Which Nikon 50mm?

[richard_liu2]

Hi, everyone. Need some help here. A friend of mine brought me some old MF

gears to see if I'm interested in buying them. To my surprise, there is a nice

MF nikkor 50mm f1.2 AIS in the pile. After I did some shots with this lens, now

I think I'm in some sort of trouble. This lens seems to have much better bokeh

than the 50mm f1.8 AFD and the 50mm f1.4 AFD. Recently I started to use the

50mm f1.8 AFD for portraits after realizing my 85mm 1.8 AFD is too long. Among

all, I feel the f1.2 is better than the other three. Am I wrong? Sometimes I do

wish that the 50mm f1.8's bekeh be a little better. I no longer have the 50mm

f1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 AFD. Is there any other better choice for a 50mm,

excluding the Noct? I have to give him a response in the weekend. Thanks for

your input.

[michaelging]

I think the 50mm 1.2 is a better lens then the ones you mentioned, it usually goes for quite a bit of moola.

[tri-x1]

Never had an f1.2 but my first reaction is that it's too bulky no matter what kind of bokeh it has. I've aways been a fan of the f1.8 and f2 Nikkor "normals." I think the f2 has the best bokeh (God I hate that term!).

[michael_bradtke]

I really like the 1.2. It lives on my D2h.

 

Michael

[icuneko]

Consider the newere Nikon 45mm f2.8P AIS lens. It has almost-rounded aperture blades and examples of its bokeh on the internet show it to be very smooth. It's very small, lightweight but is limited (some disagree) by

its relatively 'slow' f2.8 aperture. I've heard the f1.2's bokeh is good

too, but it's also quite a large and heavy lens.

[icuneko]

Consider the newere Nikon 45mm f2.8P AIS lens. It has almost-rounded aperture blades and examples of its bokeh on the internet show it to be very smooth. It's very small, lightweight but is limited (some disagree) by

its relatively 'slow' f2.8 aperture. See these sites for examples:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=14661916

 

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~maro0049/zishoot/zi6.jpg

 

I've heard the f1.2's bokeh is good too, but it's also quite a large and heavy lens.

[icuneko]

Here too: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/45_28p_ais

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"Among all, I feel the f1.2 is better than the other three. Am I wrong?"</i><P>

No. :-)<P>

You might find Robert Lai's post from 2005 comparing some of the 50's of interest:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DHUv"><b>50mm f/1.2 vs the 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/2 - Not dialup friendly!</b></a>

[icuneko]

These 45 f2.8P examples from the above site:

 

http://www.pbase.com/image/28128930

 

http://www.pbase.com/image/48451144

[richard_liu2]

Thanks for the links. I need to go through R. Lai's post again after super. That was a good one. Thanks.

[richard_liu2]

Supper. Doh.

[ebogaerts]

In the link that Michael mentions above - thetesting that Robert collected from myself and others seemed to point to the 50mm f/1.2 having the best out of focus highlights versus the other 50mm Nikkors in the test.

 

However, as with pretty much all lenses that I have ever used - and that includes the 50mm f/1.2 - the bokeh is entirely dependent on how "tough" the background is. For example, I've recieved pleasently soft OOF highlights from streelights at night from the 50mm f/1.2. And, on the same token, I've recieved some really rather harsh OOF highlights from the f/1.2 with foliage during the day. But in general I trust the 50mm f/1.2 to give me good results as long as I make myself aware of the situation that I'm shooting in.

[patricks]

50's are a bit too short IMO to make a perfect short tele for portraits on the DX sensor, I'd take a look at the 60/2.8D micro lens as well.

[lee hamiel]

I owned a 50 f/1.2 & really liked it - also a 50 1.4 & 1.8

 

With that said - the 1.2 is similar to using a Leica Noctilux - a tricky lens & you really need to learn how to use it to it's advantage. Need to experiment with it & pre-visualize the background elements for out of focus areas before shooting.

 

If you want to use a 50 to simply grab a shot the 1.4 or 1.8's are great & again you need to use them a lot to get the most out of them.

 

My feeling is that if you can score the 1.2 for a good price do it - I know I miss mine & plan to get another someday.

[charles_miller]

If you are looking for very shallow depth of field as an artistic effect, the 50mm f1.2 is a reasonable way to go. And it most certainly seem smoother than the 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 models in many shooting situations.

 

Do beware that there is considerable barrel distortion with the f1.2, and that it is not quite as sharp beyond f5.6 as the others. Those factors combined with its weight and its cost do tend to make it something of a special purpose lens.

