f1.2 or not f1.2?

[Fixcinater]

And out on the street, i want to see the subjects environment. That is what gives the image context. Blurring out any background just seems like a shortcut to fix a bad image.

Some people like less context for their subjects. A faster lens can isolate. A longer lens can isolate. Is using a telephoto a shortcut to "fix" a bad image?

How much context is purely subjective.

 

[rwreich]

Having fast lenses is critical for film work because it gives the photographer the most flexibility. I made this image with a 50mm f/1.4 on HP5+ rated at EI1600. The shutter speed was 1/15 of a second. Sure, f/2 or f/2.8 might have made a better image in some people's opinions, but it would have been physically impossible in that circumstance.

 

[cuthbert]

Some people like less context for their subjects. A faster lens can isolate. A longer lens can isolate. Is using a telephoto a shortcut to "fix" a bad image?

How much context is purely subjective.

I assume that guy consider this:

A bad image.

 

[Alan W]

I used a canon 50mm FD F1.8 for most of the 90's and never wanted for anything else.In the past 10 years or so I've acquired 50mm 1.4's and 50mm 1.2's and 55mm 1.2's of various descriptions and I really like the brighter image in the viewfinder.As for image quality,I think the 50mm 1.4 is "best" at maximum aperture.When used at f8 or so,it makes no difference what I've got on the camera-they're all the same.And at about $20 or less for a F1.8 I can afford to just shoot and not worry about what happens to the lens.

 

[Paul Howell]

The only 1.2 lens I owned was a Konica, I sold my Konica gear in 1970 for a Nikon F with motor drive. The Konica 1.2 is the only lens I that really miss. I have a set of 1.4, Miranda, Minolta A, and Pentax M42, the difference between 1.4 and 1.2 is small but can a difference shooting in low light or depth of field. On the other hand 1.2 lens were optimized for wide open, I find a 1.8 or 1.7 to be just as good if not better stopped down.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I had f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses I used them for night photography to get available light photographs in very low light situations and sometimes for dark interiors of buildings. Otherwise I did not shoot wide open.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Within a given line of lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Leitz, whatever, and a given time period (e.g. 1980's), are the slower lenses better overall compared to the faster ones?

For example, would a 35/3.5 be better in terms of resolution and aberrations than a 35/1.8, generally speaking?

Or is there too much variation that no general conclusion can be made?

It seems there is a belief that with the slower lens, it's easier to make optical corrections.

Yet, as a counter-example, I've heard the Minolta 50/1.4 AF is noticeably better than the 1.7 version. I heard all this after I passed up the 1.4 for the 1.7 -- I doubt I'd ever really see a difference.

Taking this to 1.2 lenses in general, I think there's a belief that even from f/2 - f/8 they're not as good as their slower counterparts.

What say you?

 

[cuthbert]

Within a given line of lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Leitz, whatever, and a given time period (e.g. 1980's), are the slower lenses better overall compared to the faster ones?

Generally speaking it's harder to design a good f1.2 than a good f2, for obvious reasons.

The Japanese took almost 30 years to design a 50mm f1.2 the first was Pentax. Older 55mm f1.2 weren't up to the standard of later 50mm f1.2, here there's Nikkor's take on the 55mm f1.2 (they also say it wasn't a great lens) with some interesting story:

http://www.nikkor.com/en/story/0049/

 

[blockend]

The older lenses are pretty bad wide open, but stepped down at f2.8 they are very sharp

Correct. Very few wide aperture lenses were optimised for use at their maximum aperture, the Noctilux being a rare example of one that is. Most benefit from being stopped down a click, which noticeably increases sharpness, but raises another issue of f1.4 and f1.2 lenses which is focus shift. This clears up by f5.6, but at f2.8 and f4 a number of such lenses back focus, in other words the point of sharpness on the screen and on the negative are different. Not all wide aperture lenses suffer from uncorrected astigmatism ("focus shift"), but quite a few do (even expensive modern optics), and it goes unnoticed because people shoot wide open (where it doesn't occur), or back focus is put down to user error.

Another disadvantage of wide aperture lenses on SLR cameras is the shallow depth of field shown through the viewfinder. This means compositions that do not require subject isolation have to be manually stopped down to see what the subject looks like. For these reasons I keep my f1.4 lenses as specialist tools for special occasions, and keep a smaller aperture lens as standard.

 

[cuthbert]

The only fast lens with significant focus shift I have is the CZ West Sonnar 1.5 for Contax, not even my Jupiter 3 suffers of the problem, while the FD 55mm 1.2 and the S 50mm 1.2 are clearly soft wide open, suffers of flare and other aberrations the newer lenses are well corrected, especially the Pentax and Fujinon.

The only problem of the K 50mm f1.2 wide open is some slight barrell distortion wide open, that can be seen here:

Still this barrel distortion is lower than what I see in my Pre-AIs Nikkor lenses, namely the 85mm f1.8 "K" and the 50mm f1.4 S-C.

As you can see sharpness is pretty good, no visible fallout or flare. Mine is number 322 of the production line, so early 1975.

 

[benjiboy]

I've been shooting Canon FD 50mm lenses for more than thirty years and the 50mm f1.4 lens does everything I need.

 

[gus.]

I used a canon 50mm FD F1.8 for most of the 90's and never wanted for anything else.In the past 10 years or so I've acquired 50mm 1.4's and 50mm 1.2's and 55mm 1.2's of various descriptions and I really like the brighter image in the viewfinder.

