Which one would you recommend? 50mm 1.2 or 1.4? at DVinfo.net

Giovanni Speranza · April 12th, 2007, 03:05 AM

Which one would you recommend? 50mm 1.2 or 1.4?
Do you think that at full aperture a Nikon 50mm 1:1.4 is enough or it's better to use the 1:1.2 (which cost much more)?
Thanks!

Christopher Witz · April 12th, 2007, 06:13 AM

the 50 1.2's are not very sharp wide open..... you'd end up stopping down anyways...... the 1.4's are the sweet spot!

Tim Bickford · April 12th, 2007, 12:42 PM

If you can get a 50mm 1.2 (for cheap $$) then go for it. You can always pick up a 1.4. I just picked up a 1.4 (in great shape) for $50.

Giovanni Speranza · April 12th, 2007, 01:16 PM

I think that a 1.2 closed to 1.4 is sharper than a 1.4 full open.
Anyway i'm bidding in ebay a 1.2, a 1.4 and a 85mm 1.8

Mack Fisher · April 14th, 2007, 05:42 PM

1.2 would look like total crap

Giovanni Speranza · April 14th, 2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mack Fisher

1.2 would look like total crap

why? Those pics doesn't look like crap:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor50s/pool/page3/

Christopher Witz · April 14th, 2007, 06:34 PM

define crap? the flicker pics are a tad tiny weeny to judge image quality.... I could take pics with my phone that look that good at that size.

The 1.2 I had was no where near the res as my 1.4..... and the 1.4 was no where near the 55 micro.

Besides... If your going for a berry lyndon look .... then go for the 1.2.... and with a dof adaptor between the cam and lens, u'd be hard pressed to tell much rez dif anyhow.

and if you want crazy dof.... try a lensbaby 3.0 ( google it )

Bob Hart · April 14th, 2007, 10:18 PM

EDITED WITH CORRECTION AND ADDITIONS.

Resolution of the old metal bodied f1.2, for video and groundglass relay purposes, is not inferior to the f1.8 with the specimens I have.

They both resolve the horizontal "B" block (864 TV lines) on the Lemac chart wide-open and the f1.2 has fine scratches in the coating on the front element and still comes in sharp enough. It is not so good against strong light.

I bought the f1.2 because it was there to be had cheaply. I think I would go for the f1.4 otherwise.

The Micro-Nikkor 55mm is a sweet lens, but only f3.5 I think.

Giovanni Speranza · April 15th, 2007, 06:28 AM

Christopher, Now i'm very confused.

Christopher Witz · April 15th, 2007, 09:13 AM

sorry..... If your after as much/less dof as possible, then get the 1.2.

but don't expect your reaction to be " wow... that's really sharp!"

it's all relative right? Yu don't know really how good something is unless you have something to compare it with that's better or worse. and shallow dof is so subjective..... as it art.

go for it..... and let us know how it works out!

Ben Winter · April 15th, 2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Witzke

sorry..... If your after as much/less dof as possible, then get the 1.2.

but don't expect your reaction to be " wow... that's really sharp!"

it's all relative right? Yu don't know really how good something is unless you have something to compare it with that's better or worse. and shallow dof is so subjective..... as it art.

go for it..... and let us know how it works out!

I think I've brought this up before that the amount of resolution resolved by the camcorder is less than a 1.2f resolves wide open anyway. In either case, it's good habit to use all lenses closed down a little, I prefer 5.6, and 5.6 on a 1.2 is going to be brighter than 5.6 on a 1.4, while resolution will be negligible.

Giovanni Speranza · April 15th, 2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Witzke

sorry..... If your after as much/less dof as possible, then get the 1.2.

but don't expect your reaction to be " wow... that's really sharp!"

it's all relative right? Yu don't know really how good something is unless you have something to compare it with that's better or worse. and shallow dof is so subjective..... as it art.

go for it..... and let us know how it works out!

You are saying that a f/1.2 will be less sharp within the focus field, or just that it will just have more bokeh?

Christopher Witz · April 15th, 2007, 05:32 PM

yes... more bokeh.

and..... 5.6 is 5.6 on any lens built to iso specs.... otherwise light meters would be useless.

and yes..... the 1.2 wide open will be fine with a dof adaptor..... but noticebly less sharp on a full frame chip like a RED or a dslr.

Don't get me wrong..... it's a really cool lens to have.... and looks really cool.... and heavy! but if you stop down to 1.4 or 5.6 then your wasting your money on the extra stop you won't ever use.

if your flush with cash.... the contax 35-135 is one sweet jewel of a lens. at f3.5, not the fastest. a big chunk of glass, and looks simular to a cook

Giovanni Speranza · April 15th, 2007, 05:51 PM

Extreme DOF is what i want. I already have a 28-85 f/3.5/4.5 which has a very limited dof and will be my "reserve" lens. But for extreme DOF (while mantaining sharpness in the focused spot) is my goal.
Due to budget, for now i buy a 50mm 1.4.
Then i will buy a 50mm 1.2, an 85mm 1.2 and a rectilinear wide.

Christopher Witz · April 15th, 2007, 06:12 PM

go for it... I'm cuious to see the results!

canon also made a 50mm f.95 lens for it's rangefinders... with radioactive elements no less.... http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon7_095_06.jpg

another consideration for very shallow dof.... is to build an adaptor that has a 120mm GG as in a medium format camera like a hasselblad, and find a 110mm f2 ziess lens.... I have one of these f2's with my hassy and it is very sharp wide open, with very shallow dof simular to a 50 1.2 for 35mm format.
One advantage of an adaptor like this would be the possible abilty for it to be static as it's larger gg will in turn have finer grain ( size ratio ).

