50 1.2 AIS worth it?

[nerwin]

A while back I came across someone on eBay selling a 50 1.2 AIS in great condition for $70...I don't think they realized they had a gem and been shooting my self in the foot ever since because I didn't buy it. I know Nikon still makes this lens as of today..but what I am wondering..would this lens be even worth to own? I got a 50 1.8G which I enjoy, but having f/1.2 would just be awesome to have. Canon makes modern 1.2 lens..why can't Nikon?!

Any of you own the 50 1.2?

 

[KmH]

f/1.2 is only 2/3 of a stop wider open than f/1.4.
So the most likely reason Nikon doesn't see an advantage to investing in design and manufacturing update changes is that there is not much demand for 50 mm f/1.2.

Note the Canon 50 f/1.2 is a $1550 lens.
Nikon's 50 f/1.2 is only $725, well less than 1/2 the price.

In 30+ years of doing photography I've never owned a 50 f/1.2.

 

[AKUK]

The old 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s is pretty much a speciality lens. The main reason for buying it is for extreme low light photography, although some like it for close up portrait work. It's pretty sharp wide open but by f/2 it is blisteringly sharp. The old Noct-Nikkor 58 f/1.2 is even better optically and why it command a price tag of a few thousand dollars still today. What a piece of metal and glass that thing is!

Having said that, if you wan't a stunningly sharp 50mm prime, then I'd look at the Sigma Art. Around about $300 more than the 50mm f/1.2 new, but the AF can make a huge difference when trying to nail focus at such shallow depth of field. It's also incredibly sharp wide open too. I wouldn't say no to one!

 

[nerwin]

Thanks, I'm happy with my 50 1.8, but I was just curious if it was even worth to own. $70 was cheap..I should've just bought and then turned around and sold it for profit! Lol.

What I really want is the 135 f/2 DC...that glass is so beautiful.

 

[AKUK]

Totally should have bought it and flipped it!!

You and me both. I love the bokeh on the 135mm. Have you tried the old (and I mean old) Pentacon/Meyer-Optik Gorlitz 135mm f/2.8? 15 blade preset aperture and manual focus. Ghosts like hell but, pretty sharp and stunning bokeh on it. You won't get infinity focus with it due to being M42 but, certainly more than long enough for most portrait work.

 

[nerwin]

All I want it for is to take pictures of my cat, LOL.

But I'm planning on picking up the 105 2.8G VR macro..so I mean would I even really need a 135 f/2?

 

[AKUK]

This begs the question do you need the Micro-Nikkor if you're only photographing the cat?

Both are razor sharp lenses. The main reason for the 135mm is basically control over the look of the background. It's pretty funky what that DC does to it and can dramatically change the feel of a photo, from creamy backdrop to a harsher one. Gives also bokeh balls too.

 

[nerwin]

I don't have a macro and there are plenty of times when I've needed one..so I thought it would be money well spent to have a good macro lens and a lens that doubles as a portrait lens for when I do decided to try doing portraits. I hear that its just as good if not better than the 70-200 2.8 @ 105mm.

The 135 f/2 is indeed a bokeh monster. I'll probably own one someday, but I don't think its necessary right now. It screams a portrait lens and portraits is something that I don't really do yet. Maybe someday.

 

[AKUK]

The 105mm is great for portraits. Fast focusing and accurate, although it sucked on the D90. 4 seconds to go from infinity to CFD and back again. Same lens takes under a second to do the same on the D800. I like it for the VR which makes a big difference for me when shooting in natural light. It's very sharp and has the ability to isolate the eyes and achieve a shallow DOF when desired. As a macro lens, it's also pretty decent. Flowers, abstract stuff. For tiny critters you definitely need something more powerful though.

Personally, I'd save a few hundred bucks and go with the Tamron SP90 VC. It's sharper and Tamron's VC is very highly regarded. The Micro-Nikkor also isn't truly a fixed aperture either. At closest focusing distance the maximum aperture is in fact f/4.8 - not f/2.8. As you focus further away the aperture widens and eventually hits f/2.8 at 3m/10ft.

 

[nerwin]

But I can get the 105 used for around the same price as Tamron. I dunno. First things first, I need to pick up a ultra wide angle for my car photography. 24mm just not wide enough for me.

 

[AKUK]

Thought about the old Tamron SP17mm f/3.5? Comes in adaptall II mount. Either that or the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 SL in Nikon mount. Both pretty decent lenses and don't cost the earth either. Manual focus lenses but I'm assuming the cars are stationary?

 

[bribrius]

i just want old cheap lenses to go on my old cheap film camera. so i will follow along with your discussions....

 

[nerwin]

Thought about the old Tamron SP17mm f/3.5? Comes in adaptall II mount. Either that or the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 SL in Nikon mount. Both pretty decent lenses and don't cost the earth either. Manual focus lenses but I'm assuming the cars are stationary?

I'm too lazy to focus, lol. But I typically do a lot of these shots at car shows and sometimes there are 50k people wanting to look at cars..so I have to be very fast otherwise someone always walks in the frame. So I really don't want to deal with manual focusing. But I'm already looking at getting the Nikon 18-35. I was going to get the 16-35 f/4 VR..but its just too heavy and big to carry at 8 hour events. I have a muscle car too that I bring to these shows, so I'm there all day. When I had my D7000, I used the 17-55 2.8 for a week and then sold it because 1. not wide enough and 2. too heavy and with the RS7, I felt like I was going to fall over. hahaha.

Before I bought the D610, I almost considered going mirrorless..but because I'm in low light a lot of the time..full frame was a no brainer for me.

 

[bribrius]

Thought about the old Tamron SP17mm f/3.5? Comes in adaptall II mount. Either that or the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 SL in Nikon mount. Both pretty decent lenses and don't cost the earth either. Manual focus lenses but I'm assuming the cars are stationary?

I'm too lazy to focus, lol. But I typically do a lot of these shots at car shows and sometimes there are 50k people wanting to look at cars..so I have to be very fast otherwise someone always walks in the frame. So I really don't want to deal with manual focusing. But I'm already looking at getting the Nikon 18-35. I was going to get the 16-35 f/4 VR..but its just too heavy and big to carry at 8 hour events. I have a muscle car too that I bring to these shows, so I'm there all day. When I had my D7000, I used the 17-55 2.8 for a week and then sold it because 1. not wide enough and 2. too heavy and with the RS7, I felt like I was going to fall over. hahaha.

Before I bought the D610, I almost considered going mirrorless..but because I'm in low light a lot of the time..full frame was a no brainer for me.

i don't know how they did it back in the day. I tried street photography with that ais from the other thread the other day. By the time i got it dialed in the moment was gone. I might just be too slow though.

 

[sashbar]

I have a FUJI 50 mm 1.2 lense, which is a top glass and very sharp even wide open, but as AKUK says it is a speciality lense. In most cases you do not need 1,2 or even 1,4.