Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 image quality

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I'm thinking of getting a Nikkor-S 55/1.2 to use on my Canon EOS 5DII body (with an adpater, of course), and I have a couple of questions.</p>

<p>First, is the Nikkor-S the only version of the 55/1.2 that Nikon made, or are there other versions? The reason I'm asking is that there seems to be quite a bit of maligning of the IQ of the 55/1.2 on the net, but I'm not sure whether this pertains to the Nikkor-S.</p>

<p>Second, how <em>is</em> the IQ of the lens, both wide open and stopped down? I've heard everthing from "outstanding" to "poor."</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any elucidation of these matters.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've had this lens since the late 1970s. It's simply a fantastic lens. <strong>But it is a f/1.2 lens</strong> - Such lenses are special lenses, not completely general purpose lenses. I kept my Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 too.<br /> What is amazing about this f/1.2 lens in particular, is not that it does not "equal" some other 'normal' lens at f/5.6, but rather that it comes as close as it does while still going all the way to f/1.2. To suggest otherwise is simply to misunderstand what the lens is designed and meant to be used for.<br /> Here is a shot taken by museum light in the Berlin Ägyptische Museum of the controversial Nefertiti bust. This was the Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 on a Nikkormat EL. Hand held on ISO 200 C/N film. This is one of the things this kind of lens is for.</p>

<p>I use it on all my Canon EOS cameras as well on Nikons.</p><div></div>

[roland_vink]

<p>Wide open contrast is low, with a lot of veiling flare overlaying a moderately sharp image, giving a slight soft-focus look. Close down a stop to f/1.8 and the contrast and sharpness pick up considerably, and at smaller apertures the results are comparable to images from the slower models. Bokeh tends to be harsh - background out of focus blurs are rendered with hard edges and don't blend together smoothly.</p>

<p>All Nikon 55mm f/1.2 lenses share basically the same optical design, but there were some minor tweaks to improve performance. The first Nikkor-S are single coated with serial numbers 970111 - 985xxx. The optics were probably upgraded slightly for the second series 184711 - 240533 . The series from 250001 - 300556 are marked Nikkor-S.C to indicate multicoating for improved contrast. The third series 350011 - 385xxx has a new style barrel and focuses closer, the optics were tweaked again to improve close range performance. The last series from 400001 - 425xxx was upgraded for AI metering with no further changes.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I don't recognize my copy of the Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 in the first paragraph of Roland's post.<br /> On mine, contrast is good, even wide open; and the bokeh is creamy.</p>

<p>Although a lens hood is a good idea, I have rarely used one on my lens, so that's not the difference.<br /> Of course, nearly all lenses do improve as they are stopped down. However, as I have said, "stopping down" is not what this lens is about. If you want better performance at f/1.8 and smaller, get a lens in that range.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>FWIW, mine is serial number 233xxx.</p><div></div>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks, gentlemen. I really appreciate the insight. And there's nothing like good, healthy controversy over lenses. :-)</p>

<p>The reason I'm considering the Nikkor-S is that I'd like an f/1.2 normal prime for my 5DII, but am reluctant to shell out close to $2000 for the EF 50/1.2 L (which is apparently only a mediocre performer, anyway). Since a Nikkor-S with pristine glass has come available here locally, I thought this might be a good time to start my foray into the world of Nikon. (I have mainly used Canon FD and EOS lenses up to now, and, while I do have several top-drawer FD lenses, including both the Aspherical and L versions of the 50/55 and 85, we all know that these superb lenses are nearly useless on EOS bodies).</p>

<p>I realize that it's not a general purpose lens; I'll keep my EF 50/1.4 for that.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Wow, 11 versions of the 55mm f1.2.</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#50fast">http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#50fast</a></p>

<p>Someone thought it was a good design with nearly 180000 copies made....</p>

[tony_correa1]

<p>My mini-review of the Nikkor 55mm f/1.2<br>

http://tonycorrea.com/blog/2011/05/nikon-55f12-review/<br>

In summary: built like a tank, unique character wide open, very sharp stopped down; will take some practice focusing it wide open with it's very thin depth of focus.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Mark,<br>

