Nikkor 50 mm f:1/1.2 AI or AI-S

<p>I wonder if anyone here has compared these versions. AI has much longer focussing throw which might make it easier to focus in critical situations. AI-S has nine aperture blades (instead of seven). Of course, this lens deserves to be used, mainly, wide open but there will certainly be situations when, e.g., 2.0 or 2.8 should be used.<br>

Both version have been offered to me at approx. 400 euros. A lot of money and I cannot make direct comparison.<br>

Is AI easier to focus than AI-S?<br>

Is the difference of 7 vs 9 blades visible in any situations?<br>

Which one would you pick?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!<br>

Kari</p>

Honestly, the AI-S version at least doesn't deserve to be shot mainly wide open - it's fun every now and then but the limited depth of field and harsh bokeh get very tiresome, very quickly. f/2.8 -> f/8 or so is much prettier. Handling-wise it's a pleasant lens - focus is smooth but well-weighted and it fills the hand nicely - and I've never had any problem nailing focus on any camera on which I've mounted it.

<p>Thanks Jean-Yves!<br>

I've read a lot about this lens - and its drawbacks. But no one, to my knowledge, has directly compared the two versions.<br>

You say this nine-blade version has harsh bokeh? Then the seven-blade version might have even worse, correct? Remember, though, that the intended range would be 1.2 to 1.4, never 2.8 to 16.<br>

Actually, I have used 45 to 60 mm normal lenses very seldom, except my 55/2.8 macro for repro works.<br>

But now, in a certain project related to my daughter's portfolio, we need (read: she wants, I'll pay) a lens between 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 that has a shallow DOF and yields quality results wide open. Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 is far too expensive.<br>

Any further comments would be very useful!<br>

Kari</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's not the number of aperture blades that are to blame, since they're out of the way when shooting wide open; it's simply that the lens, shot wide open, renders busy background harshly rather than blurring them - perhaps because it's designed with sharpness of the in-focus image first and foremost. Here, for instance, <a href=" a fairly extreme example</a> - check the edges of the highlights and the doubling-up of thin lines.<br>

If she's after reduced depth of field, pleasant out-of-focus rendering, and sharpness of the main subject, then she might consider taking an extra pace back and trying a 105mm f/2.5 AI or AIS. It's longer than your stated limits, but it really is a lovely lens.</p>

Rent each for a short time. Then compare.

Buy the one you like.

 

Borrowlenses.com as example.

<p>Thanks again!<br>

I'll restate.<br>

Assuming that the lens versions are otherwise identical, the primary benefit of using an AI might be finer focusing especially at close distances due to a greater angle one has to turn. This is, by the way, the reason why I prefer, in this order, AI over AI-S over AF (in the manual mode) at any focal length.<br>

Nevertheless, an AI-S might be better when a small aperture is needed (yes, when the lens is used in a non-original way). This was actually the core of my question. In other words, is the bokeh of the AI-S version nicer (or less ugly, if you wish) at, say 2.8 to 5.6?<br>

Just a guess: this was the point why Nikon added aperture blades, right?<br>

Yes, our family has a 105/2.5 - a great lens and perhaps the best Nikkor ever regarding the quality/price ratio. (For me, it's the "normal" lens standing on top my D3 when I'm just strolling without something wideish, teleish, or macroish in my mind.)<br>

But my adult daughter has to "compare the strengths and weaknesses of near-normal lenses" for her degree in photography. We both love 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 - but.<br>

I assume, there are others who, for whatever reasons, are curious about any differences between the AI and AI-S versions of a given Nikkor. If you have read this far, please, share your opinion.<br>

Hauskaa vappua!<br>

Kari<br>

Off topic: In Finland, First of May is THE day of the year when everyone celebrates. Google "vappu" for details, if you wish.</p>

