58 Noct vs 50 1.2

How much better is the Noct than the 50 1.2 wide open?

You can see a comparison of the "wide-open" characteristics here:<BR>

<a href="http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n16_e.htm">http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n16_e.htm</a>

I don't have the Noct, but I have the 50 f/1.2. I am willing to bet that the Noct produces better image quality than my 50 1.2 does. The Noct's wide-open bokeh in every image that I have seen it produce is very nice. The 50 1.2's wide open bokeh is - well - not so pleasing. But I still like the images that it produces. See below for an example of the 50mm f/1.2 wide open. I've never used a lens that can produce the kind of images that it does. It's certainly not for the flat field, high MFT, corner-to-corner sharpness crowd. :)<div></div>

nice picture.

Not so much as marketing and price leveling can PERSUADE.

I try one used Noct and one year leater I decidet to save money and buy 50/1.2. and I'm realy PROUD of my Nikkor 50/1.2.

On www.Photodo.com you can find MTF test, and numbers say '4.2 of 5' for BOTH!!!

In my niht shots I don't use wide open 1.2 becouse it is it(50/f1.2) weak point (0.45 vs 0.50 for average 10, 20 and 40 lin/mm).

But as you can se on the graph I made, in range from f1.4 to 4 even

f5.6, 50/1.2 is SURPASSING.

 

After f1.2 with 0.45 succeed superb range f2 with 0.73, f2.8-0.79 and

f4 0.83 and thet is real nightshot area.

 

For example Nikon AF50/1.4D have 4.2 mark and f1.4-0.56, f2-0.68 f2.8-0.75 and on f4 0.80 even Nikon AF50/1.8 whose mark is 4.4(the best - nikon lance of all) have f1.8-0.62,f2.8-0.78 and on f4 - 0.83

MTF

 

For N58mm Noct http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/NIFNOCT5812.gif

 

for N50mm f1.2 http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/NIF5012.gif

 

for N50mmAF 1.4D http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/NIAF5014.gif

 

and N50mmAF 1.8 http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/NIAF5018.gif

 

And for comparation

Canon EF 50/f1,0L USM with 3.9 mark on superb f1 have 0.46, f1.4-0.55, f2-0.66, f2.8-0.74 and on f4 0.78<div></div>

Sharpness issues aside, the NOCT has much better correction for coma with its ground aspherical element, its raison d'etre IMO.

Ok on wide open noct is litle beter, but just...

Noct hase coma TOO... I know that this will disappoint many but that is true. Just look at this comparation chart wich I made combbining charts taken from www.Photodo.com.

With grean I show you where are soft points and coma-zones on each lences.<div></div>

For beter understanding of MTF line positions on the full 135 frame I'l post this resized scan of negativ. Picture was taken with Nikkor Ai24mm f2.8. from 0.6 m<div></div>

Unless you have $$$ coming out of your ears, I'm willing to bet that any negligible improvement you might get with the 58 isn't worth the enormous difference in price.

1 picture is worth more then 1000 words and I'l give you 2

First is 50mm 1.2 and last is with f2<div></div>

<div></div>

"Ok on wide open noct is litle beter, but just... Noct hase coma TOO... I know that this will disappoint many but that is true. Just look at this comparation chart wich I made combbining charts taken from www.Photodo.com. With grean I show you where are soft points and coma-zones on each lences."

 

Both lenses are well corrected for coma. In fact, virtually all optical systems are well corrected for coma, except for oddities like Newtonian telescopes. The truth is that coma is one of the easiest aberrations to correct.

 

The problem here is that the aberration which is too often mislabeled as coma isn't really coma at all, but rather something more difficult to say and write: sagittal oblique spherical aberration. Some lens designers abbreviate this to "SOBSA", which has the same number of letters as "coma" and should therefore help eliminate the root cause of all the confusion.

 

The Noct is well-corrected for sagittal oblique spherical aberration, which is the cause of the pronounced "batwing" off-axis point images seen in the 50/1.2. On the other hand, the Noct does not have a particularly flat field, which is why it often seems to be a bad lens if you only look at test bench numbers.

 

The Photodo chart does reveal the excellent on-axis contrast of the Noct, and this high contrast extends over its curved field for a significant distance. For 3D subjects fairly close to the camera the field curvature is not a significant problem, and can actually be used to advantage if extremely shallow depth of field is your goal. The bokeh of the Noct very nice at f/1.2, and IMO this is the main reason for using this lens.

<p>the noct is indeed better corrected for SOBSA (coma), which is why you use it... it's a special purpose lens for shooting points of light.</p>

<p>A comparison at f/1.2 of the Noct 58mm 1.2 AIS and the Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI, full images and sides where SOBSA (coma) is at its worst:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>the last two images are the same area (within reason, 58mm is a bit longer than 50mm), and same 100% pixel level, 697x545 px.</p>

<p>The quality of the SOBSA/coma is up to subjective judgment but it's pretty clear that the size of the Noct's coma is much much smaller than the 50mm 1.2.</p>