You can look as well after a Nikkor 50/1.2 AI(S). While 55/1.2 is not a bad lens I think 50/1.2 is slightly superior. I like my copy even wide open (hard to focus....) but in an unscientific tests I did, involving a bunch of MF and AF 50s from Nikon compared at f2... believe me or not 50/1.2 is clearly the winner... in terms of sharpness, contrast, color rendition and bokeh. I'm not sure about this but I think that 50/1.2 is the oldest Nikkor still in production. I really hope that Nikon will upgrade it to AF-S but not at the price tag of 24/35/85 f1.4 primes.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for the further insight. You guys are even more knowledgeable about Nikkor lenses than the guys over in the Canon FD forum are about FD glass.</p>

<p>It's interesting that the lens has only seven aperture blades. All of the premium FD lenses of the time had at eight or nine. It's also interesting that Nikon was slower to start using aspherical elements than Canon, which is a reversal of the usual causal relationship of "Nikon develops and Canon copies."</p>

<p>I'm well aware that large aperture normal primes do not generally produce the most pleasing bokeh. For example, the FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, which is considered to be one of the finest normal primes ever made, has relatively harsh bokeh. However, the bokeh of the later FD 50/1.2 L is very smooth.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I have been satisfied with the quality of images produced by my 55 f/1.2 No it's not razor sharp wide open but I find it to be more then acceptable. Using a lens shade helps with the veiling flair wide open. Lack of color or contrast is not a big issue for me since the camera records more then enough information to be able to enhance the image in Photoshop</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>AFAIK the only Nikkor MF standard prime using an aspherical element was the rare and expensive Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2.</p>

<p>The 55mm f/1.2 Nikkor S (the S being short for septem, Latin for seven, which indicates the number of elements in the lens) is a nice lens. I have the slightly later S-C multicoated version. Its wide-open quality is something to behold. It can do sharp, but only in a very tiny slice of the image, anything just off focus gains a nice radiant halo around it, especially the white or brighter parts of the picture. Stopped down to f/2.8 or below it returns to being an ordinary, reasonably sharp standard lens.</p>

<p>I've read a few claims that this lens behaves poorly on digital because of its high lateral CA, but quite frankly I find it perfectly useable on a full-frame DSLR and no worse in this respect than a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. I was going to post a sample from it, but I can't lay my hands on the file. Must do some serious housekeeping on my hard drives!</p>

[roland_vink]

<p><em>I don't recognize my copy of the Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 in the first paragraph of Roland's post.</em><br>

Maybe you have a good copy. Mine (K version) certainly has a dreamy low contrast look at f1.2 and 1.4. The bokeh is fine at close range because the background is pretty much blown away, but at medium distances the background becomes less blurred and generally is not smoothly blended<em>.<br /></em></p>

<p><em>Wow, 11 versions of the 55mm f1.2.</em><br>

Most are minor variations, not "versions".</p>

<p><em>While 55/1.2 is not a bad lens I think 50/1.2 is slightly superior.</em><br>

I agree.</p>

<p><em>It's interesting that the lens has only seven aperture blades. All of the premium FD lenses of the time had at eight or nine.</em><br>

During the 1960s most Nikon lenses had 6 or 7 aperture blades. From the early 1970s some premium lenses started to have 9 aperture blades, and lenses with 6 blades were phased out. All current Nikkors have 7 or 9 blades. I prefer lenses with an odd number of blades, I think it looks more organic, not as "square". It also gives nicer diffraction stars - a 7 blade aperture produces 14-point stars compared to only 8 points for a 8 blade aperture. Most Canons still have only 6 or 8 blades, and the EF 50/1.8 has just 5!</p>

<p><em>I'm well aware that large aperture normal primes do not generally produce the most pleasing bokeh. For example, the FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, which is considered to be one of the finest normal primes ever made, has relatively harsh bokeh.</em><br>

The Nikor 58/1.2 Noct aspherical made at the same time might not have the same reputation for sharpness (mostly due to field curvature), but it has the smoothest bokeh for a standard lens I have seen. Most other Nikon standard lenses don't have great bokeh.</p>

<p><em>AFAIK the only Nikkor MF standard prime using an aspherical element was the rare and expensive Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2.</em><br>