<p>Kari, I used Ais 50/1.2 on Panasonic G1 and found the focusing very difficult for the very reason you are concerned, especially between 5m and infinity. Live view of digital camera offers no tolerance for the focus error. I even found the same difficulty with Ais 50/1.8 I had and thus replaced it with the Ai version. I'm happy with my decision.</p>

<p>A couple of days ago, I compared Ai 50/1.2 and Ais 50/1.2 on my GH2 side by side at a camera shop, and found Ai easier to focus. However, I shied away from the Ai version because of, again, as you say, 7-blade design. Maybe you would have to make a tough decision. The advantage of a m4/3 camera user is that I have a choice to go for Olympus 50/1.2. ;)</p>

<p>The aperture blades are only a small part of the "bokeh equation". Adding more blades is pretty cheap and easy, and it's something lens makers have learned that they can brag about in ads, so we hear a lot of squawking: 9 rounded blades! 9 rounded blades. The much greater part is the spherical aberration characteristics of the lens at the focal plane and at the aperture plane. An 85mm f1.4 would have better bokeh than a 50mm f1.2 even if you replaced the 7 or 9 blade "leaf shutter style" aperture mechanism of the 50mm f1.2 with a full 19 blade iris diaphragm.</p>

<p>The main reason to have a 9 blade rounded aperture is that it produces a lot less "starring" of small "point source" lights than a 5 or 7 blade or any "straight blade" aperture. There's a slight difference in the shape of bright, out of focus points of light, but that's not the dominant part of the bokeh, and will not affect the "double lines" or "busy" appearance that Jean mentioned. Some people like starring. Sigma makes a lot of 8 blade lenses, an 8 blade produces a radically different look, the starring is much more severe, 8 long points, instead of 18 short points from a 9 blade lens.</p>

<p>wizfaq bokeh</p>

<p>I have 50/1.2 AI-S and I also found very difficult to focus it wide open. Anyhow it's sweet spot is at f2 when, at least my copy, shows a nice bokeh and draws very nice, especially when used in low light situations. This lens performs great when shooting against light or when different lights are involved, like in concerts, etc. </p>

<p>For a very shallow DOF and a easily controlled focusing ring I recommend Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4. I purchased mine brand new with about 400 EUR and is a great lens. Nice bokeh wide open, very smooth and pleasant focusing experience and the DOF is really thin. If you are doing a portrait to someone at one meter distance, if you focus on one eye the other eye will be less or more out of focus. You have to consider that a longer focal has a narrower DOF at the same aperture. So 35mm f/1.4 should not be considered here...</p>

<p>Sorry, do not know about a comparison. But I like the 50 f1.2 Ai-S. Not sure the bokeh is all that bad. It may be a bit "punchy" (how is that for a descriptive useless word) but I would not describe it as harsh..... I compared a few 50mm lenses from Leica and Nikon, in order to see which one to keep and I prefer the 1.2 over teh AF-D 1.8 by far.</p>

<p>It is quite soft wise open.... I guess that works for portraits.</p>

<p>Here is the only shot I have available to me where I am... does not show much bokeh I am afraid.</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00X/00XhIV-303037784.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="750" /></p>

<p>I don't have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 lens, but I do have an Ai version of the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 I had the opportunity to compare this against a friend's Ai-S Noct, and I see no discernible difference in bokeh between f/1.2 and f/2.8, and I'm not surprised either, given that the aperture blades should have essentially no influence over the image at these apertures. The Ai Noct, like the Ai 50/1.2, has a longer focus throw, which I find very useful as it is very difficult to focus, even on a tripod with Live View. The two lenses appear to have different coatings as well, but I wasn't able to use them together long enough to see if this made any real-world difference. I keep a hood on my Noct all the time anyway, for what it's worth. Finally, I would say though that Ai versions of this lens are likely to be older, and thus it may be more difficult to find one in good condition. The Ai-S version of the 50/1.2 should be much easier to find in new condition, since they are either still being made new, or have only recently stopped being made new. Also, I would not be surprised if the newest Ai-S 50mm f/1.2 lenses have newer coatings on them. My Ai Noct is not in great cosmetic condition from the outside (to say the least), but the optics look good and it appears to give great images and focuses fairly smoothly. Good luck! </p>