 

Trying to do artistic photography with either the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 is problematic simply because they do ugly backgrounds in so many situations. I have made very nice shots with both, but once I started scanning slides and viewing them at high resolution, I was often disappointed with their *hokey bokeh*.

[rjm photo]

Richard...if you actually try a 50mm F1.2 AIS out, you'll find that it is not overly bulky, heavy, etc. It feels comfortable and balanced on my F, F3, F4.....overall an excellent lens.

[kipling]

the 1.2 ais is a very special lens. if you use it, especialy for portraits, you'll fall in love with it. probably my favorite nikon lens. <p>

<center><img width=511 src="http://static.flickr.com/39/121356057_99346a6f74_o.jpg" alt="josi.straw" /></a></center>

[david_h._hartman]

Richard,<br>

<br>

The 50/1.2 AIS (I dont own one) should give good ability to

blur backgrounds and its a pretty good focal length on DX

for a three-quarters portrait. Its similar in angle of view

to a 78 to 80mm lens on 24x36mm depending on the specific DX DSLR.

Id give the lens a spin. I think Id like one what

based on what Ive read here at PHOTO.NET and Bjorn Rorslett

give it a decent review here...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

What Id really like is a 70/1.4D ED-IF AF-S but such is not

made. If one ever is, and I think Nikon is slack not to make such

a lens, it will probably be a 70/1.4G ED-IF AF-S. Since I own

three cameras that accept G type lenses I could live with this

though I would not be overjoyed.<br>

<br>

If this 50/1.2 AIS can be had for a fair and reasonable price Id

grab it. If you find that you dont like the lens youll

probably have little trouble reselling it.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Please, at about 360g and accepting a 52mm filter the 50/1.2 AIS

Nikkor is neither heavy nor large. It is certainly not heavy and

large compared to a 17~55/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor which weighs

about 755g and takes a 77mm filter. Neither lens is what Id

call petite but neither is a burden to use for general

photography. Although the latter is more than twice as heavy and

large it is extremely useful and many consider it their bread

and butter lens.<br>

<br>

The 50/1.8D AF and 45/2.8 P Nikkors are certainly smaller and

lighter but neither offers much ability to significantly blur

backgrounds to make the subject stand out. I own a 50/1.8 AF (Japan)

and a 50/1.8 AI Nikkor and I find neither well suited to

portraiture. For whatever reason I find the bokeh quite nice at f/2.8,

both lenses, but less so at f/1.8 and f/4.0. These lenses dont

come close on DX to replacing the 85/1.4 AIS, 85/2.0 AIS or 105/2.5

AIS on 24x36mm. The 85/1.8D AF, 85/1.4 AIS & AF-D and 85/2.0

AIS make a good replacment for the 135/2.8 AIS & AI on 35mm.

On there respective formats these lenses are very suitable for

tight head shots but less so for head and shoulders views.<br>

<br>

To get the perspective I want for a head and shoulders shot a 70mm

lens is great and the 28~70/2.8D ED-IF AF-S and 35~70/2.8D AF

often get recommended. If significant background blurring is not

desired they are both good choices. If blurring is desired then

neither is as f/2.8 at 70mm just doesnt do it.

[janvanlaethem]

Richard,

 

Buy the 1.2, provided the price is right. You'll find it is a very different lens than the 1.8.

 

I have the 50mm AF 1.8 and use it as an allround lens to complement my wideangle and short teles on most of my trips, including holidays. I use the 50mm AIS 1.2 for low light shots and portraits. The 50mm 1.8 and 2.0 versions are too sharp for portraits, unless that is the effect you are looking for. Also, background can be a bit too pronounced, even wide open. The 1.2 excells in this respect, you get a beautiful transition from sharp to unsharp.

 

The 1.2 is a heavy lens compared to 1.8. It balances well on cameras like F3HP and F801s (N8008s in the USA), but gets a bit top heavy on lighter cameras like FM3a. My suggestion is to keep your 1.8 and add the 1.2 for those special shots. A bonus is that the 1.2 still takes 52mm filters, like most of Nikon's prime lenses.

 

As for the ideal portrait lens, all depends on your personal preference. In the 1970s and 1980s, everyone would use a 135mm. Now everyone seems to prefer 85mm or its equivalent on a DSLR. There is no absolute rule here, anything longer than 50mm is fine. Longer than 180mm will compress perspective too much for a tight portrait.

[shineofleo]

I am interested in 50mm/F1.2, but it is so rare today... and what about the price?

