This time, I was wondering whether to add to the 50mmf1.2 review blog I wrote before.
However, this lens is no longer a current lens, and there are many sample photos, so I decided to put together a new blog.
I set the Southern Cross near the center and compared and verified the change in the image, using as an example a photograph of a star field taken by sequentially changing the aperture from the maximum aperture of f1.2 to the minimum aperture of f16.
content
50mmf1.2 manual lens that I still use often
As automation evolves, do we no longer need techniques?
Africa, Kenya's best-selling camera
Comparing changes in aperture and image quality in starfield photography
First, I lined up examples of no trimming from the maximum f1.2 to the minimum aperture of 16.
Compare examples
Nikon verifies the resolution of 50mmf1.2 open
Screen, magnified image of long edge
If it is up to APSC size, f2.0 seems to be enough.
Strange vignetting in the center near the opening
as a summary
■
50mmf1.2 manual lens that I still use often
This old lens, Ais50mmf1.2, is an old manual lens but works well.
In terms of image quality, flares are easy to come out and it is not as good as recent lenses, but lines are thin, unique color development and bokeh, and tasteful depiction.
It may be one of the lenses that the manager uses the most.
A novel design that you wouldn't believe is a camera and lens from 40 years ago!?
I still think that the combination of F3 and this 50mm, including the body, is the coolest design.
This F3T was bought second hand at a camera shop in Nakano 30 years ago.
As automation evolves, do we no longer need techniques?
A storm of automation is blowing all over the world.
The camera industry is no exception, and single-lens cameras have become mirrorless.
Nikon says it will stop developing SLR cameras.
Autofocus that evolves day by day.
Image stabilization that is becoming more and more efficient.
A camera that captures the subject.
From corner to corner of the screen, people, animals, and even birds keep focusing on their eyes. Just amazing.
Did photographers no longer have to think about anything technically?
If you have the strength to hold the camera, even small children can easily take in-focus pictures.
It's that kind of time.
To be honest, I don't think it's necessary to take pictures as a hobby.
You should be able to shoot with a camera that you can enjoy yourself.
There are plenty of old cameras on the used market.
Even now, you can still enjoy taking photos with your old lenses and shooting them with film.
Well, film is tough on your wallet.
Even so, I'm really sad that Nikon will stop making single-lens reflex cameras.
The manager, who has been using Nikon cameras for a long time, has a strong attachment to Nikon. That's all, I'm going to write it a little dry.
Africa, Kenya's best-selling camera
Currently, the manager lives in the Republic of Kenya.
There are several camera shops in the capital, Nairobi.
Most of the cameras sold are Canon. There are Sony and Pana, but there are many Canons. Unfortunately, I don't see many Nikons.
Recently, Nikon services and shops have expanded to Nairobi.
However, other than that, the only cameras lined up in electronics stores and camera specialty stores are Canon.
Nikon/Micro Four Thirds I'm looking for a mount adapter with electronic contacts, but I can't find one, although most Canon ones are in stock.
Many of the cameras you still see in stores are single-lens reflex cameras rather than mirrorless cameras.
Canon, which has a factory in Japan, and the low-priced single-lens camera are also made in Japan, and the "MADE IN JAPAN" is clearly printed under the body. That alone is great brand power.
There are many customers who buy just for that.
So, in Kenya, I feel that low-priced single-lens reflex cameras made in Japan are selling well.
Nikon has moved its factories overseas from Japan and even stopped making low-end SLR cameras. Canon does the exact opposite.
Single-lens reflex cameras still have many advantages.
No time lag for single-lens viewfinders, no matter how cheap the cameras are! In that respect, it is more advantageous than high-end mirrorless.
In order to keep moving objects in the viewfinder, a low-priced SLR is the winner.
All single-lens reflex cameras and LCDs can be used in the same way as mirrorless cameras.
Another big problem with mirrorless cameras is the battery issue.
Expensive lithium battery, one small battery costs nearly 10,000 yen!
Rapid increase in demand for lithium due to EV vehicles, lithium batteries, likely to become higher in the future.
With a single-lens reflex camera like that, you don't have to buy a spare, and as long as it's fully charged, you can easily carry it for a whole day.
If it's a mirrorless camera, it's a little lonely with just one.
If you buy a camera that costs about 50,000 yen and have a spare battery of 10,000 yen, you will be hesitant.
