New Lens disappointment

[ndwgolf]

So I bought myself a new/old 1960s Nikon 55mm f1.2 lens to try on my Z9. Using it in manual focus was a breeze once I reassigned the zoom button to the multi purpose joystick making it easier to zoom in for critical focus (we’ll get to that in a minute)
Anyway me and my girlfriend went out into Phuket old town to try this new lens out and it was really good fun. When we got home I uploaded the pictures into Lightroom and then I was like “SH*T” looking at them in full view they looked okay but as soon as I zoomed in to 100% they were NOT okay soft and just something not correct (it actually hurt my eyes looking at them). Out of the 500+ pictures we took 95% were really bad the other 5% i've posted below.
I bought the lens on Lazada which is the equivalent to eBay /Amazon here in Thailand. It came with a 7 day return policy which included “change of mind policy” but after contacting the seller on Lazada to say I wanted to return the lens his/her “Change of Mind” policy doesn’t apply to camera lenses (Ive started a dispute claim with Lazada, but I’m not holding my breath to get a satisfactory result.

I really enjoyed the experience of the manual focusing with the Z9 so Ive just treated myself to a brand new Voigtlander 50mm f1.0 ..........hopefully I will get a better result

 

[ndwgolf]

Camera Lens setup

 

[jeffashman]

Nice series of shots! It helps that your GF is photogenic. I've found manual focus on a digital camera to be a challenge, and old glass can be iffy, even if it was quality back in it's day.

 

[Rickbb]

Back in the day the 55 was known to not be as good as the 50 1.4. A friend had one and I had the 50. We traded for some shoots and the 55 did not match the 50 in sharpness. He sold his and got the 50.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Back around 1960, a 1.2 lens was generally intended for low light use by "news photographers". Actually, even 1.4's were not that wonderful either. Your photos look about what I would expect if you are using it "wide open". It should be acceptable around f4.0, improving around f5.6 and starting to get worse again below f8.0. I wrote roughly the same thing a while back in the "Minolta/Lenses" topic when I used an old Canon SCC 50mm f1.4 on a Sony body.

 

[RAZKY]

So I bought myself a new/old 1960s Nikon 55mm f1.2 lens to try on my Z9. Using it in manual focus was a breeze once I reassigned the zoom button to the multi purpose joystick making it easier to zoom in for critical focus (we’ll get to that in a minute)
Anyway me and my girlfriend went out into Phuket old town to try this new lens out and it was really good fun. When we got home I uploaded the pictures into Lightroom and then I was like “SH*T” looking at them in full view they looked okay but as soon as I zoomed in to 100% they were NOT okay soft and just something not correct (it actually hurt my eyes looking at them). Out of the 500+ pictures we took 95% were really bad the other 5% i've posted below.
I bought the lens on Lazada which is the equivalent to eBay /Amazon here in Thailand. It came with a 7 day return policy which included “change of mind policy” but after contacting the seller on Lazada to say I wanted to return the lens his/her “Change of Mind” policy doesn’t apply to camera lenses (Ive started a dispute claim with Lazada, but I’m not holding my breath to get a satisfactory result.

I really enjoyed the experience of the manual focusing with the Z9 so Ive just treated myself to a brand new Voigtlander 50mm f1.0 ..........hopefully I will get a better result


View attachment 272366View attachment 272367View attachment 272368View attachment 272369View attachment 272370

Sounds like a case of the wrong lens for the subject matter. Regarding the 55 f/1.2 Non-Ai Nikkor, a quote from the Nikon Compendium, Page 127: "Nobody should expect too much in terms of brilliant contrast and distortion-free images from such a lens trimmed to an extreme speed. It was simply conceived for situations in which half a stop is more important than the highest image quality." Note also that at f/1.2 your depth-of-field is very slim. It would be interesting to know your thoughts on the Voightlander.

 

[ndwgolf]

Sounds like a case of the wrong lens for the subject matter. Regarding the 55 f/1.2 Non-Ai Nikkor, a quote from the Nikon Compendium, Page 127: "Nobody should expect too much in terms of brilliant contrast and distortion-free images from such a lens trimmed to an extreme speed. It was simply conceived for situations in which half a stop is more important than the highest image quality." Note also that at f/1.2 your depth-of-field is very slim. It would be interesting to know your thoughts on the Voightlander.

It just arrived today so I will try it tomorrow with Fon

 

[ACS64]

I really doubt that very much of anybody's '60s glass will stand up to being examined at 100% of 45 MP. My experience is that only about 20% of the '60s glass looks good at 100% of 20 MP (at optimal apertures.)

 

[f64_or_bust]

I’ve tried a number of old pre-digital era lenses on a DSLR, none were very good. Interesting, to a point, but not worth the trouble. One was a Zeiss lens I had used to shoot film, and always thought of it as fantastic. Not on digits.

We’re in a different world now.

 

[JoeW]

First, photos #1, #3, and #4 are gorgeous--good work. I think you can improve #3 even more by cropping so it's just from the waist up. Yes, the shorts are hot, but an upper body shot with the tossled hair is outstanding--and I'd make that the focus of the shot. Second, what I've heard from a couple of very serious shooters is that the Z-glass is in a different world. Without an adaptor, it's closer to the sensor (and I assume you were using the KTZ adaptor--yes?). Also, the quality of the glass is just generally better.

Also, for a lens that has an f1.2 or even f1.4, I use it only for bodyscapes (with lots of bokeh) or in really terrible light. For me, shooting models with a narrow DoF is usually f2.8 or f2.4.

Finally, the problem of shooting manually (if you don't do that usually) is that relying on the back of the camera, things look sharp. Then you get them up on your monitor and...ugh! I hate to say "dont' shoot manually" but part of the advantage of a lot of the Z models is your ability to focus on eyeballs and get really crisp focus.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

If some of the shots were fine and other not so good, the lens would seem to be okay. Getting the lens to play well with the camera could indeed be the problem.

I would start with "everything" on the manual settings. You are the boss, and your camera is not trying to out guess your adjustments.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Here is a comparison of four old lenses. The person who did the test made a good job, but does not appear to be as experienced at testing as some of the real "pro" test sites like PetaPixel. Regardless of that I would restate that lenses vary even within batches, so a specific lens can be better or worse than the average of its type.

"Comparing 4 vintage manual focus 50mm 1.4 lenses from Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax.",
posted Aug 25, 2021 by "Jules Vuotto's Photo Focus", [length 23:26]
""

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Lens testing has been part of photography and always will be. The question is just how important is it? Like, many things in life, once you have reached a certain level quality, the difference become subjective.

When I see a photograph I like, what lens was used is of little relevance. Was it a Kodak Brownie, a pin hole, a mid-range or high-end digital Nikon or Canon, is not the first question to pop into my mind? There is no argument that an expensive lens will take a finer picture, be more durable and maybe a bit easier to use.

However, increasingly I find, it is not the "as shot" image that is being viewed, it is the post processing abilities of the photographer that make the picture great. Detail, sharpness and presentation come at the push of a button, to those with sufficient artistic computer skills. Rare is the photo that has not been electronically tweaked to some degree.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I rarely look at photos at a 1 inch distance. Waste of time in most situations. Vintage glass does a fine job taking photos for viewing at reasonable distance.

 

[JBPhotog]

I think this lens has issues. Focus is not on point, some look to be back focusing but over all I think there is some lens element misalignment going on. Check this site for a review, although a bit outdated it does mention this is a fragile lens. NÆRFOTO Bjørn Rørslett