Two Nikon lenses new and old compared

berlinfool

berlinfool

Well-known member
Okay guys,
I compared two lenses mounted onto my letus extreme:

A newly bought Nikkor 50mm AF 1.4

and a second hand MF Nikkor 24mm 2.8

I put both lenses on 2.8 and looking at the footage the old lens has less brilliance and is just darker.

Is it the age or is it just the fact that a 50mm looks crispier in general?

I would spend the $250 extra for a new lens lens if it's worth it, since I already spent thousands on my whole setup anyway. Just don't want to waste money if I'm wrong and the old lens is good.
 
I'm not sure how fair it is to compare lenses of different focal lengths since they are of obvious different designs. Do you know if the the older lens was in good condition? Some older lenses suffer from not having the advanced coatings that today's lenses do or from having their coating deteriorate over time.

There are plenty of lenses from the 1960s that can still go head to head with modern day lenses (the smc pentax 50/1.4 for one). It's really something to analyze on a case by case basis. You should try going to a camera shop that sells new and used lenses and try comparing apples to apples: a 24/2.8 from 1960 versus a 24/2.8 from 2007.

davide
 
From my experience if you shoot with the lens wide open (in this case the 28mm at 2.8 vs. the 50mm 2.8) the 50mm stopped down will be the sharper of the two. Try taking both to a F4 or so and check the result again. Also, what is the size of the opening on the back of the 28mm? If it is much smaller than the 50mm, which it could be, this might be causing your darker "portholing" scenario. In all reality try to get something faster than the 2.8 for a prime lens although more than $250 extra.

Do you have any screen grabs?

p.s Getting a lens that will out perform that 50 1.4 is going to be tough no matter how you look at it.
 
Post a frame grab from both. You are likely seeing edge falloff from the 28mm that is a result of the adapter design. That said, wide angle lenses are where you should plan on spending more money if you want sharp edge to edge performance. It's much harder optically to get good performance from a wide angle lens. Nothing I've seen so far exceeds the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8d zoom lens for both edge falloff performance and sharpness wide open...but it's $1500.
 
Dennis, are you saying that you've found the 17-35 zoom to be better than wide angle nikon primes? Interesting.

davide
 
The 17-35 2.8 is my main lens. Just beautiful and sharp. Funnily enough its not only me and Dennis as Phil Bloom has it down as his best lens as well.

You can pick it up second hand off ebay for £500 or $1000.
 
the 17-35 is sharper than any of the wa primes i've tested (have not tested the 28mm 1.4)
The focus throw really sucks and so do the soft stops. you just have to use it on shots where you don't pull that much.
 
I bought a 17-35 in near-mint condition on eBay recently for $1050. Most were considerably higher, around $1200 or so. If you can find one for a grand in great shape, you'd be doing very well.

It's an outstanding lens, as it seems all three in that lineup are. I've also got the 80-200, and the 28-70 is next. I'm just going to wait until I get my follow focus to make sure it doesn't drive me nuts with them....
 
I was looking at the 17-35 as well.
It's just too expensive for me. I only spent $185 on my 24.
I guess I can't expect miracles for that money.
I'll try to post some screengrabs in the next couple of days.

THanks for the input everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top