Nikon 50mm f1.4 vs 58mm f1.4

[LJSLATER]

Interesting question! I got Nikkor-S 1.4/58mm and did Ai modification. First I tested it on digital body (D7000). It's total dog lens. The worst lenses I have ever seen. I can't believe that Nikon made name with this lens in 1960. The lens I own is in very nice shape with no signs of impact or modification (other than AId). It was so bad that I lost all interest to ever try it on film body. On other hand, Nikkor SC 1.4/50 and Ais 1.4/50 are way better lenses.

Erm, the D7000 has a relatively high pixel density so of course it's going to exaggerate any flaws a 50-year-old lens might have. DSLRs don't always work well with ancient optics; My DSLR hates some of my old lenses but does fine with others of the same vintage.

Besides, the pleasantness of a lens' rendering is a highly personal matter. Your mileage may vary, as they say; simply calling a lens a dog because it's less sharp isn't fair.

[Spicy]

Interesting question! I got Nikkor-S 1.4/58mm and did Ai modification. First I tested it on digital body (D7000). It's total dog lens. The worst lenses I have ever seen. I can't believe that Nikon made name with this lens in 1960. The lens I own is in very nice shape with no signs of impact or modification (other than AId). It was so bad that I lost all interest to ever try it on film body. On other hand, Nikkor SC 1.4/50 and Ais 1.4/50 are way better lenses.

It's really important to bear in mind that the lens was not developed with digital sensors in mind. Because film tends to be much more forgiving, a lot of the "legendary" lenses from that period 50s and 60s, maybe early 70s -- basically the golden era of manual focus lenses -- perform pretty poorly on digital, while continuing to be incredibly charming on film.

I'm sure someone could offer you a correct and more in-depth explanation of the physics, but I know it has a lot to do with film having physical depth, as well as emulsions not requiring perfectly aligned photons to expose them. A good way to think of it would be the increased ease of hitting a paper plate with a baseball (film), in comparison to hitting the back of a bucket that was turned horizontally on its side (digital).

It's unfortunate that you were so discouraged...

[desertratt]

I had a pal who was a big time news photographer (World Series, Presidential trips, Academy Awards) and he favored the 58mm 1.4 on his Nikon F. He thought the bit of extra length was handy when he had to make a quick portrait of somebody. His photos are in the history books and nobody ever quibbled about whether itthat lens was as sharp or sharper than other Nikon lenses. Hair-splitting is for non-photographers who love to sit around and make grand pronouncements about nothing much in particular.