Nikkor AI-P 45mm f/2.8 Comparisons/Test

[frederick_lau1]

The current Camera Lens News No. 19 by Carl Zeiss mentioned that

their Tessar® T* 45 mm f/2.8 MM lens showed the best overall

performance in as the conclusion of fotoMAGAZIN, one of the two big

monthly German photo magazines :

 

"....fotoMAGAZIN, in their Jan. 2003 issue, compared four compact

standard lenses for 35 mm SLR cameras: the Nikkor 45 mm f/2.8 P, the

Pentax SMC-FA 43 mm f/1.9 Limited, the Voigtlaender Ultron 40 mm f/2

SL Aspherical, and the Carl Zeiss Tessar® T* 45 mm f/2.8 MM

lens....."

 

Has anyone came across this article and could anyone please tell us

what the article says in details ?

 

Could anyone share with us their experience with this AI-P Nikkor

45mm f2.8, preferrably with sample photos ?

[ofey_kalakar]

Frederick, I have a number of photos with the 45 AiP with my FM3A

[majid]

I used to have one. It's a nice lens, with excellent out-of-focus highlight rendition (bokeh) and relatively good flare resistance. Not as sharp as my Leica 50mm Summicron, but sharpness is overrated. I have a few samples taken with a D100 (thus no full-frame coverage) at <a href="http://www.majid.info/mylos/stories/2002/08/25/aTaleOfThreeLenses.html">this page</a>

[david_h._hartman]

Rather than using newspaper which is a really low contrast

subject it might be better to use a lens test chart which is

still a low contrast subject but not quite as low. Here is a

chart I made for testing lenses. It's designed to print on a

300, 600 or 1,200 dpi laser printer. Here is a low resolution

sample.<br>

<br>

<img

src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=16867684"><br>

<br>

WARNNG: Large Image: The size is 676KB. It's best to right click

and sellect "Save target as..."<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=16867784"

target="_new"><u>Here is the full size 600 dpi chart</u></a> in

Photoshop 7.01, Zip compressed TIF.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave.

[patrick smith]

I had always gotten the impression that the 45mm f/2.8P was a nice lens, but it was frequently bested by the Zeiss Tessar 45mm f/2.8, which was cheaper. As I don't shoot Zeiss MM, it's sort of a moot point for me. If ever I need a 45mm, then my choices are somewhat limited. Are you thinking about buying one?

[Sanford]

I had one and found it way too small to be practical - just too hard to grab that thin focus ring. Excellent lens, but no better than the best Nikkors.

[julian_love]

Haven't seen the article but I do have the lens. It's a very nice focal length - I find 50mm is just a bit too long for my way of seeing things. It certainly produces images as sharp as my other Nikkors - 24/2.8 and 105/2.5. I do find the max aperture a little bit limiting however, so have just bought a 35/2...

 

Julian

[dante_stella]

David, at what distance are you supposed to shoot that chart (multiples of FL?) Also, could

you say what each zone is in terms of LP/MM?

 

Thanks

Dante

[david_h._hartman]

Ive never bother to figure lines per millimeter. Ive

used the chart to determine how and where aberrations affect edge

resolution and where diffraction effects it all. <br>

<br>

Here is an except from Bob Atkins website...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My recommendations for the best sharpness conditions based

only on optical considerations are as follows:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>· Shoot high quality, fast prime lenses at f5.6. <br>

· Shoot consumer type lenses and zooms at f8. <br>

· Don't use multipliers unless you have to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These apertures represent the point at which aberrations

are minimized. Open up more and spherical aberration will

degrade the image, close down more and diffraction will

degrade the image. In 99% of cases this will give you maximum

sharpness of the in-focus image in the center of the frame...</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/rrs.html"

target="_new"><u>http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/rrs.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/technical/"

target="_new"><u>http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/technical/</u></a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/index.html" target="_new"><u>http://bobatkins.photo.net/index.html</u></a><u><br>

<br>

</u>If this chart is printed by Photoshop or another program that

will print to the correct size the block labeled ".10"

will be exactly 1/10 meter (100mm). Once this is achieved then

all the other values are exactly the fraction of a meter as

marked. From there you need to measure the size of the image on

film and do the math. The reason for lines in four directions is

to aid in detecting astigmatism. My chart is a facsimile of one I

saw in a lens ad for view camera lenses some years ago.<br>

<br>

My take on practical aperture selection is similar, almost

identical to Bobs but I used very high resolution,

continuous tone, B&W film (cheating?) and I may favor center

resolution. Ive often said the best lenses hit their sweet

spot at about f/4.8 to f/5.6 and that the best start losing their

bite at f/8.0. Thats not where they go sour, thats

south of f/11 for 35mm. Ive seen at least one lens loose a

touch in the center while gaining at the edge. Ive also

said, "If in doubt use f/5.6." My tests featured "high

quality, fast prime lenses."<br>

<br>

There is a section explaining how to test your own lenses in Bobs

site. Youll do better to read this than anything I try to

explain. Its tempting to strain to accept a smaller less

well resolved chart sections and get unrealistic numbers. Click

the center link above for the best information.<br>

<br>

Be warned that testing is rather boring.<br>

<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.