I have never stated such, so you are wrong!
It is an inaccurate lens. The multicoated 50mm f/2 clearly beats all other 50mm lenses in both accuracy and refinement!
Sorry, but that is wrong.
You have several times explained here on photrio that you have never used current, improved lens designs by yourself.
And that you have never used current lenses from Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss etc.
The Zeiss lenses don't produce 'sterile and editorialized' images. That statement has nothing to do with reality.
The better color rendition (more rich, deep colors), the much better three-dimensional look, and much nicer, more soft and creamy bokeh alone make the Zeiss images much more attractive from an aesthetical point of view. Especially on film.
I don't recall which focusing screen is standard with the F6, but you'll likely want one with split image and/or microprism focus aids. My F100 lacks such aids and I find I miss them.
As for lenses, again, that's largely a matter of personal choice. The 50mm f/2 Planar is a classic Gauss design, with 6 elements in 4 groups. Nikon also made a 50mm f/2 with the same basic optical design, but it was replaced in 1979 with a modified 6-element, 5-group design. In theory, that's an improvement, but given manufacturing tolerances I'd likely give the edge to the Zeiss.
No, that times are long gone.
If you want the best f2 50mm lens with Nikon F-mount you will go for the Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF.2.
That lens surpasses the former Nikkor 2/50 in almost all parameters:
- higher contrast
- significantly better sharpness and resolution, especially at f2 and f2.8, and outside the center towards the corners (the Zeiss has much more even performance across the frame)
- much much lower chromatic aberration, the Zeiss has no visible lateral chromatic aberration, and much lower longitudinal chromatic abberation than the Nikkor
- the Zeiss has much better separation of the in-focus elements compared to the out-of-focus parts of the photo: that leads to an excellent three-dimensional impression ("3d-Pop") modern Zeiss lenses are famous for
- the Zeiss has much better performance in the shorter range
- nicer color transmission of the Zeiss
- the Zeiss has an integrated chip and offers the Nikon AI-P standard, so more functions with modern Nikon film and digital bodies
- the Zeiss offers weather and dust sealing
- the build quality of the Zeiss is much better compared to the Nikkor
- the Zeiss offers much more versatility: Excellent performance from infinity up to macro distances.
And then there is also the Zeiss Milvus Distagon 1.4/50. It offers
- one stop more speed
- even better performance at f2 than the excellent Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50
- even better performance towards the edges at f2, f2.8 and f4 compared to the Makro-Planar.
Been there, done that.
Hardly surprising. One would expect some advancements in optical design over the last 50 years.
However, under rigid lab testing, the Zeiss undoubtedly comes out on top.
Observing progress in daily use is largely subjective.
Definitely not in my case
Due to its rendering, it may even be preferred by some users.
Which is what I have been saying from the get-go!
Well, you did say it's King, it allowed for interpretation and led to some debate.
In contrast, your point in post #133 seems to suggest that lens choice should strongly influence the film selection, which is an interesting perspective, but it's not something I typically consider when planning my shots.
Between f4 and f11, I have not seen a better rendering lens.
And many other photographers (including me) have seen better rendering lenses.
@JParker, It seems my understanding was correct based on your reply. Anyway, as I mentioned, we approach things differently. I don’t choose the f-stop based on the lens’s sweet spot but rather on the desired depth of field.
I have tested them all against real world scenes using the most accurate color medium currently available (Ektachrome plus B+W KR1.5).
The multicoated Nikkor 50mm f/2 was the only lens that delivered indistinguishable results.
See, George Mann achieves all of this with his old Nikkor, so everything is good.
You are not the only one who has tested it intensively. I have given some very well reputed sources (see in my post above) that have got different results. And as already explained, in my personal environment there are many others, too, who disagree with your claim based on their own tests.
And if the old 2/50 Nikkor would be the magical wonder lens you claim, then it would be used as a benchmark by all professional lens test sources. But fact is that none of them is using it as a benchmark.
Moderator hat on:
Move on, your positions are clear on this.
Otherwise we will have to close the thread or exclude a number of people from it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?