Another thing.... a little off topic... I have not seen anyone useing any shift lens' with adaptors yet..... the 24PC would create some really cool street scenes.

April 12th, 2007, 03:05 AM	#1
Giovanni Speranza Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lugano, Switzerland Posts: 149	Which one would you recommend? 50mm 1.2 or 1.4? Which one would you recommend? 50mm 1.2 or 1.4? Do you think that at full aperture a Nikon 50mm 1:1.4 is enough or it's better to use the 1:1.2 (which cost much more)? Thanks!

April 12th, 2007, 12:42 PM	#3
Tim Bickford Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 448	If you can get a 50mm 1.2 (for cheap $$) then go for it. You can always pick up a 1.4. I just picked up a 1.4 (in great shape) for $50. __________________ Tim Bickford

April 14th, 2007, 05:42 PM	#5
Mack Fisher Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 158	1.2 would look like total crap __________________ Northweststockfootage.com Shooting 100% HD Washington, Oregon, and Soon British Columbia

April 14th, 2007, 10:18 PM	#8
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	EDITED WITH CORRECTION AND ADDITIONS. Resolution of the old metal bodied f1.2, for video and groundglass relay purposes, is not inferior to the f1.8 with the specimens I have. They both resolve the horizontal "B" block (864 TV lines) on the Lemac chart wide-open and the f1.2 has fine scratches in the coating on the front element and still comes in sharp enough. It is not so good against strong light. I bought the f1.2 because it was there to be had cheaply. I think I would go for the f1.4 otherwise. The Micro-Nikkor 55mm is a sweet lens, but only f3.5 I think. Last edited by Bob Hart; April 15th, 2007 at 08:37 AM. Reason: Corrections and added words.

April 12th, 2007, 06:13 AM	#2
Christopher Witz Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 591	the 50 1.2's are not very sharp wide open..... you'd end up stopping down anyways...... the 1.4's are the sweet spot!

April 12th, 2007, 01:16 PM	#4
Giovanni Speranza Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lugano, Switzerland Posts: 149	I think that a 1.2 closed to 1.4 is sharper than a 1.4 full open. Anyway i'm bidding in ebay a 1.2, a 1.4 and a 85mm 1.8

April 14th, 2007, 06:34 PM	#7
Christopher Witz Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 591	define crap? the flicker pics are a tad tiny weeny to judge image quality.... I could take pics with my phone that look that good at that size. The 1.2 I had was no where near the res as my 1.4..... and the 1.4 was no where near the 55 micro. Besides... If your going for a berry lyndon look .... then go for the 1.2.... and with a dof adaptor between the cam and lens, u'd be hard pressed to tell much rez dif anyhow. and if you want crazy dof.... try a lensbaby 3.0 ( google it )

April 15th, 2007, 06:28 AM	#9
Giovanni Speranza Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lugano, Switzerland Posts: 149	Christopher, Now i'm very confused.

April 15th, 2007, 09:13 AM	#10
Christopher Witz Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 591	sorry..... If your after as much/less dof as possible, then get the 1.2. but don't expect your reaction to be " wow... that's really sharp!" it's all relative right? Yu don't know really how good something is unless you have something to compare it with that's better or worse. and shallow dof is so subjective..... as it art. go for it..... and let us know how it works out!

April 15th, 2007, 05:32 PM	#13
Christopher Witz Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 591	yes... more bokeh. and..... 5.6 is 5.6 on any lens built to iso specs.... otherwise light meters would be useless. and yes..... the 1.2 wide open will be fine with a dof adaptor..... but noticebly less sharp on a full frame chip like a RED or a dslr. Don't get me wrong..... it's a really cool lens to have.... and looks really cool.... and heavy! but if you stop down to 1.4 or 5.6 then your wasting your money on the extra stop you won't ever use. if your flush with cash.... the contax 35-135 is one sweet jewel of a lens. at f3.5, not the fastest. a big chunk of glass, and looks simular to a cook

April 15th, 2007, 05:51 PM	#14
Giovanni Speranza Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lugano, Switzerland Posts: 149	Extreme DOF is what i want. I already have a 28-85 f/3.5/4.5 which has a very limited dof and will be my "reserve" lens. But for extreme DOF (while mantaining sharpness in the focused spot) is my goal. Due to budget, for now i buy a 50mm 1.4. Then i will buy a 50mm 1.2, an 85mm 1.2 and a rectilinear wide.

April 15th, 2007, 06:12 PM	#15
Christopher Witz Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 591	go for it... I'm cuious to see the results! canon also made a 50mm f.95 lens for it's rangefinders... with radioactive elements no less.... http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon7_095_06.jpg another consideration for very shallow dof.... is to build an adaptor that has a 120mm GG as in a medium format camera like a hasselblad, and find a 110mm f2 ziess lens.... I have one of these f2's with my hassy and it is very sharp wide open, with very shallow dof simular to a 50 1.2 for 35mm format. One advantage of an adaptor like this would be the possible abilty for it to be static as it's larger gg will in turn have finer grain ( size ratio ). Another thing.... a little off topic... I have not seen anyone useing any shift lens' with adaptors yet..... the 24PC would create some really cool street scenes.