<p>I have a couple of 50mm Nikkors, the 50 f1.2 AI-S, 50 f1.4 AI, 50 f1.8 AI-S, 50 f1.8 AF-D and 50 1.4G.</p>

<p>For manual focus I generally always try to buy the AI versions as they are cheaper and I like the longer focus throw better. The difference between AI and AI-S is that you have to turn the AI lenses about 50% more. Good for precision focusing - bad for fast focusing.</p>

<p>I think the 50 f1.4G is perhaps the sharpest at f1.4 of them all. But they are all soft wide open compared to when they are stopped down a stop or two. So quality results wide open is a matter of relativity I guess.</p>

<p>Is it for a film camera, DX or FX?</p>

<p>BTW, you can get a new 50mm f/1.2 AI-S at B&H.</p>

 

<p>Thanks all so far!<br>

Remember, please, my original question although I snap my own bait "We both love 35/1.4 and 85/1.4" No focussing or bokeh troubles with either lens. On D3, D300, D200, D100, F5 (black-and-white). Period.<br>

I know that the difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is huge, optically.<br>

But I thought that calling a 50 mm lens normal implies, in addition to the neurophysiological reasoning, that this focal lengt is somehow more manageable than others. At least they weigh less than comparable lenses.<br>

Anyway, I would never buy another 50 mm Nikkor (already having a Micro Nikkor 50/2.8) but my daughter insists. I agree, the point of her portfolio is not, as now, in balance. Her 35 and 85 mm photos (wide open) are as intended, but 50/1.4 certainly aren't.<br>

Kari</p>

 

<p>I have the 50 f/1.2 AI-S and I do not have a problem with the focus throw. And when I compare my AI lenses against my AI-S lenses I do not feel a great difference.<br>

But then I am more tolerant about this then a lot of people.<br>

If you would like to see what the 50 f/1.2 AI-S does to a busy background wide open just take a look at this link<br>

<a href="

<p>And if you want sharp and good Bokeh look for a 50 f/2.0 . Mine makes all of the other 50's (6 of them) I own look sad wide open</p>

<p>Warm thanks to you, Pete!<br>

I really appreciate your comment on the usefulness of the longer focus throw. Corroborating my view without any direct comparison between AI and AI-S versions of the same lens.<br>

The lens is meant to be used both on my daughter's F5 (mostly black-and-white) and on my D3. Does it matter?<br>

Kari</p>

 

If nothing else, the focus confirmation on those cameras should be more than fast and accurate enough to get good focus wide open (as with the F4S on which I often mount my version); and if that doesn't work, reasonably tidy F3s are cheap and widely available - assuming you don't already have one sitting in the back of a cupboard somewhere.

<p>Kari, it doesn't matter if you choose an f/1.2 lens for artistic reasons.</p>

<p>If you choose a f/1.2 lens to shoot in extremely low light though it is good to know the digital sensor can't collect all the light from oblique angles so when you shoot at f/2.8 or larger the camera <a href="http://dxomark.com/index.php/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues">increases the ISO to compensate for this loss</a>, without telling you and without showing it anywhere. The ISO is increased up to about 1/2 stop.</p>

<p>On film it makes no difference.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I know that the difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is huge, optically." - Really? Last time I checked it was just over 1/3rd of a stop. Is that really worth paying a hefty price premium for? Ask yourself how often you're going to be shooting wide-open, given the razor thin DoF and overall lack of image quality at that aperture.</p>

