Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,511   Posts: 1,543,573   Online: 1090
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,882
    There you go. I wish I had a 1.4. (Or really, while I'm wishing, the 80/1.9 for my Mamiya 645!)

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    297
    Buy one. If you don't like it . . . sell it.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    California desert
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    735

    inferior

    A lot of folks have been conned into believing an inferior lens (the 1.2) is the better lens. If you want to believe this nonsense, buy the lens. Throw away your 1.4.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    129
    Talk you out of it?? You're an experienced shooter. For only a few hundred dollars buy it to satisfy your curiosity, shoot, then keep or sell it. No reason for hand-wringing.

  5. #15
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,880

    Talk me out of a Nikon 55mm f/1.2

    I have a mint 50mm 1.2 nikkor, I don't even use it that often. I even got my f3s set up with the h2 and g2 focusing screens just to take advantage of the low light boost from those screens. I prefer my om 50mm 1.4 when I do shoot in that focal length. Also I usually used the nikkor stopped down anyway.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    Don't trust lenses that go up to 11. 12 is even worse

    Most manufacturers 1.4 lenses beat their 1.2s, even at 1.4. Bigger, heavier, more optically complex and exponentially more expensive. Buy film instead.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New York
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    308
    Thanks for the info. looks like it's not worth the trouble and $ for a 1.2 lens.

    Sticking with the 1.4

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,431
    Shootar, I had the 50/1.2, the 50/1.4 x2, and the 50/2 x2. All pre AI, all in excellent unhazed condition. I now have just the two f:2 Nikkor Hs, a lens that can stand comparison with a Summicron-R. At f:2, they're better than the faster lenses at the same aperture.

    Back when the only easy option for very low light was pushing Tri-X these ultrafast lenses were useful, they still are if that's the look you want - I also had the LTM f:1.2 Canon and had fun using it this way. That was 20+ years ago when these lenses were considerably cheaper, now I use T-Max 3200 and the aformentioned lenses and get better results. Fast color films have improved considerably as well.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    396
    hmmm... lemmeesee... mebbe this guy could talk you out of the 55/1.2: http://www.nicovandijk.net/website55.htm

    while i also call my H.C a "cron killer," there's nothing wrong with the 50/1.2 AI-S between 2 and 2.8, depending on the distance--




    Last edited by Vilk; 02-07-2014 at 01:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,060
    You want it; otherwise you wouldn't have asked. Get it.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin