50mm, f/1.2 vs f/1.4

"ASAAR" wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:25:49 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

The f/1.2 ain't no slouch, though. If my pockets were a tad deeper and I
used 50mm more, the reduced flare resistance would be appreciated. Maybe.

Maybe? Maybe for sure. On the other hand, not being a flareboy
fan, I'd prefer increased flare resistance. g

Maybe would be appreciated, maybe wouldn't be. The 50/1.2 is heavier and
requires larger filters (and my closeup lenses wouldn't work). Flare isn't a
problem most of the time, and some of the cases it might be, one can just be
careful about the composition. I've shot the 50/1.4 wide open for concert
photography and didn't have flare problems. So it's a tradeoff; convenience
about not having to worry about flare vs. weight and filter inconvenience.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:50:35 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

The f/1.2 ain't no slouch, though. If my pockets were a tad deeper and I
used 50mm more, the reduced flare resistance would be appreciated. Maybe.

Maybe? Maybe for sure. On the other hand, not being a flareboy
fan, I'd prefer increased flare resistance. g

Maybe would be appreciated, maybe wouldn't be. The 50/1.2 is heavier and
requires larger filters (and my closeup lenses wouldn't work). Flare isn't a
problem most of the time, and some of the cases it might be, one can just be
careful about the composition. I've shot the 50/1.4 wide open for concert
photography and didn't have flare problems. So it's a tradeoff; convenience
about not having to worry about flare vs. weight and filter inconvenience.

I was really only commenting on a probable, inconsequential typo,
not flare, really. FWIW, I had similar lenses, f/1.4 and f/1.2
Nikkors, but don't recall if they were 55mm or 58mm. Possibly 58mm
for the f/1.2. I also don't recall the f/1.2 being superior in any
way other than being more of a brick. It would take amazing, easily
noticed superiority to make me consider anything faster than f/1.4,
as I don't think that the extra light gathering and shallower DOF
amounts to much.

In Brett's two recent photos, the "creamy bokeh" (an overused term
if there every was one, makes one think of wine judge's pretentious
adjectives - and Brett may have used it puckishly) of the butterfly
was nice, but was shot at f/3.5. I'd like to see the same shots
made with f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses to be able to judge at least one
aspect of the f/1.2 lens's performance. The shot of the cat was
made with the lens fully open at f/1.2, but unless I've missed
something, the subject matter (fur) didn't really show bokeh, just
the blur due to shallow DOF. IOW, only the cat was "creamy".

On Jul 7, 9:06 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:


Utter nonsense! Canon's 50/1.2L is a decent beginners lens but it is
severely overpriced for the performance it offers. This money would be
better spent towards the legendary 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor and an adapter for
your Canon bodies.

Don't listen to this idiot! Talk about overpriced ... go check on
some EBAY listings for that piece of junk Noct lens.

Even the Oldest Member knows that Canon has the creamiest bokeh.
Here's a portrait of him taken with the 85 f/1.2L wide open.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482/original

The 50 f/1.2L has bokeh that is similarly creamy. Heck, just thinking
about it makes me want to go cream right now!

"ASAAR" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:50:35 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

[...]
FWIW, I had similar lenses, f/1.4 and f/1.2
Nikkors, but don't recall if they were 55mm or 58mm. Possibly 58mm
for the f/1.2. I also don't recall the f/1.2 being superior in any
way other than being more of a brick.

Be careful of "apples vs. oranges"...;-) As with Canon, there
have been several versions of any given FL and speed (see my
Nikkor comparison list, at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html).
Nikon made 50, 55, and 58mm lenses in various speeds (f2, f1.8,
f1.4, and f1.2), with one aspheric 58mm f1.2. Quality ranged from
barely adequate to excellent, and I can tell you that I would choose
a recent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 over an old 55mm f1.2 any day...! ;-)
I have not tried it, but since the Canon 50mm f1.2L looks like a
really good attempt at producing a high quality lens, I would be
surprised if it were not at least very good, even at wide stops...

It would take amazing, easily
noticed superiority to make me consider anything faster than f/1.4,
as I don't think that the extra light gathering and shallower DOF
amounts to much.

I agree completely!

In Brett's two recent photos, the "creamy bokeh" (an overused term
if there every was one, makes one think of wine judge's pretentious
adjectives - and Brett may have used it puckishly)

8^)
I, too, think it is silly. I actually prefer lenses with "bad bokeh"
for some things, since it can offer better apparent image contrast
and sharpness at wide stops, greater apparent DOF at small stops,
and sometimes useful textures in the image (see first photo at
www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht1.html [55mm Micro-Nikkor at
f3.5], last photo at www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht2.html [early
50mm f1.4 at f1.4], and www.donferrario.com/ruether/sunplant1.html
[most]). I had to laugh when a long-held belief that wine needed to
be opened ahead of drinking "to let it breathe" was found to be not
only useless, but the practice let escape some of the bouquet...;-)

of the butterfly
was nice, but was shot at f/3.5. I'd like to see the same shots
made with f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses to be able to judge at least one
aspect of the f/1.2 lens's performance. The shot of the cat was
made with the lens fully open at f/1.2, but unless I've missed
something, the subject matter (fur) didn't really show bokeh, just
the blur due to shallow DOF. IOW, only the cat was "creamy".

It is often difficult to show specific examples of lens effects,
particularly with different lenses and stops when shooting a fleeting
subject...;-)
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:47:13 -0400, David Ruether wrote:

FWIW, I had similar lenses, f/1.4 and f/1.2 Nikkors, but don't
recall if they were 55mm or 58mm. Possibly 58mm for the f/1.2.
I also don't recall the f/1.2 being superior in any way other than
being more of a brick.

Be careful of "apples vs. oranges"...;-) As with Canon, there
have been several versions of any given FL and speed (see my
Nikkor comparison list, at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html).
Nikon made 50, 55, and 58mm lenses in various speeds (f2, f1.8,
f1.4, and f1.2), with one aspheric 58mm f1.2. Quality ranged from
barely adequate to excellent, and I can tell you that I would choose
a recent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 over an old 55mm f1.2 any day...! ;-)

I don't know if this will help identify them, but the f/1.4 lens
was bought, IIRC, early 1963 in the USA, and the f/1.2 mid 1966 to
early 67 in a Saigon PX.


of the butterfly
was nice, but was shot at f/3.5. I'd like to see the same shots
made with f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses to be able to judge at least one
aspect of the f/1.2 lens's performance. The shot of the cat was
made with the lens fully open at f/1.2, but unless I've missed
something, the subject matter (fur) didn't really show bokeh, just
the blur due to shallow DOF. IOW, only the cat was "creamy".

It is often difficult to show specific examples of lens effects,
particularly with different lenses and stops when shooting a fleeting
subject...;-)

Nah. The butterfly isn't needed. Just erect a photo of the
butterfly and use that as your focusing target. The background is
what's needed for bokeh comparisons, and it's not very fleeting.

Similarly, the cat shouldn't be a problem. If it can't easily be
enticed for another session in front of the camera, you might change
its mind by parking it in front of your computer's monitor while you
send your browser to . . .

http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/

"ASAAR" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:47:13 -0400, David Ruether wrote:

FWIW, I had similar lenses, f/1.4 and f/1.2 Nikkors, but don't
recall if they were 55mm or 58mm. Possibly 58mm for the f/1.2.
I also don't recall the f/1.2 being superior in any way other than
being more of a brick.

Be careful of "apples vs. oranges"...;-) As with Canon, there
have been several versions of any given FL and speed (see my
Nikkor comparison list, at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html).
Nikon made 50, 55, and 58mm lenses in various speeds (f2, f1.8,
f1.4, and f1.2), with one aspheric 58mm f1.2. Quality ranged from
barely adequate to excellent, and I can tell you that I would choose
a recent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 over an old 55mm f1.2 any day...! ;-)

I don't know if this will help identify them, but the f/1.4 lens
was bought, IIRC, early 1963 in the USA, and the f/1.2 mid 1966 to
early 67 in a Saigon PX.