Once at a Nikon shop in Nairobi, I was able to touch a mirrorless Zfc for a while.
I thought the design was pretty good.
The finder time lag is surprisingly large.
If you hold your hand over the lens and wave it up and down quickly, there is a time lag that you can see when your hand leaves the screen.
With this, it would be difficult to follow the movement of a dragonfly that perched on the tip of the grass swaying in the wind. Unfortunately, I felt that it was not a camera that could be advanced by people.
As a Nikon fan, I'm disappointed.
The manager was very skeptical about the discontinuation of the D3000 series and D5000 series.
I was surprised that even the D500, a high-performance APS single lens that I had been interested in, was stopped.
I'm sure there are some tough things going on.
Oh, the story was a little too much.
With the flow, I thought it would be a story about stars, but the story went in a different direction.
Comparing changes in aperture and image quality in starfield photography
This time, in order to see the rendering performance of the 50mmf1.2, I compared shooting starry skies from the widest aperture to the minimum aperture.
How old lenses can compete with the latest lenses?
However, I don't have a new lens to compare with, so I haven't compared.
The example of this time is a star field photograph taken almost centering on the Southern Cross (it is the southern constellation, but it will be unified with the Southern Cross).
With Nikkor 50mmf1.2, I compared shooting from the maximum aperture of f1.2 to the minimum aperture of f16.
The exposure was standardized at 30 seconds, and the ISO was changed to ISO200 at the maximum aperture of f1.2 and ISO25600 at the minimum aperture of f16 according to the change of the aperture, corresponding to the change in brightness due to the aperture.
ISO settings, f1.2 and f1.4 are slightly less accurate.
The exposure was 30 seconds, and tracking shots were taken with Kenko Tokina's Pota-red and Skymemo to suppress flow due to diurnal motion.
ISO 12800 at f11 and ISO 25600 at f16 are +1 and +2 on the Nikon D800E sensitivity settings.
There is a lot of noise, the dynamic range is narrow, and the white balance is quite fuzzy.
I also have the new and current model D850 at hand, but mosaic noise stands out when zoomed in.
I use the D800E, which has better image quality than that.
High pixel count does not mean good image quality.
In this example, I would like you to see how the D800E responds to different ISO changes, and what the capabilities of the camera 10 years ago were.
First, I lined up examples of no trimming from the maximum f1.2 to the minimum aperture of 16.
At the maximum f/1.2, the amount of peripheral illumination drops considerably.
The bright star in the center is quite stubby and voluminous.
I can't use this for astrophotography.
Just looking at this, it's a shabby lens with poor performance.
Even with f1.4 and half stop, the situation does not change much although it improves somewhat.
The periphery still flows in a ring.
When this lens is stopped down to f2.0, compared to f1.2 and f1.4, it looks sharp like a different lens.
At first glance, most of the stars are point images.
Peripheral light falloff is still quite noticeable.
f2.8, aperture setting often used in astrophotography.
What is the best balance between sensitivity and exposure?
If you don't have an equatorial mount, this is usually the setting.
The most used aperture setting for starry skies.
The surrounding area becomes quite dark.
When I stopped down to f4.0, the peripheral light falloff was considerably reduced and almost disappeared.
The star looks like a small point image to the periphery.
Aperture f5.6, highest image quality? The peripheral light falloff has become almost invisible.
Even the stars are tiny point images all the way to the corners.
Aperture value of f5.6, which I often used for normal shooting where resolution is required, is the best image quality.
When I compared the shots this time, I confirmed that the image quality was actually good, and I was convinced.
I can hardly see the difference from f5.6, but the noise increased by one step and it became dirty.
I don't see any merit in terms of image quality, and I don't stop down to f8 for starfield photography.
At f11, the color changed to magenta, and the white balance became less relevant.
It's almost impossible to stop down like this when shooting stars.
I don't see any advantage of squeezing.
Minimum aperture f16 of 50mmf1.2 and D800E highest sensitivity ISO25600.
Aside from the image quality, I thought that the image quality would drop more due to diffraction, but it doesn't seem to drop that much.
Don't you know it's this size?
Rather than increasing the sensitivity, is it just that the shadows have lost their tightness and become rougher?
I wonder if it's like that.
There is no image quality that can be said about the lens anymore.