I exclusively shoot with a 1.2 on my 35mm. It's fast, sharp, and I've grown to appreciate AND respect the selective focus.

Had the latest Canon 50/1.4 for a moment before a buddy dropped it. Well, I've had his Canon 1.2L on indefinite loan since and have used it exclusively (being my only EF lens) for about two years now. Recently I realized the outcome of, that while revealing to me, would have been obvious to anybody looking from the outside in: the lens defined my shooting! Here's what I mean:



The 50mm forces me to get in there with the subject and it shows in my photos. The lens has helped develop me into a photographer that doesn't fear being part of the environment to have the privilege of capturing it.



^And low-light shots? Forget about it! Just available light for those two above. *Edit: photo left is Ektar 160 pushed 2 stops, right is Portra 800 shot box speed.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
The Japanese took almost 30 years to design a 50mm f1.2 the first was Pentax. Older 55mm f1.2 weren't up to the standard of later 50mm f1.2, here there's Nikkor's take on the 55mm f1.2 (they also say it wasn't a great lens) with some interesting story:

http://www.nikkor.com/en/story/0049/

Informative link to Nikon history - thank you.

 

[benjiboy]

The Canon New FD 50mm f1.2 L although still expensive is probably the best fast aspheric lens ever made for a single lens reflex camera and was certainly right on the cutting edge of optical technology when it first came out and has still never been beaten.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm

 

[cuthbert]

The Canon New FD 50mm f1.2 L although still expensive is probably the best fast aspheric lens ever made for a single lens reflex camera and was certainly right on the cutting edge of optical technology when it first came out and has still never been beaten.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm

I don't have the expensive L but the normal FDn 50mm f1.2 is a good performer...I'd like to get the L btu perhaps it's better to spend money on the 85m f1.2 L.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I used to have an FD 50/1.2L, as well as the 1.4 and 1.8. Even when not shooting wide open, the 1.2L was always easiest to focus and metering tended to be more accurate in low light. It was also mechanically built to a higher standard, though that isn't inherent in its being an f:1.2 lens.

 

[Les Sarile]

Generally speaking it's harder to design a good f1.2 than a good f2, for obvious reasons.

The Japanese took almost 30 years to design a 50mm f1.2 the first was Pentax. Older 55mm f1.2 weren't up to the standard of later 50mm f1.2, here there's Nikkor's take on the 55mm f1.2 (they also say it wasn't a great lens) with some interesting story:

http://www.nikkor.com/en/story/0049/

Thanks for that link and the great background story. I had a choice between the 55 and 50 and decided on the later so this is good news to me . . .

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Before anyone wants to discuss these lenses the following article might be helpful. Read it carefully as there some interesting pros and cons as I mentioned. One of the problems comes from oblique rays at full aperture and the aberrations they cause.

I have a Schneider enlarging lens. While the lens was designed as a f/2.8 the aperture ring prevents the lens from being opened wider than f/4. This prevents aberrations from oblique rays from degrading the image. However this cannot be done for the fast camera lenses mentioned in this thread.

 

[cooltouch]

I don't have the expensive L but the normal FDn 50mm f1.2 is a good performer...I'd like to get the L btu perhaps it's better to spend money on the 85m f1.2 L.

That's probably a good way to look at it. I have the first generation 85mm f/1.2 -- the Aspherical, which predates the "L" series, and also the 55mm f/1.2 SSC. I'd like to add the 55mm Aspherical to my collection one day, but I'm happy for now just having the 55/1.2. I have the 85 for the really cool wide-open stuff.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If a photographer likes the look a f1.2 gives him, it is great that they are available to purchase. If you do not like the look, there is no need to rain on his parade by questioning the need for them.

I assume,maybe wrongly so, that a faster lens collects more light and makes it easier for the light meter to give precise exposure readings in low light situations.that alone would be reason enough for a fast lens

 

[Chan Tran]

I assume,maybe wrongly so, that a faster lens collects more light and makes it easier for the light meter to give precise exposure readings in low light situations.that alone would be reason enough for a fast lens

For most cameras it's true. Although when you have to do stop down metering then the maximum aperture doesn't come in to play anymore.

 

[Dali]

Within a given line of lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Leitz, whatever, and a given time period (e.g. 1980's), are the slower lenses better overall compared to the faster ones?

For example, would a 35/3.5 be better in terms of resolution and aberrations than a 35/1.8, generally speaking?

What say you?

@f/3.5, I suspect the 35/1.8 would be better.

@f/1.8, there is no contest.

A different question would be: at full aperture, would the 35/3.5 be better than the 35/1.8?

After all, if someone buys a wide aperture lens, it is to use it at wide aperture...

Anyway, I doubt these f/1.2 (or any commercial) lens were designed to give their full capacity at full aperture.

 

[benjiboy]

I've had a canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens for about thirty years I'm retired and don't delude myself that if I shelled out around £500 for a FDn 50mm f1.2 L lens it would make me a better photographer, just a poorer one.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I've had a canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens for about thirty years I'm retired and don't delude myself that if I shelled out around £500 for a FDn 50mm f1.2 L lens it would make me a better photographer, just a poorer one.

Agreed. That is why I've tended to favor inexpensive but good quality f/2 or f/1.8 lenses.

The Nikon f/1.2 I bought was so inexpensive that I thought it would be useful for my very low light B&W work, which it has been.

 

[lxdude]

We both used HS Ektachrome (ASA 400), both sent it to Kodak for processing.

For those who weren't around then, a clarification: HS Ektachrome was ASA 160. Kodak offered push processing to ASA 400.