The Nikon 1.2's

[MartinCrabtree]

who does astrophotography with telephotos?

Marvin does.............

 

[reddesert]

who does astrophotography with telephotos?

https://www.dragonflytelescope.org/

Hexagonal array of 24 x 400/2.8 lenses, but digital sensors and Canon telephotos so it's off topic. (Just kidding! I love Canon too.)

 

[Nolan Zunk]

who does astrophotography with telephotos?

I do! I took this photo at Arches National park at 200mm on my 35mm digital.

 

[L_E_Miller]

The 50mm 1.2 ais has been good to me over the years

 

[flavio81]

It's not a Canon product so benji must condemn it.

LOL, benji is not alone, here comes the Canon Evangelism Strikeforce!!

The truth is, in 1971 Canon released the FD system and included the FD 55/1.2 ASPHERICAL, the first standard lens with an aspherical surface, plus a floating system. It was probably the most advanced standard lens on the world at the time. The Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2, also using an aspherical surface, was released six years afterwards in 1977, no doubt so Nikon could say they also had something similar.

 

[benjiboy]

So you don't know anything about astrophotography, yet claim this lens has no purpose.

You are correct on both counts, for me, "it has no purpose".

 

[benjiboy]

LOL, benji is not alone, here comes the Canon Evangelism Strikeforce!!

The truth is, in 1971 Canon released the FD system and included the FD 55/1.2 ASPHERICAL, the first standard lens with an aspherical surface, plus a floating system. It was probably the most advanced standard lens on the world at the time. The Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2, also using an aspherical surface, was released six years afterwards in 1977, no doubt so Nikon could say they also had something similar.

That's right Flavio, have the Canon 50mm f1.2 L lens, I bought it new in 1981 which cost more than months pay and if any lens manufacturer ever made a better standard f1.2 lens I would be very surprised.

 

[gone]

I'm with benjiboy, no one will see the difference besides the photographer. Besides, who on earth would use a 55mm lens for portraits??? You would have a nervous sitter because you have to get so close, along w/ the typical distortion and bulbous noses you get w/ a normal lens.

There's a reason 85-135mm lenses are your standard focal lengths for portraits. Sure, anyone can use any lens for any job, but I'm sure not gonna do that. Been there, done that, won't do it again, it wasn't pretty.

 

[benjiboy]

I'm with benjiboy, no one will see the difference besides the photographer. Besides, who on earth would use a 55mm lens for portraits??? You would have a nervous sitter because you have to get so close, along w/ the typical distortion and bulbous noses you get w/ a normal lens.

There's a reason 85-135mm lenses are your standard focal lengths for portraits. Sure, anyone can use any lens for any job, but I'm sure not gonna do that. Been there, done that, won't do it again, it wasn't pretty.

I disagree, I use a 50mm lens a lot for portraits although I have and also use a 35, 85,a100, and a 135 because not all portraits have to be " headshots", there are such things as "environmental portraits" where you shoot the sitter " where they live", I have shot portraits of artists in their studios using a 24mm lens. I find my 50mm Canon f1.2 L lens great for shooting portraits by window light, especially in small rooms.

 

[rulnacco]

for me, "it has no purpose".

So...who are you?

People who know what the lenses can do use them for the special purposes they were designed for, and many of those people use them well and creatively. People who don't...well, I guess they just sit back and throw stones & random, meaningless comments. And don't make images where you *need* something like those lenses.

 

[madNbad]

I sold this combination a few months ago:

]
Nikkormat FS w/ Nikkor 55 mm 1.2 S

 

[madNbad]

An image taken with it:

[/url
April Hill Sign, Maplewood, Oregon

 

[Paul Howell]

What I find somewhat odd is that a 1.2 is soft wide open, I had a Konica 1.2, when I talked to the Konica rep, who pitching Konica gear at a Photo shop I used in Santa Barbara at the time, told me that their 1.2 was optimized for wide open, the 1.7 was the best lens to use in decent lighting. When I traded in my Konica kit for a Nikon F with motor drive I passed on the Nikon 1.2 and got the 1.4.

 

[flavio81]

So...who are you?

Benjiboy, a forum member with over eleven thousands posts, member for more than 15 years here, a well-liked member here, and deserves respect.

 

[flavio81]

What I find somewhat odd is that a 1.2 is soft wide open, I had a Konica 1.2, when I talked to the Konica rep, who pitching Konica gear at a Photo shop I used in Santa Barbara at the time, told me that their 1.2 was optimized for wide open, the 1.7 was the best lens to use in decent lighting. When I traded in my Konica kit for a Nikon F with motor drive I passed on the Nikon 1.2 and got the 1.4.

It depends on what you consider "soft", also it depends if you're looking at the center vs corner.

I had a Canon FD 55/1.2 that, wide open, was rather good in the center, sharp. But the corners, not so much; still acceptable.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Konica was sharp edge to edge at 1.2 it was good until F8 then it started to get soft. The Konica 1.7 was sharp from 1.7 to 11, lost some corner sharpness at F16. The Nikon 1.4 non AI was good from 1.4 to 11, the only sharper 1.4 I've had is the Pentax with the radioactive (thorium) element.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, I read benjiboy's comment as if there was extra emphasis on "me".
In other words, "For me, it has no purpose".

 

[dourbalistar]

A few years ago, I bought a used AI-modded Nikkor-S.C Auto 55mm f/1.2. Unfortunately, something was wrong with the aperture and the lens wouldn't stop down properly. Since I couldn't ship the lens back until the following Monday, I decided to blast through a roll over the weekend anyway, with the lens wide open. So if you want to know who on earth would use a 55mm for portraits, it's the same guy who would shoot a broken lens. Also the same guy who doesn't care if it's a little soft wide open.


2019.03.16 Roll #198-03198-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr


2019.03.16 Roll #198-03205-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr


2019.03.16 Roll #198-03208-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[__Brian]

Over the center 2/3 of the image, the Nikkor 55/1.2 does quite well. In the big 1976 test of "32 normal lenses" it did better than the 50/1.4 Nikkor over the center 2/3rds. The Konica F1.2 was balanced over the whole frame, but not as good over that center 2/3rds. Olympus did well, but was measured to be an F1.3 lens. The multi-coated version of the Nikkor 55/1.2 was measured to be a T1.25.

 

[rulnacco]

Benjiboy, a forum member with over eleven thousands posts, member for more than 15 years here, a well-liked member here, and deserves respect.

So now I know. I still think his reply was a bit condescending and dismissive. He may not have intended it that way, and I'll be happy to think he didn't. But in black and white, that's certainly what it sounded like.

 

[__Brian]

My Favorite portraits are with Normal lenses, usually fast.



This is with a 1936 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, wide-open on the Canon P.

 

[Steve York]

I love the old, cheap Nikkors for B&W film photography. So much character. Modern, most expensive lenses can be too clinical, too sharp.

 

[Les Sarile]

With manual cameras, critical focus is a little tougher to achieve wide open . . .

Selection 39 by Les DMess, on Flickr