Nikon AiS: 50mm f1.2 v. 45mm f2.8 P

<p>Well, I did it. I snagged a very nice copy of a Nikon F3/T (champagne & black.) It looks great! I had pretty much settled on Nikon AiS lenses: 28/2, 50/1.2, 105/2.5 as those seem like legends in their own right. However, I've always had a soft spot for Tessars. I have several c.1910--1935 for my 4x5 and a couple of 6x9 folders. I've read some good reviews of the Nikon 45mm f2.8P, and like it's silver finish. And, it's small size! It sounds like it has the softness I'd expect from a Tessar. So now I'm torn. I like the f1.2 of the 50mm, and its reported resistance to flare. I like the looks of the 45mm P, its size, and do like the Tessar "look." I assume the 45mm P will function just fine on a F3/T. SO, does this mainly just come down to personal preference? I do a lot of night shooting, and think the f1.2 would have an advantage. OTOH, the little silver lens does look cool!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The F3 is large enough to offset any advantage to the diminutive 45/2.8 (which, on the other hand, was appealing enough on the then-brand new FM3a I handled several years ago that I was very tempted). I'd go for the faster 50/1.2 with the F3.</p>

<p>But for my FM2N? Sure, I'd consider the 45/2.8.</p>

<p>You really can't compare them against each other. Each is a fine example for their individual intended purpose. Just get both and use them.</p>

<p>I have the 50mm f/1.2 AiS; for what it's worth, I do not regard it a legend of its kind, for the simple reason that I think it is not special enough. Very good, but not special. The problem might be that it sits next to a lens that I feel is more legendary, and far more outspoken in character: the AiS 35mm f/1.4. That's a Jekyll and Hyde lens - the f/1.4 and f/2 performance is weird, different and much a matter of taste (I adore it, most do not). f/4 and f/5.6 are impeccably sharp (corner performance maybe not, but these are old fast primes, let's be realistic), and beyond that it degrades a bit. The 50mm f/1.2 is like a better behaved version of that wild child - the f/1.2 performance is off the chart (much worse than the 35 f/1.4 at f/1.4), but already by f/2 it's impeccably well-behaved, and stays that way till it runs out of stops at f/16.<br>

So, it is an excellent lens in many ways, and probably the best performer at f/2 still for 50mm Nikkors, but well, just not <em>that</em> special. I found mine for a really nice price, and it was like new, so I can't complain and I will certainly keep it. But the 35 f/1.4 (and 105 f/2.5) are the masterpieces to me, and worth their normal asking prices. The 50mm f/1.2 - harder to defend at the usual prices. For the money, probably a 50mm f/1.4 Ai makes more sense, all in all. I do not have any experience with the 45mm, though, so I cannot compare to that one.<br>

Usability wise, the 50mm balances perfectly on my F3. On the FM2n it seems a bit too large (still fine, just esthetically a bit off), on the F3 it's at home.</p>

<p>Hmmm. I took a look at the 58mm f1.2. A brief look! I'm pretty set on the 28mm, so I need something in the 45--55mm range. I've seen images made at f1.2 on the 50mm and did like them. I'm leaning to it because it would be period correct to the camera.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I think they are slightly different critters. I had the 1.2 for many years and wish I still did on a regular basis. Mine had an interesting quality wide open I liked and can't duplicate with anything else. The 45 is one I've only ever tried once and didn't buy it. For what they cost though, why not have both? The 45 doesn't take up much space. Good job on the F3, you will be happy with that.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen images made at f1.2 on the 50mm and did like them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then there is nothing quite like it :-) <a href="https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-50mm-f1-2-ai-s">Here is another review</a>, which corresponds quite well with my findings, and which shows the particular f/1.2 qualities quite well. I must add, in addition what I wrote earlier, these effects are less notable on film, in my experience, and the lens is quite easy to focus on the F3 (I've got the standard viewfinder and R focus screen); on the D700 hitting focus at the widest apertures (f/1.2-1.4) is more a guessing game.</p><div></div>

