Being unfamiliar with older Nikkor lenses how does your lens compare to the Nikkor 58mm 1.2 that seems very pricey?
The 50/1.2, a symmetrical design without aspherical elements, demonstrates a lot of so-called 'veiling flare' at ƒ/1.2-1.4 but underneath it all, there's still fairly high resolution. Beyond ƒ/2, sharp as a tack.
The 58/1.2, has a curvature of field that can be tricky, but to my eye, still has a higher resolution & contrast at ƒ/1.2-2.8 than the older Leica 50/1.2. Controls comma a bit better too. It was a true low-light lens of the late 1970's and 1980's, whereas the Nikkor 50/1.2 was and is more of 'style' lens.
Neither Nikkor renders in this super-soft "mush".The Leica 50/1.2 redux or this LLL knockoff, appear something that would appeal more to videographers rather than still photographers nowadays. Shooters in the 1960's with money or the need, when the Leica appeared, had little choices with relatively slower emulsions then available.
Jan 06, 2024 at 03:54 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Being unfamiliar with older Nikkor lenses how does your lens compare to the Nikkor 58mm 1.2 that seems very pricey?
The 50/1.2, demonstrates a lot of so-called 'veiling flare' at ƒ/1.2-1.4 but underneath it all, there's still fairly high resolution. Beyond ƒ/2, sharp as a tack.
The 58/1.2, has a curvature of field that can be tricky, but to my eye, still has a higher resolution & contrast at ƒ/1.2-2.8 than the older Leica 50/1.2. It was a true low-light lens whereas the 50/1.2 is more of 'style' lens.
Neither Nikkor renders in this super-soft "mush".The Leica 50/1.2 redux or this LLL knockoff, appear something that would appeal more to videographers rather than still photographers nowadays. Shooters in the 1960's with money or the need, when the Leica appeared, had little choices with relatively slower emulsions then available.
Jan 06, 2024 at 03:53 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Being unfamiliar with older Nikkor lenses how does your lens compare to the Nikkor 58mm 1.2 that seems very pricey?
The 50/1.2, demonstrates a lot of so-called 'veiling flare' at ƒ/1.2-1.4 but underneath it all, there's still fairly high resolution. Beyond ƒ/2, sharp as a tack.
The 58/1.2, has a curvature of field that can be tricky, but to my eye, still has a higher resolution at ƒ/1.2-2.8, its narrow ideal operational envelope, as a true low-light lens whereas the 50/1.2 is more of 'style' lens.
Neither Nikkor renders in this super-soft "mush".The Leica 50/1.2 redux or this LLL knockoff, appear something that would appeal more to videographers rather than still photographers nowadays.
Jan 06, 2024 at 03:50 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Being unfamiliar with older Nikkor lenses how does your lens compare to the Nikkor 58mm 1.2 that seems very pricey?
The 50/1.2, there's a lot of so-called 'veiling flare' at ƒ/1.2-1.4 but underneath it, is still fairly high resolution. Beyond ƒ/2, sharp as a tack.
The 58/1.2, its curvature of field can be tricky, but to my eye, has a higher resolution at ƒ/1.4-2.8, its narrow ideal operational envelope, as a true low-light lens whereas the 50/1.2 is more of 'style' lens.
Neither Nikkor renders in this super-soft mush.
Jan 06, 2024 at 03:47 PM
Previous versions of j.liam's message #16436248 « Light Lens Lab (LLL) replica lenses discussion & image thread »