The new AF-S 50/1.8G uses an aspheric element, although it's probably a cheaper hybrid (plastic molded onto glass), not a hand-ground glass element!</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Variations..v..Versions. Get a grip, life's to short to play semantics!</p>

<p>Nikon decided to give them distinct Serial Numbers, that OK for me..... Prototypes and NASA lenses included... :-))</p>

<p>The 58mm f1.2 Nikkor MF is indeed the only aspheric elemented standard prime lens, the 50mm AF-S G is hardly MF! <br>

I guess you couldn't get 2 lenses more at different ends of the evolutionary scale in Nikon F Mount</p>

<p> </p>

[roland_vink]

<p>Well if you are talking about distinct serial numbers there are only 8 versions ... including the prototype and NASA lenses. There are actually small overlaps in the serial numbers of the minor variations so they are hardly distinct :-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Apparently I am just a lucky son-of-a-gun, then.<br>

Regardless, Roland, that is a very nice set of pages on the Nikon lenses.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Incidentally, the seller of the Nikkor-S, a local collector with whom I am aquainted, has no fewer than <em>seven</em> different f/1.2 normal primes from different manufacturers. He claims that the Nikkor-S is the best wide open. He says that it's sharper, and has much less chromatic aberration than the Minolta Rokkor and the Konica Hexanon, which are both reputed to be very fine. Since he's said that I'm free to buy any of his other lenses, he's probably not exagerrating.</p>

[orio_menoni]

<p>I'd like to point out that what happens wide open with the Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 is really glow, not flare, and it's caused by the residual spherical aberration that afflicts the lens wide open. Stopping down, the glow disappears and the image becomes very clear. This glow does not affect the lens sharpness but minimally. If you look at images "photo 09" and photo 10", and their relative 100% sized crops, on this thread of mine:</p>

<p><a href="http://forum.mflenses.com/nikkor-s-auto-11-2-f55mm-relive-the-middle-ages-t42833.html">http://forum.mflenses.com/nikkor-s-auto-11-2-f55mm-relive-the-middle-ages-t42833.html</a></p>

<p>You will see that the resolvance of the lens wide open (f/1.2) is identical to the resolvance at f/5.6. The perceived sharpness is only reduced by the diffuse glow effect caused by spherical aberration, which lowers the micro-contrast.</p>

<p>The lens can flare, too, of course, but flare is determined by the position of strong lights with regards to the lens. This means that it does not happen every time, but only with specific conditions (and a lens hood can help with that).</p>

<p>Instead, the diffuse glow caused by spherical aberration at f/1.2 has the following unique characteristics, that are not shared by flares:<br>

- it happens every time (it does not depend on lighting conditions)<br>

- a lens hood does not improve it, at any position<br>

- stopping down does remove it (whereas flare happens at all lens apertures)</p>

<p>Diffuse glow caused by spherical aberration can be partially removed with careful use of the "Clarity" slider in Lightroom or Camera Raw. I however tend to keep it unaltered, because I really like it for female portraits. When I don't want it, I simply stop down - or use a different lens.</p>

[rafa batlle]

<p>The glow can be put to good use, or close down and get very sharp. Top and bottom shots are at 1.2.</p>

<p><a title="Escondido Cruising Grand Oldsmobile Rocket 88 d800 nikon nikkor 55mm 1.2 ai at 1.2 by Rafael CA, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8026/7473254872_6782d96015_b.jpg" alt="Escondido Cruising Grand Oldsmobile Rocket 88 d800 nikon nikkor 55mm 1.2 ai at 1.2" width="1024" height="683" /></a><a title="nikon nikkor 55mm 1.2 dia de los muertos San Luis Rey D800 3 by Rafael CA, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8333/8140439148_d2a796f9e4_b.jpg" alt="nikon nikkor 55mm 1.2 dia de los muertos San Luis Rey D800 3" width="682" height="1024" /></a><a title="nikkor nikon 55mm 1.2 D3 Dia de los Muertos San Luis Rey de Francia mission by Rafael CA, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8133612646_be6232cd8f_b.jpg" alt="nikkor nikon 55mm 1.2 D3 Dia de los Muertos San Luis Rey de Francia mission" width="682" height="1024" /></a></p>