I am thinking of getting one of these to use with a FM2 for low-light handheld photography. I assume that the 50/1.2 can be handheld up to lower shutter speeds, but I am not certain that there is a practical difference. I am also concerned about the optical quality at large apertures (1.2) 1.4-2.8.

I personally prefer the 35mm perspective and was close to getting a Canon 35/1.4L with a cheap body for this type of shooting because it came out with a reputation that it had comparable quality to the Leica Summilux-M. I eventually decided that it is more natural to have a battery independent system for this sort of shooting and I will attempt to buy this equipment used. Since 50mm is quite close to 35mm in perspective I am prepared to get the 50/1.2 if it is optically better and more handholdable (in a practical sense).

-- Costas Dimitropoulos (costas@udel.edu), April 19, 1999

Answers

I've never heard of a 50/1.2, just the 55/1.2 and 58/1.2.

F/1.2 is half a stop faster than f/1.4, but the narrower angle of view demands about half-a-stop faster shutter speeds, so they roughly cancel, making the leneses about equally hand-holdable.

I've never used the 35/1.4, so can't comment on its quality. The 58/1.2 is a great lens wide open, but for my puposes (hand-held, Delta 3200, slow-shutter speeds, subjects are moving people) the quality is not significantly better than the 55/1.2 or 85/1.8.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), April 20, 1999.

Here's a subjective lens test site:

http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/leover/nikon/nikkor.htm#wides_normals

For low-light hand held photography you're not going to be using such fine-grained film that the lens quality is going to matter much. For me it's a TMZ/Delta 3200 story.

My experience with Leica lenses -- though not a 35/1.4 -- doesn't lead me to believe that they have magical qualities. Certainly nothing I can see on a print. (And although I feel I can handhold a rangfinder a stop slower than an SLR, I'm not sure I can handhold anything reliably below 1/30. A Leica might not be able to help you down there.)

-- John O'Connell (oconnell@siam.org), April 20, 1999.

I own both of these lenses (and the magical 105/1.8 Nikkor) and can attest that they are both excellent lenses. Many people actually consider the MF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 to be the best MF 50mm Nikkor and not the faster lens. The 35mm f/1.4 is one of Nikkor's best primes, period. In fact, on the Nikon mailing list, most everyone's wish is for a faster 35mm focal length AF-D lens from Nikon.

You cannot go wrong with the fast 35. You may not want to pay more for the fastest 50. The 1.4 is a great lens and is cheaper.

-- Gen Kanai (gkanai@earthlink.net), May 29, 1999.

I own a 35mm 1,4 AIS (I had former a 35 1,4 AI). It is a good lens wide opened, for available light. At f 8 it is good also, perhaps slightly under 35 mm f2 (which is a great performer). I haven't used 50 mm 1,2. 55 mm f 1,2 is crap to avoid. As your choice in perspective is 35 mm, I suggest 35 mm 1,4 AIS, you probably willn't regret it in shrapness.

-- Dominique Cesari (cesarigd@club-internet.fr), June 29, 1999.

Regarding the Nikkor 35MM F1.4, there's only two comments, "Crisp & Snappy." Nikkor's tradition in high-end lenses!!

-- Larry Miller (mohawk51@yahoo.com), March 18, 2002.

". 55 mm f 1,2 is crap to avoid."

The 50mm f/1.2 may be just as avoidable. I have one. I find it hard to focus on the groundglass. Best explanation so far: its contrast is too low and that's why it's hard to focus. These comments apply only in low light. Out in the daylight, it's as easy to focus as anything else. But wo needs an f/1.2 in broad daylight?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 18, 2002.