I use this on my Sony A7 IV all the time. Absolutely love it. So much so that when a buddy decided to sell his copy, I bought that too. Gotta have the 7 and 9 blade versions.
I have the 50mm f/1.4 and it's a spectacular sharp lens. It's a non Ai, but I had the conversion done by John White. I got it for $85 on eBay in September. $30 for the conversion and I'm really happy with it.
I owned this lens for several years and completely agree with your findings. I remember a review with samples showing it was Nikons sharpest lens at f2 and sharper than the famed Noctilux 1.0 at all identical stop-values. But more often than not the CA and and the veiling flare took away much from that sharpness. Add to that a busy bokeh at f2 and swirly-effects at wider stops and you get quite a difficult beast to work with. But when everything worked out, man, what a lens! Stopped down to f5.6 it was razor-sharp into the finest detail even on the D800E.
Mac, no offense, you are more experienced photographer/film shooter than me but... 1st for heavy overexpose ultramax kinda sucks. 2nd your camera can shoot 1/8000 shutter speed so why do you need to overexpose and kill the shot with iso 250 and 1/1000? I would stay at iso 400, max 350 and speed at whatever it needs to compensate. Than I will have film negatives that I can print without scanning and editing in Lightroom or Photoshop. Or I'm totally wrong and not understanding something?
I hear ya, Ivars, but for proper skin tones and shadow detail I choose to overexpose and pull back in post. Ultramax is a consumer film and it won't hold up like Portra. I tend to accept that reality and just do what I can with the chosen film stock. As for printing, i'll be honest...it's not something I do a lot of and prefer, for now, to do post adjustments in Lightroom and share my work digitally. It's a digital world and I'm trying to deliver content that meet the needs of that preferred medium. Thanks for watching and for your honest feedback!
@@davymike761 they came out great??? The colors are absolutely washed out and ruined. The lighting situations were perfect for portraits, and the exposure is absolutely abysmal.
Each photographer has there own shooting style, I can see he was going for a retro ethereal look. However, I noticed some blown highlights which for me personally is a big no no. As art is subjective there’s no right or wrong method as long as you are in control of the look you are going for!
@@kubowich Dude! The beauty of film photography is that we can do whatever it is that we like/wanna do! You obviously don’t like the shots and that’s your prerogative but why you spout such negativity is beyond me. If everyone shoots the same way that would be boring. Mac is no spring chicken when it comes to film photography so again he knows exactly what he’s going for. My question to you is why so much negativity?
You are one of the few reviewers who has mentioned how Nikon managed to keep the filter size for almost 90% of their AI and AIS lenses to 52mm, one set of filters fitted every lens. A long time ago, I had a Nikon FM, with a MD12 drive. When I got my FM2 and FE2 I was surprised to see that the same motor drive fitted the newer cameras. Compare this to other camera manfacturers, or even Nikon of today. Nowadays 82mm filters are the norm. I guess in the good old film days, even the corporates had a different business ethos. Not Now.
@@kalenderquantentunnel9411 You can't use the Olympus lenses natively on digital bodies. With the F mount almost all of the Nikon lenses could be used with their DSLRs.
@@lensman5762 I'm talking about the systems in the days where AIs started and the MD12 was new as this is where you started above. In the early eighties, digital was still in the labs and far from the first consumer-products.
Love this lens. Bought it new in 2014 and won't part with it. You made me also order the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 though despite not really needing it. Thanks for that!
There is a way to avoid ND filter in a bright sunny day while shooting at f1.2 (which makes nailing focus at that aperture even harder) - use lower iso film, ISO 100 or lower. That way you'll be within range, especially if your camera can shoot at 1/8000/sec. As additional benefit, you'll get smaller grain and better colours, possibly without any colour cast. The problem with that idea is that these days you don't have too many ISO 100 films anymore. I'd say the only films worth mentioning these days are Kodak Ektar and Pro Image 100. Yes, you can pass with Portra 160 too, but you'll have to either overexpose it or pull it down...
