so that should help alert wannabe attackers.
Gil, nice to see you enjoying the 50 1.2, tonight I will try to develop some films I shot with 18mm f/4
Another note, my 35 f/2 AF-D is acting up again. This is the earlier model made in Japan with notorious oily blade. Apparently it like to lay down on its sides and not sitting on its bottom or doing a headstand. If I store it sitting on its caps, the oil will appear after a few days. I hate it as it overexposed my pics. Thinking about replacing it, I know choices are slim for AF-D lenses in that focal length, but please fire away.
Gil, nice to see you enjoying the 50 1.2, tonight I will try to develop some films I shot with 18mm f/4
Another note, my 35 f/2 AF-D is acting up again. This is the earlier model made in Japan with notorious oily blade. Apparently it like to lay down on its sides and not sitting on its bottom or doing a headstand. If I store it sitting on its caps, the oil will appear after a few days. I hate it as it overexposed my pics. Thinking about replacing it, I know choices are slim for AF-D lenses in that focal length, but please fire away.
redisburning
Well-known
while your second point here as to advantages is true, the noct is pretty bad outside of the center compared to the 50:1.2.
these are from photodo:
like you said, you can pick between these two on some other things that make the 58 a better overall lens, but yeah it's still hard for me to understand it going for 4k. it's just not got that level of rarity.
Harryo1962
Established
I loved my HP, but it's weight kept it at home more than I would have liked. Sold it to find a Rolliflex. But I would totally have another one. I have plenty of lenses...
menos
Veteran
Aaaahh - MTF charts, the thing to salivate over and dissect on internet fora ;-:
Seriously, as I tried to make a point earlier, the differences between the 50's on the list are not to be measured by numbers and charts.
The Noct has been designed purpose fully for one thing and one thing only: provide beautiful low light imaging with incredible smooth backgrounds, sharp details where it matters, high contrast even at wide apertures and most importantly to solve the age old issue of ugly distorted light sources, common with fast lenses at the time with superior sagittal coma control, unseen to the date when the Noct-Nikkor was introduced to the market.
The Coma control in fact was so good, bettering any other Nikkor normal lens until in 2014 Nikon announced the "followup" 58mm lens of them own.
You really have to see it from this perspective.
Sure the 50/1.2 might be sharper at certain apertures in certain image areas.
But look at it's ugly background rendering.
Look at it's low contrast.
Look at it's vintage looking coma, rendering it by far less suited for what the Noct (Nocturnal) has been specifically designed for.
The Noct-Nikkor is not a collectible lens but it is indeed by far one of the lowest production run lenses, despite it's very, very long run (until 1997) with barely a change to it's design.
Also ask yourself in what condition the 4000 USD samples, you always state are in.
You hardly will find a common user in that price range, but much lower priced.
One last point: still in 2014 the 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor is Nikon's fastest ever produced fifty consumer lens. This surely is part of the appeal of a certain user base, pushing value.
Seriously, as I tried to make a point earlier, the differences between the 50's on the list are not to be measured by numbers and charts.
The Noct has been designed purpose fully for one thing and one thing only: provide beautiful low light imaging with incredible smooth backgrounds, sharp details where it matters, high contrast even at wide apertures and most importantly to solve the age old issue of ugly distorted light sources, common with fast lenses at the time with superior sagittal coma control, unseen to the date when the Noct-Nikkor was introduced to the market.
The Coma control in fact was so good, bettering any other Nikkor normal lens until in 2014 Nikon announced the "followup" 58mm lens of them own.
You really have to see it from this perspective.
Sure the 50/1.2 might be sharper at certain apertures in certain image areas.
But look at it's ugly background rendering.
Look at it's low contrast.
Look at it's vintage looking coma, rendering it by far less suited for what the Noct (Nocturnal) has been specifically designed for.
The Noct-Nikkor is not a collectible lens but it is indeed by far one of the lowest production run lenses, despite it's very, very long run (until 1997) with barely a change to it's design.
Also ask yourself in what condition the 4000 USD samples, you always state are in.
You hardly will find a common user in that price range, but much lower priced.
One last point: still in 2014 the 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor is Nikon's fastest ever produced fifty consumer lens. This surely is part of the appeal of a certain user base, pushing value.