<p>When I bought my FM3a it was a kit with the 45mm 2.8P, silver, the camera black, I like the Nikkor but it doesn't work well with my hands, the focusing ring and aperture being so close. So I found the Voigtlander 40mm Ultron that is easier to manipulate, and happy that I did. If faced with the choice of the 45mm 2.8P, and the 50mm 1.2, I would definatley opt for the 50mm 1.2, and save the mid focal length for another day. Pancake lenses are terrific. It's a street thing, when you are walking around with your camera over the shoulder the lens minimal size doesn't interfere throughout movement. The Voigtlander 40mm Ultron's aperture ring has firm click detents to insure against slippage, the focusing ring is silky smooth, but not loose, so getting a set, grab and shoot is entirely possible with the Ultron. I hope to include a fast Nikkor 50mm 1.2 one day.</p>

<p>Kent</p>

<p>The following is from experience:</p>

<p>I got hold of a 45mm 2.8 Nikkor for my FM3A in around 2006. It is a lovely lens, with almost zero distortion and it behaves impeccably with highlights in the frame. The P design means that it is also useful on digital cameras as a rather stubby short telephoto. However, I tired of it rather rapidly because the 2.8 aperture is very limiting and the handling for my large hands is not the best (it excels as a pre-focused lens at F8). At F4 the aperture is almost purely circular - great for portraits.</p>

<p>Instead I got myself another pancake lens - the very short 50mm AIS 1.8S made for the Japanese market - it looks rather like an E series lens, except that it focuses down to .45m not .60m and is more robust in construction, with proper Nikon lens coatings. It is NOT the version that comes with the 4XXXX serial number and has hard plastic nubbins on the focus ring. It is a wonderful lens (mine is anyway) again with very tiny distortion, fantastic resistance to flare but it is also very versatile - bang it on a PK-13 extension tube and it is a superb macro lens that can be used to create some truly wonderful images. </p>

<p>I keep seeing them for sale on Ebay from Japan at very reasonable prices - the 45mm 2.8 can go for more than double in most instances. So, how much money do you have to burn?</p>

<p>Both lenses are very sharp but the 50mm I feel has the edge. At infinity it beats my copy of the 50m 1.8 AFS that I have easily. I don't think I'll ever part with it. It has more creative potential than the 45mm 2.8 P. As for Ultron, I understand it may offer more distortion but is also very sharp.</p>

<p>I'm taking a different approach than a lot of people, I guess. I'm not really a collector because I want stuff I can use, but OTOH I've put together a fairly broad collection of lenses from 1845 to 1928 (for 4x5) and cameras from 1904 to 1951. I just like using period-correct camera gear from different eras. It's like a connection to places, people, and photographers of the past for me. It fascinates me to wonder who the owners of a (1909 Kodak Panoram No.2) were, and what they photo'd. I have too much stuff though and am thinning the herd. What I want to end up with are some of the very best examples of many different eras. The F3/T fits in there very nicely, and I'm once again thinking the 50mm f1.2 is a nice match. It would have been a "dream" lens in its day. I'm not so much for the very "best" lenses as I am the lenses that best defined their era. I shoot film because I like its idiosyncracies and "charecter." When I need "perfection," I have a D800E and a set of the very best state of art lenses available. I'm trying to get away from that "sterile" look with my older cameras and lenses. I have CZJ Tessars for 4x5 from 1910 and 1934, and also on my 1928 Cocarette folder and 1951 Rolleiflex. Maybe the 50mm f1.2 would actually be a better representative of lenses from the 1980s. And yes, I obviously buy everything used. Not many new Derogy Petzvals available out there. ;-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

<p>Distortion is not an issue with the Ultron, it is more than tolerable, its vignetting wide open that is its issue that is gone at F4. I get the impression from the review I read of the Ultron, that because it got flying colors in its review that the vignetting issue was the lonely one that stood out, but at F4 its gone, so can't fault it there. Actually I like vignetting as long as it is within these parameters.</p>

