Thom Hogan Opines on the Native Lenses

pdh

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
598
If you're going to spread misinformation, I guess it's nice that it was something easy to check.
this doesn't seem to me like a comment that helps the discussion along ...
 

BBW

Super Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
6,229
Location
Near "Playland" outside of NYC, NY, USA
this doesn't seem to me like a comment that helps the discussion along ...
Agreed, pdh. ~tc~, initially I removed your provocative remark to OzRay, but then thought better about it and apologize for it appearing that I changed anything. I see that you and OzRay have both been going back and forth for a while in this thread, so I don't mean to single you alone out, tc. We all need to leave personal remarks out of the discussions on this forum. It's fine to disagree and even prove our points to make it clear that someone else's remarks may not be accurate but we do not need or want personal attacks.

Let's keep the discussion civil from here on out. Tis the season and all that - as well as tis the rules of this website.:warning: View attachment 153989

Now, back to the discussion at hand.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
Agreed, I wanted to point out that he was incorrect, but that particular wording probably went a bit far ... at least without a smiley on the end :)
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
OK, I stand corrected one part of lens correction, chromatic aberration is not corrected, but distortion is; however, quoting one comment from that other place about the 20mm:

Falloff

We consider falloff to start becoming a potential problem when the corner illumination falls to more than 1 stop below the center. We measure 1.7 stops falloff wide open, which disappears on stopping down to around F2.8 - this is unlikely to be noticeable in normal use.
And for the 17mm:

Falloff We consider falloff to become perceptible when the corner illumination falls to more than 1 stop less than the centre. There's just a little falloff wide open (1 stop), that disappears by F4 - nothing to worry about.
So, it would appear that you have to go to f2.8, before the 20mm loses that fair loss, though the way they use the words little etc, the measurments don't appear very empirical. :smile:

That said, I still maintain that to have made the 17mm even an f2 lens, would have made it bigger and more expensive, it's simply the math of lens design, especially with wide angle lenses. Also, I have a lens that's 3mm wider and, to me, much more versatile than a 20mm.

Cheers

Ray
 

dhazeghi

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
4,365
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Dara
That said, I still maintain that to have made the 17mm even an f2 lens, would have made it bigger and more expensive, it's simply the math of lens design, especially with wide angle lenses. Also, I have a lens that's 3mm wider and, to me, much more versatile than a 20mm.
Horses for courses. 1 1/3 stops vs. 3mm.

Of course, the new Panasonic 14/2.5 is smaller, faster, wider and sharper than the 17/2.8, but you do pay for that privilege.
 

Streetshooter

Administrator Emeritus
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
5,138
Location
Phila, Pa USA
I agree with Ray. The 20 is a great lens, no doubt.
The 17 has a very good FOV and is highly under rated.
It has beautiful contrast, it's sharp enough and did I mention that 34mm FOV.
I have both and use the 17 much more.

I'm out...later
 

Brian S

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
714
A lot of debate over two lenses that are quite different from each other.

As to Hogan's opinions, he is entitled to his opinion. He, like Moose Peterson, seems to favor fast lenses. His Nikkor Normal is the 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. These used to go for $800, now seem to be in the $3,000 range. The lens is designed to give peak contrast performance at 10LP/mm. Ten-Line-Pairs Per Millimeter. It was announced in Photokina '76. But it is the most expensive Nikkor Normal you can buy, and can be found in Thom's Bag. I've used a 55/1.2 Nikkor-SC on my F2SB for a long time. Over the center 2/3rds of the image, it beat out the 50/1.4 Nikkor. Cost $125. Is the Noct-Nikkor 20x better? I also have the 45/2.8 GN-Nikkor. Nikon re-introduced the 45/2.8 Tessar formula lens not too long ago. Lots of people like it. I like the GN-Nikkor, it is small and much less weight than the 55/1.2. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. Does Thom recommend the Nikkor 45/2.8? Do I care? Just checked- he did not bother reviewing it. I've used Nikons longer than he has. Chances are, I own more Nikon cameras and Nikon lenses than he does.
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
Just thought of something ... If the 45/2.8 is "not recommended" because it's too expensive, despite it's "no complaints" optics - at what price then does it become recommended or highly recommended?
 

Streetshooter

Administrator Emeritus
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
5,138
Location
Phila, Pa USA
Just thought of something ... If the 45/2.8 is "not recommended" because it's too expensive, despite it's "no complaints" optics - at what price then does it become recommended or highly recommended?
It's available for $650.00 if you search.
That's a great price.
 

