The 1.8 is appealing due to its size - its also said to be sharp.
Yupp, it is quite sharp. Stopped down. Not so much at open aperture and f2. And wide open also the contrast is significantly lower. But that is valid for all these double Gauss type 50mm primes designed at that era.
But concerning the size I highly recommend to look at the following fact:
At first sight it looks very compact in its "pancake" like design. But that is without a lens hood. And a lens hood is really recommended with this lens, as the front element is so far at the top front, without any shading and protection.
So both from the point of avoiding flare (and these older design lenses are all much more prone to flare compared to modern type lenses), and from the point of avoiding scratches or general mechanical damages of the front element it is better to use such a lens with a lens hood. But then of course also the "pancake" size is changed.
From my long term experience and test results with this pancake design and the Nikkor 1.8/50 AI-S "long-barrel" the latter is overall the better lens:
- even slightly better performance
- front element is recessed and therefore better protected
- still a very, very compact lens.
It is still so compact that I can carry my FM, FA or FE2 with it under most of my coats / jackets on an outside walk.
The 50 1.2 is apparently the sharpest at f2. But how much sharper its is then the 1.8 I do not know.
Yes, it is sharper at f2. But that is also the case with the Nikkor 1.4/50 AI-S. As others have already correctly explained, focussing at f1.2 is not so easy as the DOF is so thin.
The Nikkor 1.2/55, 1.2/50 and 1.4/50 have more distortion than the 1.8/50 Nikkor lenses.
The 55 is appealing du to its slightly longer focal length - I was also hoping it could be quite sharp on the larger apertures.
Wether 50mm or 55mm focal length - its does not really matter. The difference is negligible, and you can get the same results just by moving a little bit.
The later 1.2 / 50mm is optically the better, improved lens compared to the older 55mm.
1.2 might be convenient compared to 1.8 at times but this isnt really that important. So - size is important, but so is sharpness.
You cannot fool physics: If you want a really very compact SLR lens, you have to made compromises: Either in optical performance, or in Lichtstärke = max. aperture / speed.
But fortunately there are more options as the mentioned lenses above:
1.
Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF.2 (or its forerunner Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF / ZF.2 classic; it is optically identical to the Milvus, but the Milvus has the improved barrel / housing with wheater- and dust-sealing and rubber on the focus ring - which is a real improvement at cold temperatures).
I am using the Zeiss Makro-Planar ZF meanwhile for more than 15 years. Have taken thousands of pictures with it. It is by far the best manual focus f2 50mm lens for the Nikon F mount available.
At open aperture of f2 it is even visibly better than the 1.4/50 Nikkor stopped down to f2 (better sharpness, resolution and contrast, significantly lower distortion - almost distortion-free).
The Zeiss Makro-Planar surpasses the 1.8/50 Nikkor lenses at all aperture in sharpness, resolution and contrast.
It also has a nicer, smoother bokeh and a better separation of the focussed detail to the unsharp surrounding ("3D-Pop").
Better flare control and a very nice, satured, warmer colour transmission compared to the Nikkors are further advantages.
As well as the much better mechanical quality, especially with the latest Milvus version.
And there is one important difference to other Makro lenses: Other Makros are often only optimised for close ranges, and are not so good at longer distances and infinity.
Not so the Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50: It delivers excellent performance at all distances. Therefore it is an excellent all-round lens. When you are out in the fields you don't need an extra Makro lens if you see something small and interesting: You have an excellent one already built-in your normal 50mm standard prime.
The Zeiss Makro-Planar is a bit bigger and heavier than the 1.4 and 1.8 50mm Nikkor lenses. But that is no problem at all, as the lens is very well balanced on all Nikon bodies.
And it is much more compact and lighter than the combination of a standard 50mm Nikkor + Makro lens.
At f2 the Zeiss has stronger vignetting than the Nikkors. But for me personally no problem: I use it as often as an artistic tool to emphasize the main subject even more (e.g. with colour reversal film).
When doing optical prints it is also no problem at all, as you can easily reduce it with a vignette pattern / gauge. In a hybrid workflow it can also be reduced if wanted / needed.
2. Zeiss Milvus Distagon 1.4/50 ZF.2:
That is even surpassing the Zeiss Makro-Planar optically in most parameters, with an excellent performance already at open aperture, and significantly surpassing the Makro-Planar at f2 and f2.8.
Further stopped down the Distagon offers a more even performance acros the whole frame, so even better edge sharpness and resolution as the Makro Planar. Coma is also much lower.
But as there is never a free lunch in life: You pay for this even further improved quality with an increase in size and weight. For me no problem, as also the Distagon remains very well balanced on my most used Nikon film bodies (F6, F5, F4s, F100, F90x).
So, as you have written that for you
"size is important, but so is sharpness" my recommendations based on my test results and long-term experience with these lenses are:
1. Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF.2 (or its forerunner in the classic version) as the optimal compromise of performance to size.
2. Nikkor 1.8/50 AI-S long-barrel or Nikkor 1.4/50 AI-S if the wallet is empty and you are on a budget.
Best regards,
Henning