[janvanlaethem]

It can still be bought new, although I'd have to check if Nikon is still producing it.

 

New on the B&H website 579.95 dollars (USA) and 539.95 (grey import).

 

Second hand on KEH 449 dollars (EX+ condition) and 429 (EX condition). They also list a LN- condition lens for 525 dollars, but you can get a new grey import lens for almost the same money, which I'd prefer over a pre-owned lens. KEH also has AI lenses for slightly less.

 

There are of course other websites where you can shop, but these are the ones I have experience with (B&H for anything new, KEH for second hand).

 

The 50mm 1.2 is worth it, but you need to understand it's limited uses.

[robert_marotz]

I think the 50/1.8 is good at f/2.8 but is not very good wide-open. Same with the 50/2, which is very similar but with the exception of a cooler-looking hexagonal iris.

 

The 45/2.8P that S.Link offered links to...some of those links are from me, demonstrating how it does NOT have good boke wide open. It's good at smaller apertures, but most folks shooting with normals on DSLRs are not looking for good boke at f/5.6--they're looking for wide-aperture stuff.

 

The 50/1.2 will probably be smoother at f/1.8 than the 50/1.8 is. I would get the 50/1.2 if I had the money, but I do really rather enjoy using the 50/1.8 AIS, which is very sharp indeed (perhaps too sharp for portraits--but I don't mind).

[Robert_Lai]

If the 50 1.2 AIS is in good shape, and you already find the pictures from it to be interesting in a good way, then buy it. It works better on a DX sensor than on 35mm film, as you crop away all the bad stuff that happens in the corners. Center the subject in the frame, or focus the subject where it lies. Because of curvature of field, you can't focus using the center, then recompose. Your subject will then be out of focus.<p>This lens has gone through an interesting demand curve. Last year, when I was looking for one - driven primarily by trying to find a Nikkor 50mm with decent bokeh - nobody wanted these things. You couldn't meter the AI Nikkors on the digital bodies, except for the D1 series and the D2x. I bought my minty sample from ebay for about $250, which was the going rate then. After the D200 came out, and Bjorn's favorable review of the lens on the D2x, now everybody wants one. Try to find a clean one for under $400 now. Supply and demand!

[janvanlaethem]

Robert,

 

Demand for the 1.2 lens is much higher now because Nikon doesn't make anything remotely similar in its AF, AF-D or DX lens line. The closest thing you could get for your DSLR is a 35mm 1.4 AIS.

 

Nikon AF(D) prime wide-angles ? Yeah, there's the fisheye 16mm 2.8, 14mm 2.8, 18mm 2.8, 20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8 and 35mm 2.0. Or the DX 10.5mm ... you guessed it, 2.8.

 

If you want a zoom lens, anything goes from 2.8 to 5.6 at the long end. Nikon is trying to overcome that problem by providing us with VR lenses, which theoretically should give you the option of selecting 2 to 3 speeds slower for those low light shots.

 

But a 2.8 VR lens is not going to change anything to depth of field. There is a demand for very shallow depth of field, and unless Nikon starts changing their strategy, all we're going to get is yet another 18-something zoom lens.

 

Sigma are able to produce 20mm and 28mm 1.8 autofocus lenses, and a 35mm 1.4 autofocus lens. I just picked up a brochure for the Sony Alpha: Sonnar T* 135mm 1.8.

 

Nikon, it's time to wake up.

[richard_liu2]

Thanks guys for the replies. I'm still experimenting. Robert Lai's test was definitely dead on. When I got this lens, I shot it mostly at f2.0-f4.o, which is where I used my 50mm 1.8AFD for indoor and low light. I liked the results lot more than the f1.8 one. This is what turns me on. This is the aperture range I'm used to shooting indoor event and activities. Shooting at f1.2, well, not very often but good to have. It goes softer at f1.2, and it's difficult for such a shallow DOF. I'm gonna try it outdoor today. But again, plenty of lenses can do that in good lighting. So this lens definitely has it's place.

 

 

So my general feeling is that this lens does very very well in low light, indoor for portraits. Well, I guess this is why it's a f1.2. I don't usually do close head(only) shots with a 50mm, so the barrel isn't of much concern. Can I say that 90% of your input is definitely right about this lens? About the size and weight, Geez, it's got a lot glass for a 50mm. It's big and heavy for a 50mm for sure, but I found it more comfortable to handle on a DSLR than the 50mm 1.8AFD or the f1.4 D, with that much large focusing ring. And it's only 1/4 turn(?) So..... hum... ;-)

 

Thanks for your kind response.