Another one that is often overlooked, its no manual focus lens but certainly works like a charm on my F100 is the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD. Also has a 35mm version. My 45mm has the most creamy bokeh I've ever seen.
Good vid. My first thoughts were that it doesn’t look like Ultramax the way it was shot. I did see comments re: skin tones. I guess I would of just shot Portra.
It depends on your definition of "upgrade". if you want a faster maximum aperture, then yes. If you want any of the following, then no: sharpness at same apertures, contrast, flare control, rectilinear imaging. I cannot understand why so many folks think that the larger aperture design of the 1.2 not only doesn't pay a price, but is actually superior to its slower cousins of more modern design, made with more modern glass types. Since no one does any serious, objective lens test comparisons any more (since 1986 anyway), what these "reviews" leave us with its emotional, subjective impressions, often colored by other videos which precede with baseless hype.
Loved this video as usual those shots with the 50 1.2 are spectacular, how do you feel about the F100? I have GAS and I'm tempted to get an F6, just wondering what your opinions of it are compared to F3, FM2.
The F100 was an excellent camera with a few refinements over the F5 even. If you have the budget though get the F6 as it has only ceased production in the last few years and will be serviceable should you need it. A lot of photojournalists preferred the much lighter FM2 over the F3 back in its day, although many had both. It's a personal choice unless you must have the FM2's faster flash sync speed. For my money I'd choose the F3 with its superior build quality although be aware that all of these essentially electronic cameras will be starting to fail now. If that's a consideration then the FM2 or F6 would be your best bet. As with the F5/F100, F4/F801 (N8008 in the US) Nikon often experimented with innovation in the second tier camera.
I have a FE2 and have been interested in getting a F100, F6, or F3 but after looking at all of them the improvements are minor and not worth it to me. The only main reason to get the F100 or F6 would be for autofocus which I don't use since all my lenses are manual. The only reason to get a F3 would be to shoot with a waist level finder but you lose the top shutter speed since it's 1/2000th vs the 1/4000th of the FE2 and 1/8000th for the F100 and F6. The FM2 is a mechanical manual camera. It's for people that want the option to shoot without a light meter. Aperture priority trumps Manual for me.
@@Superbustr thanks for the reply and agreed, F6 doesn’t offer much value or features for the extra money versus the F100. I got an FM2N for a great price and it’s an amazing camera, didn’t take long to adapt to manual shooting.
I was considering buying this lens for myself but at F1.2? it looks to be really soft over all. This lens might be best used for some night photography?
Yes it’s soft wide open but has very creamy bokeh and gives an ethereal look to the image, which is hard to achieve via other methods. For video it really shines as it produces dream like footage. Mine has an unofficial half stop at f/1.4 which also shows up on the non cpu aperture setting, and sharpens noticeably. By f/2.0 its sharp & by f/2.8 it’s probably the sharpest lens I own at that aperture…
At 1.2 there is a tendency to produce a lot of veiling flare and vignetting almost to the centre of the image but other aberrations are under control. The plane of focus will be acceptably sharp but it definitely has to be used carefully. Essentially at F1.2 it's an artist's tool rather than something you can apply across the board. F1.4 improves and by F2 it's as sharp as some modern lenses. By F2.8 it is as sharp or sharper than many modern lenses are at F8. The aperture blades are straight which results in fairly jittery bokeh and nonagonal highlights. In an era of overcorrected lenses with multiple aspheric elements this lens is the antidote.
@@Tom_RU-vid_stole_my_handle good points about shooting wide open with this lens; it’s prone to flaring and loss of constant if used wide open so I find the use of the metal lens hood (HS-12) is a must… IMO I alternate between this at the 50mm f/1.8 pancake (which is sharper wide open) it just depends on what look I’m aiming for…
The 50mm f1.2 AIS is fantastic and one the the best 50mm from Nikon. Although I feel the slightly harder to shoot with 85mm f1.4 AIS is really the creme of the crop.