At www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html#URLs, there are listed
several sites with info on Nikkor lenses. This one lists lens introductions
year by year - http://fotomuveszet.elender.hu/9734/973412_eng.html.
Serial number identifiers for Nikkor lens age can be found here -
www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html. You can go to the
bottom of my Nikkor comparison list, at
www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html, to find these URLs...

of the butterfly
was nice, but was shot at f/3.5. I'd like to see the same shots
made with f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses to be able to judge at least one
aspect of the f/1.2 lens's performance. The shot of the cat was
made with the lens fully open at f/1.2, but unless I've missed
something, the subject matter (fur) didn't really show bokeh, just
the blur due to shallow DOF. IOW, only the cat was "creamy".

It is often difficult to show specific examples of lens effects,
particularly with different lenses and stops when shooting a fleeting
subject...;-)

Nah. The butterfly isn't needed. Just erect a photo of the
butterfly and use that as your focusing target. The background is
what's needed for bokeh comparisons, and it's not very fleeting.

True....! ;-)

Similarly, the cat shouldn't be a problem. If it can't easily be
enticed for another session in front of the camera, you might change
its mind by parking it in front of your computer's monitor while you
send your browser to . . .
http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/

Oooooooooooooooh......, I was afraid I would see this site again,
alas.......................................! 8^(
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
David J. Littleboy
], who wrote in article :
The f/1.2 ain't no slouch, though. If my pockets were a tad deeper and I
used 50mm more, the reduced flare resistance would be appreciated. Maybe.
The 50/1.2's main problem is that the 50/1.4 is so good.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...1.2L/index.htm

By the way, this guy's reviews are all worth looking at.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm

I went to

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...1.2L/meth1.htm

and I suspect that he has no clue about the gamma (see sections 8 and
9; the graph in 8 does not look as taken in the linear space). I
suspect that his "50% MTF" data is actually 80% MTF...

And having MTF data not "center weighted", but fully reported would be
much more fun to read...

Thanks anyway, in other respects it is very interesting,
Ilya

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 14:53:27 -0400, David Ruether wrote:

At www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html#URLs, there are listed
several sites with info on Nikkor lenses. This one lists lens introductions
year by year - http://fotomuveszet.elender.hu/9734/973412_eng.html.
Serial number identifiers for Nikkor lens age can be found here -
www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html. You can go to the
bottom of my Nikkor comparison list, at
www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html, to find these URLs...

Thanks. I had the focal lengths backwards. The 58mm f/1.4 lens
was introduced in January 1960, about 2 1/2 years before I bought
it, and my 55mm f/1.2 was bought about a year after it was
introduced in December 1966. These lenses are long gone so unless I
find old copies of the serial numbers, the photosynthesis website
won't help me there. It has more accurate information about the
dates, since for just the 58mm f/1.4 lens, seven versions are listed
from October 1959 through January 1962.

Here's mine.

http://zcxg8s2v5qpgt.home.att.net/IM...kor12_55mm.JPG

It's exotic, it makes interesting photos that would not be possible
otherwise, but I haven't used it since I went digital.

I don't buy high-priced equipment anymore because technology changes
fast and expensive stuff gets left behind as nothing more than
collectors' items. I could use it with a new digital Nikon but no
metering, no auto-focus, perhaps even no aperture info in the
viewfinder? Any ideas?

Thanks, it will meter and end up as a magnificent portrait 85mm f/1.2?
Wow I can't wait, depth of field should be fun trying to find without
auto-focus, lol

What's the 18-month rule?



On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:33:49 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

wrote:

I don't buy high-priced equipment anymore because technology changes
fast and expensive stuff gets left behind as nothing more than
collectors' items. I could use it with a new digital Nikon but no
metering, no auto-focus, perhaps even no aperture info in the
viewfinder? Any ideas?

Had you followed the 18-month rule you wouldn't be kicking yourself in the
ass right now nor would you have a failed attitude. That lens will meter
just fine with the D200 and D2x(s).






Rita