<p>I have an old f/1.2 55mm Nikkor SC lens (Ai converted), and admittedly it is an impressive looking bit of glassware with a nice bright screen image. But do I ever use it wide open? Not if I can help it! I'd second the advice of others. If you want almost zero DoF get a slightly longer lens. For example the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 is genuinely useable wide open with good corner definition, and at a new price about 2/3rds of what you've been quoted for the 50mm f/1.2s. Or if you want low contrast and fuzzy images a lensbaby is cheaper still.</p>

<p>There's a reason why crazy aperture glass has been dropped from Nikon's current catalogue. The main raison d'etre for wide aperture lenses was historical. They made it easier to see, focus and shoot back in the days of film when ISO 400 was realistically about as high as you could get. Improved AF and Digital has changed all that. Now I can pump my D700 up to a real ISO rating of 6400 and take accurately focused handheld snapshots by moonlight - using a modest f/2.8 lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For manual focus I generally always try to buy the AI versions as they are cheaper and I like the longer focus throw better. The difference between AI and AI-S is that you have to turn the AI lenses about 50% more. Good for precision focusing - bad for fast focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is really true, I prefer the AI version of Nikkor lenses over the AIS version. I have the 28mm f2.8 and the 180mm f2.8 ED as well as the 45mm f2.8 P AIS. I love my 35mm f2 AI and my 105mm f2.5 K (pre-AI with the Nikon factory AI kit installed). Optically they are identical to the AIS versions.<br>

I owned the 50mm f1.2 AIS lens for a short time, and never found a need to shoot at f1.2. I find the much cheaper f1.4 50mm a decent compromise, and can be found daily for less than $100! I have the AI version mounted on my F3HP.</p>

<p>I would pick neither... ( just to look for alternatives and think sideways..)<br>

I 'd go for a 58mm Voigtlander Nokton 1.4 , tack sharp, wonderfull bokeh ..<br>

Here is Photozones review... : <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/360-voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f14-sl-ii">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/360-voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f14-sl-ii</a></p>

<p>Thanks C.P.M.<br>

I have now played with a 50/1.2 AI on D3 for two days. Some observations.<br>

Noticeable vignetting at 1.2 that is certainly correctable in post processing. But a negative surprise anyway.<br>

The aperture ring has click stops at 2.0, 1.4 and 1.2 but why not at 1.8? And I don't like the fact that the ring actually goes a bit beyond the 1.2 click stop. Meaning that when you turn the ring without looking at it you may assume that the aperture is 1.4 when it actually is wide open.<br>

Although the lens is a pleasure to handle e.g. because of the long focus throw I just cannot be sure that focus is at the aimed point. The green dot in the viewfinder stays on although I turn the ring noticeably, both at long and close range, corresponding roughly 1 m either side at 25 m and some 1 cm at 80 cm. Not much but enough to make the frame soft at 1.2. Live view doesn't actually help very much since there is a delay that has never before annoyed me but with this lens certainly does. Well, these are features of the body rather than ones of the lens.<br>

It seems, however, that my daughter must continue with her modest K series 50/1.4 (DX, FX) and I'll use 55/2.8 Micro and 45/2.8 GN when I need this boring focal length (FX).</p>

<p>I have a 50/1.2 AI-S. I think that the main reason for getting this lens is not the technical quality at f1.2 (it's soft and difficult to focus), rather the achievable quality around f2-f4 (very good) and the "look" that the widest apertures give, since the rendition is quite interesting. It's difficult to focus, you need a good focusing screen, the stock screen on the D3 won't cut it. I have both AI and AI-S lenses and never gave focus throw much of a thought.<br>

Boring focal length? Focal lengths just are, it's the pictures that are boring or interesting ;-)</p>

 

<p>Thanks Oskar!<br>

Can't find easily a list of Nikon make focussing screens. Have you compared them regarding this lens? May I ask what screen do you use? Is it always on or do you change the screen depending on the subject?<br>

May sound like a silly question but does the type of focussing screen affect the behavior of the green dot? I mean how narrow is its acceptance area?</p>