<p>I don't have any of the standard f/1.2 manual focus Nikkors or the 45 P lens. If I ever get an f/1.2 Nikkor it will probably be the 58 Noct. I do have just about every manual focus version of the 50/1.4. In the 45 focal length I have two GN Nikkors. One is the C and has seven blades. My earlier pre-C lens has nine blades. The GN lenses are quite good but I rarely use the GN feature on either one. The 50/1.8 which was just mentioned, with the 4XXXXXX serial number, is one which a neighbor recently gave me. It needed an overhaul and now looks perfect inside and out. I have a number of other 50/1.8s and I think the original one is my favorite. In good light and for subjects which are not too close, the 45s are very nice. They are just slightly wide. On a mechanical Nikkormat or an F2 the smaller size and weight of the 45 doesn't seem to matter. The whole package is heavy anyway. I have enough 55mm Micro Nikkors that I would rarely if ever use a 50/1.8 with extension. Years ago Modern Photography compared various macro set-ups and a 50/2 Nikkor with a single element Nikon close-up lens was sharper than some macro lenses. The two most common reasons for using an f/1.2 lens have been the ability to use slow fine grained film and selective focus. Films have been improved enough that most of what an f/1.2 lens was used for can be done with an f/1.4 lens now with results which are at least as good. Specialty lenses like the 58 Noct or Canon's 55mm Aspherical or 50/1.2L gave better performance wide open than was previously possible but not necessarily much better than what a good f/1.4 lens of the time could do. I agree that trying both the 50/1.2 and the 45P is worth doing. I prefer the more solid feel of the older 45 GN lenses even if the P has some improvements. My f/1.2 lenses? A 55/1.2 Canon FL and two 57/1.2 Konica Hexanons. The Hexanons are better than the FL. I will soon take delivery of a 58/1.4 RE Topcor for my RE Super and RE 200 cameras so I will get to see what kind of rendering it provides. It's the older all silver (aluminum) version with the black rubber covering on the focusing ring. </p>

<p>I mostly want the 50mm f1.2 because it's cool.</p>

<p>Kent in sD</p>

<p>I have all three. The 50 f1.2, the 45 f2.8P and the 35 f1.4. All are great lenses and none of them will leave you needing. The 35 f1.4 is the longest with it's metal lens hood followed by the 50. The 45 is a pancake and very compact light lens.</p>

<p>i brought the 45p new when it first came out; and though it produce good colours , bokeh, and a lovely 3d effect, I found it to be a bit too contrasty - for my taste.</p>

<p>The purpose of a pancake lens is to have a small camera package. On an FM is might make sense, but once you put in on an F3 that purpose is largely defeated. Also, IMHO, 2.8 is unacceptably slow for that focal length, especially in a prime. The 50 1.2 is a bread and butter workhorse lens (assuming you prefer primes over zooms). The 45 IMHO is more of a fun lens that apeals to personal preferences. If it has a strong appeal to you and you don't mind basically duplicating a lens, get it in addition to the 50. But I would not get it instead of the 50.</p>

<p>Last night I came across a 50mm f1.2 AiS for sale at a decent price, and it looked pretty. So I bought it. Should come about the same time my camera does. Now I'm looking for a Nikon 28mm f2 AiS. :-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I may have missed it written elsewhere, but the 45mm Nikkor focuses different from all Nikkors!<br>

It focuses like a Leica or Canon lens..Caused me plenty wrong focusing..<br>

I never needed the GN feature using the Vivitar 285 Auto flash.<br>

It is a typical "Tessar" type lens.<br>

Never used the 50mm f1.2 but it may be an interesting one, wide open.<br>

The 45mm makes a very compact kit.</p>

<p>And the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF2? I am not a photo-perfectionist, but by experience I am quite satisfied with the combination with a F3. And Just playing with it is a real pleasure.</p>