Compare examples
First of all, what I would like you to compare with the above example is the decrease in peripheral light amount of the lens.
Around f/1.2 and f/1.4, the surroundings are extremely depressed.
Even at f2.8, there is a clear drop at the extreme edges, but at f4.0, the drop becomes less noticeable, and at f5.6, it becomes almost flat across the entire frame.
The lower part of the image of the shooting location looks bright, but it is light pollution caused by a private house.
The star image is quite bulky even in the center near the maximum aperture, but it tightens up at once when stopped down to f2.0.
The highest image quality is f5.6, the amount of peripheral illumination is almost non-existent, and the star image is the smallest point image from the center to the edge of the screen.
The maximum ISO sensitivity of the D800E is ISO6400, and above that is +1 and +2.
The maximum sensitivity is +2, which is equivalent to ISO25600, which is two steps higher.
All camera settings other than ISO are the same.
All the settings such as the tone that was adjusted when producing the image are also unified.
The next thing I would like you to see is the wide open image quality.
Nikon verifies the resolution of 50mmf1.2 open
Next, I will expand and verify the same example as above.
First of all, from the image quality around the short side of the screen.
The star with the yellow arrow below the photo.
Once upon a time, Johann Bayer, who created a constellation by connecting stars shining in the sky, set it as one of the stars in the constellation Centaurus.
In reality, it is a star cluster made up of countless stars.
First, expand and verify this part.
Magnify this Omega star cluster and verify the resolution of the lens
The image below shows the Omega cluster, the part indicated by the yellow arrow, magnified to 200% pixels.
Omega is the brightest and largest globular cluster in the sky.
By the way, to the left of the bright star shining on the left of the Southern Cross, the arrow indicates Alpha Centauri. It is 4.3 years away at the speed of light.
For this article, it doesn't really matter.
I was surprised that the star image was so sharp at the maximum aperture of f1.2
From the center of the wide-open f1.2 screen to the edges of the short sides, the star images are a little blurry, but they are close to dots, demonstrating the excellence of this lens.
In the Omega cluster, the peripheral stars are also separated.
Even at the maximum f/1.2, you can take beautiful pictures such as portraits because the core is solid.
The photo below was taken by focusing on this part at f2.8
The ISO is 800, so noise increases, but the star image is sharper by stopping down by 2 and a half stops.
The red and blue fringes around the stars can be removed in post-processing, but such post-processing is not done in this example.
Even with the maximum aperture of f1.2, the image is reasonably sharp from the center to the edge of the short side.
By the way, how far outside the screen is reflected?
Screen, magnified image of long edge
Next, verify the image quality around the long side of the screen.
The location is the pink arrow in the example above, jumping two steps, and the area surrounded by the square on the right side of the screen.
I arranged the Aether Carinae Nebula part from f1.2 maximum aperture to f16 minimum aperture at the same pixel size.
Open f1.2, Ulyaryalya! , the stars grew wings.
Star images in the periphery are in a terrible state.
However, the wings of the faint star are not conspicuous, and the brighter core remains than the wings.
Even at f1.2, it seems that the periphery is darker than this by two steps or more.
A faint star is faint and crushed.
Now, squeeze it little by little.
Adjust the ISO accordingly so that it does not become dark.
Originally, when comparing lens apertures, you should change the shutter speed, but this time, please excuse the ISO!
I'll give it a try when I get the chance, okay?
It's not much different from f1.4 and f1.2 wide open.
At f2.0, the wings of stars are getting shorter.
The number of faint stars has increased, and the vignetting has probably improved.
At f2.8, it's pretty close to a point image, but it's still a feather.
The Eta Carina Nebula is the red light in the lower left corner of the image.
A stunning ultra-high resolution photo of the new cosmic eye, the James Webb Telescope, was recently released.
This area is one of the first four that were released.
Hubble looks like a baby compared to this super-high-resolution telescope.
Just thinking about upcoming images, new discoveries, details about other planetary systems, and more makes my heart flutter.
Even though I'm an old man, I feel the same way I did when I was in elementary school when I got an astronomical telescope!
Also, we started talking about aperture and image quality at the periphery of 50mmf1.2! ! !
f4.0, can I say that it is a point image almost to the periphery?
If you look closely, it's a little distorted.
Balance with sensitivity, shutter speed 30 seconds seems to be the highest overall image quality.
f5.6, hmm, all the stars are tiny point images!
If you can extend the shutter speed, giving plenty of exposure at f5.6 seems to be the best image quality.
With the D800E and ISO3200 sensitivity, it's about this rough.
I'm pretty sure the high sensitivity noise reduction was normal.
I will write it down when I can confirm it.
There is no doubt that the f5.6 setting, where star images appear as dots over the entire area and almost no vignetting, is the highest image quality.
A 3-minute exposure with SO640 will give you a very nice picture of the star field.
At f8.0, it's a clear point image, but it's getting harder to see due to noise.
ISO6400, the highest sensitivity written in numbers on the D800E.
F8 is too dark to shoot stars.
If you stop down to f8.0, the star image will be slightly larger than that of f5.6.
It must be the effect of light diffraction.
I don't usually stop down to f11 to shoot stars, but I tried.
Does the effect of diffraction change much compared to f8?
Too much noise to be clear.
Sensitivity +1, raising the sensitivity to ISO12800 does not affect the image quality.
The white balance has also gone down, and it has become magenta.
There is no sensitivity that can be used in general. That's why I'm convinced again that it's +1.
f16, what is this?
Spirit photo? Can you see the upper body of the person who spread his hand? ? ?
wearing a hood.
can you see it?
Overall, f/5.6 seems to be the best image quality for this lens.
In low light, the edges fall off a bit, but f4 isn't bad either.
At f2.8, the amount of light at the edge of the lens is somewhat reduced, and the star image and ring-shaped feathers remain at the periphery, but it is still at a level that is not unusable.
If it is up to APSC size, f2.0 seems to be enough.
If you don't go to the periphery, f2.0 image quality is pretty good.
The sample is cropped to APS size and the aperture is f2.
The photo above is the same size as the upper right corner of the screen.
With APSC, just by stopping down to f2.0, you can see that the star image is almost dotted from edge to edge of the screen.
It's a little triangular.
The number of pixels is 16 million pixels.
Next, I will touch on the strange vignetting around wide open.
Strange vignetting in the center near the opening
Opened to f1.2, the center of the photo was taken out at the same size.
The underside of the star image is vignetted as if it were scooped out.
I still don't know what caused this vignetting.
The bottom part of the picture means that the light passing through the lens is blocked by something above the camera.
Is there a bump on the back of the flipped mirror that could be kicked?
This vignetting is slightly reduced when stopped down to f1.4.
And when you stop down to f2.0, the vignetting disappears completely.
Not only does vignetting disappear completely, but all stars are tightened up.
It looks like it was taken with a different lens.
At f1.2 or f1.4, this lens looks soft like a soft lens.
If you stop down to f2.0, it will be tightened sharply.
Comparing the pictures above, I agree.
The fact that there is such a change between f1.4 and f2.0 means that the change in image quality around f1.8 seems to be very large.
as a summary
Since I wrote it before, I will omit the details such as making the lens.
Compared to this time, I was able to understand that the lens is well assembled without using an aspherical lens, and that the starry sky can be captured flat to the periphery as much as you can stop down.
The 50mmf1.2 is just such a high-performance lens.
In starfield photography, if you stop down to around f4, you can get pictures that are almost as good as the latest lenses.
The difference between the new lens and the new lens is around the maximum aperture, especially in the peripheral area.
In order to produce good image quality even at the periphery and near maximum aperture of recent lenses, we have generously used glass that was expensive and difficult to use in the past, such as aspherical glass, special low dispersion glass, and ultra-high refractive glass. It is Although the price is also prosperous.
Again, in order to increase the amount of light in the peripheral area, it must be a dodeca lens.
I'd like to use the latest ultra-high-definition lenses.
Writing this blog, I felt that this old lens could still be used well.
There is no end to seeing new things and good things.
How can you keep your expenses down and be self-satisfied?
That's how I tell myself. You're not contributing to manufacturers or the camera industry.
It's been a long time since this lens was discontinued.
Sometimes I see this lens on the used market on the internet and it makes me very happy.
If you are interested in old lenses, it is not so old,
I recommend this lens!
It's a peculiar thing that the new lens doesn't have.
■
I'm planning to make corrections, so please check back again after a while. It should be a little easier to read.
Comments