Deep digging old lens, Nikon 50mm f1.2, relationship between aperture and star image (from f1.2 maxi
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.