Well, no. At equal stops the 1.2/50mm Nikkor is sharper from wide open to about 5,6. Look here: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ew8iThe Nikon 50mm f1.2 is big physically compared to the 1.4 but the 1.4 is sharper.
The best thing about this lens is that it's maximum performance is at f 2.0, and that is not the case with the 1.8 and 1.4s. Used wide open, this lens is loaded with CA (purple). At 2.0 it's perfection and the fastest lens that Nikon currently makes - Yes it is still for sale for approximately $500 USD, and don't get sucked in on eBay as many have thinking they were buying a rare gem. Get a brand new copy and enjoy !!!
Interesting. I get completely acceptable 8x12s from my Canons shot wide open, and that is using fast color film pushed quite a lot (or digital with the EF, usually with a 10D at 1600). The Nikon must be just as good, if not better. My Canon is not even the "Aspherical" model, just plain S.S.C.
Forgive me if I change the subject a tad, but 2F/2F, how do you like your copy of the 50L? Mine has been calibrated with and without my bodies, and it still has the dreaded focus drift issue when shooting close and fast, especially when using the center focus point. I've learned ways to mitigate it's issues over the last 12 months, and doing so means I get razor sharp images even wide open! But I regret having to give this lens special workflow, and the type of workflow I never need to perform with these: 24L, 35L, 85L, 125L and 200L...although I can get great shots with the 50L, I resent having to move my body back a tad to get it right...Caon's shame, if you ask me ;-)
My copy of the 50L is nice. I have actually used the 1.4 and the newest 1.8 as well, so I have a base for judgment. All of the lenses make acceptable pix, and in the end, as far as truly discernible results, what you are really paying for with the L is that half stop. (I also feel that the 1.4 is definitely worth the price over the 1.8.) I thought I was paying for L build quality as well, but as it turns out, I broke my lens fairly easily. I bumped the lens hood straight on with a car door, and the front retaining ring (on which the name of the lens is printed) snapped off. It is plastic, while all the other Ls I have seen are metal. Canon repair was extremely rude and evasive on the phone, and one angry fellow even hung up on me once after giving me attitude. I have never had such outright aggressive and rude behavior from a corporate someone on the other end of a phone. I was finally able to determine that they do not follow the practice of by-the-job sliding pricing. Instead, every item in the catalog has several repair price tiers, into which various types of service are organized. They would not tell me into which tier my repair fell, but they did tell me what the three prices were. The cheapest one was $300. The most expensive was about $650. They absolutely tooth and nail refused to give any real information, and appeared to have very little knowledge of anything camera related, even once I was transferred away from the call center to someone who supposedly knew something. All they did was state over and over that they need the item in hand before they will talk about anything. It felt like they were trying to trick and strongarm me out of my money rather than serve a customer. So, I ordered the part for $35, and had my local guy install it for $30. After this experience, I will not ever take my camera there for anything except free sensor cleaning...and that's only if my friend is headed down there with his cameras as well. I wouldn't actually drive for it. I don't even want to buy anything from Canon.
Other than that horrible plastic front ring, the lens does have typical L build quality, though. The two things that have broken on the L are both plastic parts. I also have a crack in the focusing scale window...but that's OK, since EF focusing scales are 95% useless anyhow. HA! When someone uses the line "It's OK it broke because it was useless anyhow", it's time for a redesign on two fronts.
I did not even know there was an AF problem with this lens. I do shoot wide open very often, but don't shoot *very* close objects that often. However, I can remember some specific shots in which I shot close, wide open, and AFd on one shot with the center point (always), and got a sharp picture. Have never used an EOS film camera, so I have nothing I can post here.
Your name is not Dan, is it?
I did not even know there was an AF problem with this lens. I do shoot wide open very often, but don't shoot *very* close objects that often. However, I can remember some specific shots in which I shot close, wide open, and AFd on one shot with the center point (always), and got a sharp picture. Have never used an EOS film camera, so I have nothing I can post here.
Hey Colin,
I find in some circumstances it's not the sharpest kid on the block and needs a stop down or two. Don't use it enough to really be able to give you a detailed blow by blow. Handy lens to have but I don't think there's really much practical advantage over the 1.4. If you were to shoot tri x and soup it in Rodinal, it could be a good combo. ymmv of course
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?