Newbie Nikon lens question

[trondsi]

Hi folks!
I have two similar focal length Nikon lenses: One old (1960s I believe) 50mm Nikkor-H f 2 , and one 50mm Nikkor f 1.4 (looks newer).
Is there any photographic reason to use the slower (f 2) lens, apart from the fact that changing things around can be fun?

 

[Paul Howell]

At one time I had both the F2 and the 1.4, I don't think there was any difference in the quality of the images, just the 1.4 is faster. Some report that the 1.2 is sharper wide while the F2 and 1.4 were sharper stopped down. So other than speed, no real difference, other current users may have a different take.

 

[ac12]

Personally, I would use the FASTER lens.
I have had to shoot at f/1.4 before, when the lighting was DIM. So I appreciate FAST glass.
It is more important with film than with a DSLR. With a DSLR, you can just raise the ISO, way higher than any film, and start shooting.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi folks!
I have two similar focal length Nikon lenses: One old (1960s I believe) 50mm Nikkor-H f 2 , and one 50mm Nikkor f 1.4 (looks newer).
Is there any photographic reason to use the slower (f 2) lens, apart from the fact that changing things around can be fun?

You got two great lenses there;enjoy!

 

[narsuitus]

In my case, I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (right) and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Series E (left).

When I need light gathering, the f/1.4 works best for me.

When I need an expendable lens on an expendable body, the f/1.8 works best for me.


50mm on Nikon F4 & N70 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[trondsi]

Thanks!
I just thought of one thing (which may or may not be nonsense): the f2 glass is smaller in diameter sits deeper in the lens, so maybe there's less light flare (almost like an inbuilt hood). It is also very robust. It takes good pictures, but that's true for both

 

[Dan Fromm]

It really depends on the lenses' vintages. 50/2 Nikkors have always been superb. 50/1.4s, not as good except wide open for quite a while.

I bought a 50/1.4 and a Nikkormat FTN in 1970 while in Germany. The lens made sense there, where it is always dark -- there's a reason why Germans have invaded Italy for millennia -- but back home I was so unhappy with it that I switched to a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. I understand that much newer 50/1.4 Nikkors are better than my old crock.

 

[Jim Jones]

The old 55/3.5 is a great lens when one doesn't need anything faster. The Nikkor 50/1.4 I tried long ago for close-up photography didn't compare well to the Nikkor 50/2, and the 55/3.5 was one of the sharpest lenses I tested for macro and general photography. The strange little GN Auto Nikkor 1:2.8 45mm pancake lens was also very sharp. The 50/2 Nikkor was my preferred lens for general photography.

 

[cooltouch]

Many old school pros swore by the 50/2, claiming it was Nikon's best ever 50mm lens. I think that nowadays, however, this attitude has changed because the late 50/1.4 is just so good. I have a more recent 50/2 as well as a range of 50/1.4s and I'd have to say that my 50/2 is on par with the best of my 50/1.4s.

 

[darkosaric]

Many old school pros swore by the 50/2, claiming it was Nikon's best ever 50mm lens.

I claim that Nikkor-H 50mm f2 is the best 50mm nikkor ever . Having said that - I have recently purchased again (after selling it couple of years ago) nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 .

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Can't speak to the f2 (yet) but my f1.4 AIs is a nice piece of glass. Soft and kinda dark in the corners wide open if ya look hard or there's a lot of contrast in those areas but stopped down it's a great lens. Flares a bit wide open if the sun is the subject. From f5.6 down it's as sharp as they come if that matters to you. That big honkin' front element looks impressive attached to the F5 too. Especially with a yellow or orange filter on it. Looks like strange scientific equipment with a big green filter attached.

Honestly I have to search to see what I said about the corners above. The subject and contrast has to be right or it needs to be a big image. It's a nice lens and I got it for a good price. The now common intense searching for adverse effects is just nit picking on most lenses. They will take photos and some shortcomings make for nice images in certain applications. I say just go out and take some photos and see if you like the photos. That's all that really matters unless you happen to earn a living with the camera.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

At one time I had both the F2 and the 1.4, I don't think there was any difference in the quality of the images, just the 1.4 is faster. Some report that the 1.2 is sharper wide while the F2 and 1.4 were sharper stopped down. So other than speed, no real difference, other current users may have a different take.

Depends on which versions. There was a 50/2 that replaced the 50/2 Nikkor H and was an improvement on the -H lenses which had a tiny bit of barrel distortion. At one time I had ca. 1970 f:2, f:1.4, and f:1.2 lenses. The 1.4 Nikkor S didn't thrill me, the 1.2 was far too large and heavy for a fractional increase is lens speed, and the f:2 was by far the best lens of the three. I now have one 50 f:2 Nikkor H for each of four bodies and the faster lenses are long gone. It also balances perfectly on the camera, is almost self shading, and is by far my favorite normal lens for SLRs, with the 55/2 Takumars a very close second.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
It all comes down to your meter coupling and what works. I like the older 50mm f2 HC (which was still available as a AI lens) better than the older 50mm f1.4 Nikkor S. The newer 50mm f1.4 AI/AIs will have a slight edge in sharpness but not very much.
If you don't need the extra f-stop stick with the f2.

 

[Paul Howell]

Depends on which versions. There was a 50/2 that replaced the 50/2 Nikkor H and was an improvement on the -H lenses which had a tiny bit of barrel distortion. At one time I had ca. 1970 f:2, f:1.4, and f:1.2 lenses. The 1.4 Nikkor S didn't thrill me, the 1.2 was far too large and heavy for a fractional increase is lens speed, and the f:2 was by far the best lens of the three. I now have one 50 f:2 Nikkor H for each of four bodies and the faster lenses are long gone. It also balances perfectly on the camera, is almost self shading, and is by far my favorite normal lens for SLRs, with the 55/2 Takumars a very close second.

I don't recall with 50 F2 I had, came with the camera I bought used, I bought the 1.4 a year later, this was 1972, but had no barrel distortion, I never had a Nikon 1.2, but did have the Konica 1.2, along with the 50 1.7 best normal lens I ever used, the 1.2 was maximized for wide the 1.7 razor sharp at 5.6 to 8.

 

[saman13]

I really like my 50mm H.C. It has an interesting look to it while wide open, lacking some contrast and sharpness. For this reason I almost sold it and bought another 50mm E Series. But once I shot with it some more stopped down I realized what a great lens it is. Very sharp and way more contrasty than the E Series even at 2.8 with great OOF rendering. And now I've come around and actually come to like the softness wide open for certain applications (low-fi portraiture).



I'm still waiting to score a cheap 1.4 being sold for parts due to a very easy to clean spot of fungus on one of the elements.

 

[chip j]

Ken Rockwell says the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is better than the 2.0 (less distortion).

 

[macfred]

Ken Rockwell says the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is better than the 2.0 (less distortion).

Commit him a few $$ and he will argue the converse ... I really love my Nikkor H.C. Auto 50mm f/2 non-ai !