n Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM vs Nikkor 50mm f/1.4

Video comparison between Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM and Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 ($1500 vs. $100)

http://vimeo.com/19456​775

Makes you think ..... (as a Canon 1.2 owner ....)

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is $329.95 at B&H:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …F_Nikkor_50mm_f​_1_4D.html

Pretty much on pair with Canon 50mm f/1.4, at $379:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_f_1_4_USM_Auto​focus.html

I guess you were talking about Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, ($124.99) which again, is pretty much on pair with Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($119)

Hermeto wrote in post #11794244
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is $329.95 at B&H:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …F_Nikkor_50mm_f​_1_4D.html

Pretty much on pair with Canon 50mm f/1.4, at $379:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_f_1_4_USM_Auto​focus.html

I guess you were talking about Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, ($124.99) which again, is pretty much on pair with Canon 50mm f/1.8 ($119)

Nope. It's the OLD Nikkor 50mm 1.4. Interesting comparison. It's difficult judging color saturation because the Canon seemed to be just a bit brighter than the Nikkor.

Subscribed.

Interesting, but I see all the point of this comparison going away in the latest second, when he says "US$ 1500 vs. US$ 150".
For my interpretation, he's saying "a 150 dollars lens performed better than a 1500 dollar lens" and I actually don't think so. Why? Let's see:

- People who buy f/1.2 lenses shoot at f/1.2. Otherwise they would get the f/1.4 version, way cheaper. The Nikkor can't do f/1.2
- The L has AF, and the Nikkor doesn't. If you're buying a lens with AF, it is supposed to be more expensive than one that doesn't.
- Not sure about this, but the 50L is weathersealed while the Nikkor is not. Can anyone confirm?

So, of course the color saturation can be better, and specially the Bokeh on the Nikkor, but it doesn't make alone a 150 USD lens better. Lenses are way more than color and bokeh and that's why you're paying 10 times more money. At least this is the way I see things... maybe I'm wrong... but it is.

Are we talking the f/1.2 or f/1.4 Canon here?

this is exactly why ive been trying to grab up older manual focus lenses... there is some quality out there and these nikkors are testament to that.

some other older lenses that hold up great against new L lenses

Carl Zeiss Sonnar f/2.8/85mm
Contax Carl Zeiss T* Vario-Sonnar 35-70 F3.4
Vivitar Series 1 90mm F2.5
Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8 Red V
PENTAX SMC TAKUMAR M42 50MM F/1.4
Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 90mm f3.5 SL-II

true.. they dont have the weather sealing or autofocus... But i cant remember the last time i took a lens out in the rain.

Live view makes manual focus a non-factor in many kind of shots.

Granted you couldnt do sports as easy... but general portraiture, landscape or product shots can be done with these old guys very well.

No kidding that old MF glass is good... which is why I have some too.

The strength of the 50 1.2 is the bokeh. It's just better through and through. His comparison is a bit biased as he is shooting the nikkor wide open which yields a perfectly circular aperture, while the 1.2 is stopped down to 1.2, forcing the bokeh/highlight comparison not look circular on the L. So instead of noticing that the nikkor produces halos (which is undesirable) you notice how the L produces non-circular specular blur, even though the L is perfectly capable of producing perfectly circular blur too, and does it better too.

If I were setting myself up for video with a new set of gear, then of course I'd totally be getting into old MF glass. It's good stuff no doubt. But I do know what makes up for the $1300 difference in this case. Conveniently, he did not test the scenarios that the L would beat the living pants off the Nikkor.