New Lens disappointment

[Lonnie1212]

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

Camera Lens setup

View attachment 272371

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

I have had the same experience with some older lenses. With some of those lens you have to close down the aperture further. Raise the aperture up to f/4 or f/5. I would say you have a good camera and a good lens. Just raise the lens setting to a higher aperture number. We all want to have dreamy bokeh. But some lenses are just too soft at f 1.8 or 2.0 etc.... The bokeh aspect will be fine. Just my opinion. I am here to learn as well.

 

[greybeard]

Did you shoot everything at f/1.2?

 

[ndwgolf]

Here's a couple more shot with the 55mm 1.2, this time shot around f5.6

 

[Grandpa Ron]

What specifically do you not like about the lens. "Bad results" is very subjective.

What have you asked the lens to do, that it could not deliver?

 

[ndwgolf]

What specifically do you not like about the lens. "Bad results" is very subjective.

What have you asked the lens to do, that it could not deliver?

Basically to answer your question I was hoping it would be easier to shoot wide open...........stopped down its great

 

[Rickbb]

It will shoot wide open, of things that need a very shallow depth of field, close up face shots with the focus on the nose work well wide open, not full body shots. Too much will be out of focus at the distance for a full body shot due to the very shallow DOF.

 

[felixkh]

This was taken with the Nikkor 55mm F1.2 @ 1.2

 

[Golem]

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.

For film era news photos in dim light, the main benefit of such a lens is that while all such photos CAN be shot at f/2.0, its easier, faster, and more accurate for the hurried and harrassed news shooter to focus at f/1.2 due to a brighter finder and less DoF. IOW it provides a safety margin in trying conditions even tho the exposure is at f/2.0 or 2.8.

Today we have put all those challenges behind us and the main attraction of f/1.2 is for bokeh cultists who are oddly clueless about bokeh !

It will be interesting to hear from the OP about his new Voigtlander 50/1.0 as to whether his soft results are due to that particular old Nikkor or perhaps the hyper fast lens genre in general is the issue for him.

Im not "anti speed" but I set a limit at f/1.4 for FF lenses (using 28, 40, 50 and 58), but I would use even faster lenses on m4/3. If I needed "emergency speed" Id just stick a 50/1.4 on a Speed Booster on an APSC body. Not optically ideal, but thats que sera sera for f/1.0.

 

[JoolsW]

#2 is simply OOF. But look at #4... that hair looks pin-sharp to me. And the bokeh is excellent.
IMO. Maybe 50 more carefully considered shots might serve you better than 500 shots? Perhaps it's not the lens?
But only you can compare the results you get with this lens compared to your normal lens.
I have a brassed old 180mm 2.8 Nikkor which I'd use for anything if the length suits the shot. It gives such sensuous shots - beautiful, but probably far from perfect. But maybe that's what makes it so good... it's NOT perfect.

 

[JoolsW]

Felix, that's a nicely composed shot, the model is beautiful, and I like the way you haven't tried to light her face 'evenly' it gives the shot a nice natural feeling. But that bokeh is horrible isn't it? Looks really gritty - without softness.
So that's the 55mm then.

 

[Tinstafl]

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.

While what you say is true we also did tweaks in the darkroom. I had a darkroom from 1972 till 2005 when I finally shut it down. Lots of dodging and burning and cross processing and even double exposures. Also there was a lot more black and white shot. I used to shoot chromes so I used ciba setup and the paper would have a black border not white like the print films negatives. Truly there is more tweaking but the sensor and raw requires it or the camera will do it for you in body. I tried my old glass and now it is on the shelf as memories. The new s mount is better then my f mount glass from just a few years ago now.

 

[felixkh]

Felix, that's a nicely composed shot, the model is beautiful, and I like the way you haven't tried to light her face 'evenly' it gives the shot a nice natural feeling. But that bokeh is horrible isn't it? Looks really gritty - without softness.
So that's the 55mm then.

Hi JoolsW,

thanks for the compliment.

It's the Nikon Nikkor Auto S C 55mm F1.2. There are some who say that at wide open it is a bit soft but it seems to be a tad sharp in the centre. the bench is too sharp for my liking too.