PeterB666

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
780
Location
Tura Beach, Australia
Real Name
Peter
He, like Moose Peterson, seems to favor fast lenses. His Nikkor Normal is the 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. These used to go for $800, now seem to be in the $3,000 range. The lens is designed to give peak contrast performance at 10LP/mm. Ten-Line-Pairs Per Millimeter. It was announced in Photokina '76. But it is the most expensive Nikkor Normal you can buy, and can be found in Thom's Bag. I've used a 55/1.2 Nikkor-SC on my F2SB for a long time. Over the center 2/3rds of the image, it beat out the 50/1.4 Nikkor. Cost $125. Is the Noct-Nikkor 20x better?
The Noct-Nikkor never sold for $800 AFIK unless possibly around the time of its introduction in 1977, but I doubt it. When it was last on sale in the US, it was around $2200 and that was in 1997. There were about 11,500 of these made in 21 years. It was always a very expensive lens as it was hand ground.

Why does it sell for $3,000 to $4,000 second-hand. Well basically because the Noct-Nikkor was designed to be used wide open at f/1.2 and be able to shoot at point light sources (e.g. night lights and stuff like that) with virtually no coma or other lens aberrations. The $500 lens you are thinking of is the 55mm f/1.2 which is still in production but not in the same league performance wise (it is still a very good lens).

The only comparable lens to the 58mm Noct-Nikkor are the 50mm Leica Noctilux lenses which sell for a lot more. The current production Leica 50mm f/0.95 sells for around $10,500.
 

pictor

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
637
I can't be the only one that finds Thom Hogan nearly as tiresome as Ken Rockwell ... can I ?
Well, Ken Rockwell writes himself:

Ken Rockwell said:
Although most of the technical information is probably true most of the time, the rest is all pretend. I love to fool around, pretend, and make things up.
Ken Rockwell said:
While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I love to stretch the truth if it makes an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.
Source

I had understood his writings as pieces of humor with some truth in them before I read his about page.
 

Brian S

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
714
The Noct-Nikkor never sold for $800 AFIK unless possibly around the time of its introduction in 1977, but I doubt it.
I've been shopping KEH for over 20 years. I've seen it that low. I know the lens, I worked in a camera shop during college. I have the Nikon Dealer's Catalog with the lens listed in it. The 50/1.2 Noctilux was aspheric, interesting about it's performance. The 50/1.0 dropped the "wiggle". The Canon 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical is comparable to the Nikkor and Leica lens. Cost- under $800 these days. If Canon had kept the FD mount, I guess it would be closer to $3,000.

I've been buying, selling, and collecting Nikon since the mid 70s. When the AF lenses came out, people were ditching manual focus lenses. 55/1.2's, mint condition, $125. 45/2.8 GN-Nikkor, $10, 2.1cm F4, $200. I have the sales receipts. I traded a Nikon N8008 for a Nikon S4, with 3.5cm F2.5, 5cm F1.4, and 10.5cm F2.5. Guess which one is worth more these days? I've got over 60 Nikon cameras and well over 100 Nikkor lenses going back to 1948. A pair of Nikon M's with lenses for $500. The M's would trade for a Noct-Nikkor. This stuff used to be really cheap. Being able to use 60 year old Nikon lenses on a modern, full-frame Digital camera- prices are up. Thankyou, Nikon.

Maybe things were different in other parts of the world, but in the US- it was a great time to buy classic equipment.
 

Brian S

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
714
The $500 lens you are thinking of is the 55mm f/1.2 which is still in production but not in the same league performance wise (it is still a very good lens).
.

The Nikkor 55/1.2 went out of production decades ago, never made it into an AIS release. You are thinking of the 50/1.2, 7 elements in 6 groups. The 55/1.2 is 7 elements in 5 groups. The "T" stop of the 55/1.2 is slightly better than both the 50/1.2 and 58/1.2, both 7 elements in 6 groups.
 

Brian S

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
714
Too funny. I used to have a rule, walk into a camera shop, see a nice vintage Nikon camera with lens for under $150, buy it. Picked up some really nice cameras that way. And lenses.

Picked up Black Nikon F's with lens for $125. In really nice shape. Now body prices are down, lens prices are way up. 50/1.4 Nikkors ran $25 to $50 for a while. I have several of them, lost count. I have a dozen 5cm F1.4's in rangefinder mount. I keep a 5cm/1.4 in Leica mount on the EP2. It was $95. Bought it anyway, even though it did not come with a body.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom