Where's my 50 f1.2 or f1.1 G lens?

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I know we've got the old manual focus f1.2, but manually focussing a 50 on a D700 is not my idea of fun. Has there been any further talk of Nikon releasing an updated version of this lens? I'd like some creamy smooth bokeh as opposed to the slightly nervous bokeh and outlining I see with my 50 f1.4G.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Have you tried the 50 f/1.2? I have one and use it on my D300 and Kodak Pro 14NX. I do not have problems with focus with this lens even tho a lot of people do.<br>

I find the OOF rendition to be ok but not all that much better when compared to my other 50's. Of the ones that I have the 50 f/2 AI and the 55 f/1.2 Oscilloscope lens. Depth of field wide open with a 50mm f/1.2 is shallow to say the least and not all that sharp.<br>

You want better OOF look at the Sigma 50 f/1.4</p>

 

[pge]

<p>A split screen for that D700 might be the answer. I think mine was about $120, a lot cheaper than a g 1.2 would be.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Nikkor 1.4 lenses, the 24mm, 35mm, are very expensive, and any new design would be even more so.</p>

<p>Modern 1.1 or 1.2 lens would need AF-S motor, and D distance information, and the price would be prohibitive to many people. Considering high ISO capabilities of latest DSLR cameras, perhaps there is no market for such a lens?</p>

<p>D700 has larger than DX prism and mirror, and manual focusing should be relatively easy with your manual focus lens, perhaps not as fast as AF-S, though, or all depends on your ability, and sharp eye.</p>

<p>If you are not satisfied with Nikkors, try Zeiss or Leica lenses.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I wouldn't buy one. I don't like paper thin DOF. 1/2 stop of light doesn't mean anything. If I don't have enough light at f/1.4 then I won't have enough light at f/1.2 either. Don't like the odd value of f/1.2 either. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Recall that Canon EOS used to have a 50mm/f1 lens. I seem to recall that it was around $2300 or so and supposed to perform poorly at f1, but I have never tried one myself. Canon discontinued that lens about 10 years ago. Given modern DSLR's high-ISO capability, f1.4 is plenty fast.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The OP's concern isn't the speed, or low light performance, but the quality of the rendition of the out of focus areas by the f/1.4G.</p>

<p>Personally I think the bokeh of the 50/1.4G is fine; I've never found it to be a problem, it may not be as nice as that of the 85/1.4G but I like the fact that the 50/1.4G is affordable, a lot smaller than e.g. the Sigma 50/1.4 or Zeiss 50/2 so it can be carried along with other lenses without much additional pain. I have always been happy with the AF-S version's performance myself. I suspect the market for a 50/1.2 AF-S would be very small. Probably only a few thousands of them could be sold. Besides, those who really want nicer backgrounds can purchase the Sigma which is a lens that exists already. </p>

<p>I just came back from Venice and I carried 8kg of camera equipment not including charger, tripod etc. which are on top of those. I can feel it in the muscles of my back and neck and next time I will bring two fewer lenses (now I had six). Bringing the 50/1.4 would have been a good idea because of its size and weight, so my next trip might have 24-70, 70-200, 24 PC-E (always good to have that in a location with beautiful architecture and narrow streets), and the 50/1.4 for low light people shots. I don't think I would want a 50/1.2 myself, not the cost (which would probably be 2000 EUR or more), nor the weight. The Canon 50/1.2 appears to be a very nice lens but it's a question of dramatically increasing cost vs. diminishing returns in picture quality. </p>

<p>But if the market exists by all means ask Nikon to make a new 50/1.2. Nikon sometimes likes to make exotic lenses, if only to show that they can. </p>

<p>By the way a Katz Eye screen and calibration of the position of the manual focus screen will definitely help focusing manual focus primes like the 50/1.2. You may want to consider this approach in the interim.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I don't really care about the speed...it's the look. There is look to the bokeh of say the Canon 50 f1.2 that the Nikon 50 f1.4 doesn't have. The Canon lens is only about $1650 so price doesn't have to be out of this world.</p>

<p>The iso of today's cameras doesn't fall into what I'm looking for. If the D4 had iso 100,000 that was as clean as my D700 at iso 200....I'd still want the fast lens for the look.</p>

<p>Finally, it's not about razor thin DOF. There is a look to the Leica 50 f0.95 when photographing a subject that's 12 feet away with a background that's 50 feet away. It's not just about closeups. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.</p>

<p>I'll give the current MF 50f1.2 a try on my F5 and D700 to see if I can get a dcent focus out of it.</p>

<p>Thanks all.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>You are really talking about the "quality" of the bokeh, which has a lot to do with the design of the lens, but not just the change of DOF from f1.4 to f1.2. The Sigma 50/1/4 has beautiful bokeh, for example, not matched by Nikon's 50/1.4. Of the two Nikon 50/1.4, the bokeh of the g version is better than that of the old D lens. Likewise, the new 85/1.8 AFS has better bokeh than the old 85/1.8 D.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>You could step back a bit with an 85mm f/1.4 and get almost the exact same background rendering.</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>I don't even carry 50mm (I have f/1.2 MF) all the time. 35mm or 24-70 does, or even 28-300 does the job. I see your point, but could be done with another way. The software suggestion may be good - but I don't even own any of the PS software (only Capture NX2). But I can survive. I tried 50mm 1/4G twice, but didn't like the "nervous" bokeh, either. It is the "standard" lens and is meant to be cheap.... Quality creamy bokeh doesn't come from f/1.2 automatically. <br>

Like someone says, Katz Eye screen helps MF a lot. 40mm f/2 Voigtlander is a good choice, too, with comparable price.</p>

[Matt Laur]

Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM solves this problem. Lovely OoF rendering. Creamaliscious.

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"You are really talking about the "quality" of the bokeh, which has a lot to do with the design of the lens, but not just the change of DOF from f1.4 to f1.2."</em><br /> <em></em>-<br /> <em>"Quality creamy bokeh doesn't come from f/1.2 automatically."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite true.</p>

<p>BTW: I think I posted time ago about the 50/1.4AiS vs 50/1.4AFS bokeh; both were almost indistinguishable, I had to carefully look at the shape of the circular highlight spots to check the blades of the diaphragm; other than this, no difference.</p>

<p>Sadly, I cannot find the images, nor that post...</p>

<p>Anyway, you may find interesting the next shot where the 50/1.4AFS competes against the (in)famous (bokeh-wise) 50/1.8AFD... to be fair, OOF rendition is better on the AFS, but highlights are quite close...</p><div></div>