|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Nov 21, 2016 9:19:17 GMT -5
Just got my D7100 after a dissapointing encouter with the D5100. Time to do some testing. everybody is raving about the nikkor 50mmf2 Ai manual focus "old" lens, so i thought i'd compare it to a "new" 50mmf1.8 AFD lens. Indeed the old 50 is better at any aperture than the AF version, not only sharpness but colour and contrast are better. this dosn't mean theAF's a dog, when compared to other lenses it is still amongst the best but the old 50 is really special. If you're serious about say portraiture and can live with the manual focus i'd suggest you get one, they are dirt cheap and there's very little 50mm wise at any price that will beat them. And yes, they are full metal unlike the plastic Af versions.    the scene from wich the 100% images are made (original is 24Mp) |
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Nov 22, 2016 13:08:20 GMT -5
Some time ago I sold all my Nikon gear - only Nikkormats (FTn, FT2, FT3) all with the 2/50. You have to make choices in life, even concerning photographic gear:-(
What I remember (also by looking at the pics - color neg and dia) is the color rendition which is as good a good planar (better than a mediocre planar..). And this a remark from a diehard Carl Zeiss glass fan!
Maybe I should find myself a FT3 with a 2/50...
Hans
|
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 23, 2016 5:15:56 GMT -5
Some time ago I sold all my Nikon gear - That’s criminal. I suppose you blew the money on wine, women, gambling and an Icarex - or you really went downhill and wasted it on a Canon or Minolta. On a serious note do you have any production numbers for the Contarex? I am editing some material and the production numbers for the Contarex are very rubbery. The Bullseye numbers seem fine with the production numbers for the letter variants – but after that its all over the place. I have seen total numbers of 66,000 and others in the low forties. One Japanese site claims the Nikon F outsold it 15 to 1 on the basis of 862,000 for the F. |
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Nov 23, 2016 11:15:54 GMT -5
Conan wrote:
On a serious note do you have any production numbers for the Contarex?
Production numbers of the Contarex according Hans-Jurgen Kuc 2001:
Contarex I: 32.000
Contarex Special: 5.000
Contarex P: 1.500
Contarex S: 13.400
Contarex SE: 3.100
Hologon: 1.400
Makes a grand total of 56.400.
Relative to the total number of Nikon F, a 15 to 1 ratio is a good guess...
(Still I like the Contarex more, well, not the camera, but its lenses are soooo good...)
Hans
|
|
|
|
Post by conan on Nov 27, 2016 1:08:19 GMT -5
Conan wrote: On a serious note do you have any production numbers for the Contarex? Production numbers of the Contarex according Hans-Jurgen Kuc 2001: Contarex I: 32.000 Contarex Special: 5.000 Contarex P: 1.500 Contarex S: 13.400 Contarex SE: 3.100 Hologon: 1.400 Makes a grand total of 56.400. Relative to the total number of Nikon F, a 15 to 1 ratio is a good guess... (Still I like the Contarex more, well, not the camera, but its lenses are soooo good...) Hans Hanz thanks for that. Interestingly one set of figures I have is within a few hundred units of what you quoted. Of interest is the number of Contarex’s built after 1972 or shall we say assembled from existing parts as special orders in 1973 and 1974. Some figures quote about a hundred, other up to 300 - either way these would be fairly rare. |
|
Wayne
Contributing Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 16, 2018 18:44:29 GMT -5
I always felt the 50mm F/2 Nikor put the F/1.4 to shame plus being a lot lighter and more compact (and cheaper). I briefly owned a F/1.2 I found on a Nikkormat FT3 at an estate sale for $25. Put an 50mm f/2 on the FT3 and sold the f1.2 for a nice chunk of change. The f/1.2 wasn't that sharp but was impressive to look at.
|
|
|
|
Post by pendennis on Nov 17, 2018 10:59:35 GMT -5
Considering the purpose of the f1.2, I was never surprised that it lacked the sharpness of it's f/2, f/1.8, and even f/1.4 brethren. I got to try one out in the mid-70's, when I was shooting as a stringer. Our photos were mostly for newsprint, so when the images were converted to half-tones, it didn't make a whole lot of difference how sharp the lens was.
Similar to you, I find that I like the 50mm f/1.8 for a "carry around" lens on a FM2 or FE.
|
|
Wayne
Contributing Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 22, 2018 23:11:50 GMT -5
Yes, when you are shooting B&W for newsprint at 65- or 85-lines-per-inch screen, you didn't have to worry too much about lens sharpness. The F/1.2 was a heavy sucker. Wouldn't have wanted to lug it around for an extended period.
|
|
