Reading mode: Light Dark

45mm f2.8p what do you think

Go to last post
K

Kyriacos

Well-known member
Messages
153
Reaction score
2
Location
UK
Anyone uses/used the lens?

Any good? I mean its manual focus, expensive and f2.8. Compared to i.e. a 50mm f1.4 the 50mm wins right?

Hows the sharpness, bokeh of the lens?

Thanks
 
Kyriacos said:
Anyone uses/used the lens?
Any good? I mean its manual focus, expensive and f2.8. Compared to
i.e. a 50mm f1.4 the 50mm wins right?
Hows the sharpness, bokeh of the lens?
Click to expand...
I had one years ago and liked it very much. It produces a pleasing result, IMHO, although with less contrast compared to the more modern normal lenses. It is tiny and light weight. Sharpness is good. Flare and ghost are very well controlled.
Eventually I used one of several Micro Nikkors instead, so I sold it.
 
I kept reading about the 45 2.8P so I finally picked one up a couple of years ago. I haven't had a chance to use it much lately, but it is very sharp, small and light. When I first got it I did a little walking tour around my area to force myself to use the single focal length range and MF. Here are a few of the shots:









 
Hi and thanks for the replies.

Thanks Mark for posting pictures as well.

Well i guess my question would probably be is it worth getting/over a 50mm f1.4g?

It's a nice tiny lenses which i can get at a good price for now thats why im considering it right now.

Otherwise i wouldn't. Would it be good to say thats the chrome one is more of a limited/maybe rare lens addition? So i can consider it say as a collectible(nothing like a 28mm f1.4 ofcourse;p).

Or should i just get a 50mm 1.4g?

thanks again
 
I didn't find much use for it on DX, but on FF it's nice, and it's superb on an FM/FM2 body.

If you don't need the pancake size, I'd get a 50mm 1.8 instead. It's faster and just as light. It just protrudes a bit more. The 35mm F2 is also a nice compact lens.

I like my 45mm because I love the small size.

I actually also just got a Voigtlander 40mm F2 pancake lens, which I like except for the fact that I have to adjust the exposure compensation by -.7EV because it tends to overexpose.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Bob GB said:
I had one years ago and liked it very much. It produces a pleasing
result, IMHO, although with less contrast compared to the more modern
normal lenses. It is tiny and light weight. Sharpness is good. Flare
and ghost are very well controlled.
Eventually I used one of several Micro Nikkors instead, so I sold it.
Click to expand...
Agree on all the points here. Eventually, I shifted to the 50mm f/1.4 D because it was faster and had better bokeh, slightly better sharpness and contrast. But the 45 was fun while I had it, and could produce very nice pictures.
 
Kyriacos said:
Hi and thanks for the replies.
Thanks Mark for posting pictures as well.
Well i guess my question would probably be is it worth getting/over a
50mm f1.4g?

It's a nice tiny lenses which i can get at a good price for now thats
why im considering it right now.
Otherwise i wouldn't. Would it be good to say thats the chrome one is
more of a limited/maybe rare lens addition? So i can consider it say
as a collectible(nothing like a 28mm f1.4 ofcourse;p).
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the chrome version exists in approx 23k units, the black one in 11k units. It is a MF lens. If I were you I would have been aiming for an AF lens.

If you indeed like the MF, there are several lenses you should look at, like the Micro 55 and 60 mm. They are sharper than any of the other normal lenses. However the 45/2.8 is a tiny pancake, probably the smallest of all Nikon SLR lenses.
Kyriacos said:
Or should I just get a 50mm 1.4g?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the new AF-S 50/1.4G? Yes, I would certainly consider the new 50/1.4G, or the AF-S 35/1.8 or the AF-S 60/2.8; the last one being a very sharp lens including nano coating. But of course it depends on whether a macro lens is of interest at all.
 
Phil Flash said:
I didn't find much use for it on DX, but on FF it's nice, and it's
superb on an FM/FM2 body.
Click to expand...
i heard it makes the FM bodies pocketable.

i'd love to have one, but more as a curiosity than anything else.
 
Lovely lens, excellent IQ, but I didn't find it as useful as I expected to (on DX).

My idea was to have a small lens that I could carry in my pocket as a compliment to whatever else I was using. Unfortunately I found it too close in focal length to a 70~200, not close enough to a 10~20, and no faster aperture than my zooms in the same range.

I sold it very recently and bought a 35mm f1.8 with the proceeds. I'd still say it was a nice lens though.
 
Really, the lens is very nice, but not worth it if you don't need the compact size.

The 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 are better buys for sure.

Although, as a last bit of temptation, it is a cool looking lens to have and since they are not made any longer, they are also a nice collector's piece.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

It's not the camera. It's you.

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
It is very sharp and very flare-resistant. Also, little or no CA, except there is some wide open. It's got a stunning way with rendering metallic surfaces. Bokeh is not an objective matter, and for some things, I happen to like it, though those looking all the time for peaches-and-cream bokeh will not like it.

I use mine a lot for landscapes on DX. It is easy to use at hyperfocal distance, since it has decent distance scales engraved on it.

Colors are rendered quite vividly.

This is a an example of a lens that you might buy for the specific way that it renders specific things.

It has a very short focus throw, and is easy to misfocus. Anyone who thinks that it is not sharp is very likely not focusing it accurately.

It is very sharp wide open, and I have no hesitation about using it that way.
 
Phil Flash said:
The 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 are better buys for sure.
Click to expand...
I have a mild disagreement with you here, as I think all of these lenses have their pluses and minuses and they are all good.

First of all, I like the rendering of the 45P and the Ultron 40 more than either of the 50's; that may be personal preference, but it's my opinion.

The 45P would be the preferred lens for architectural work. There is clearly less distortion with this lens than the 50/1.4 and Ultron 40, although the 50/1.8 also has low distortion.

Obviously if AF is important, forget about the 45. Between the 45 and the Ultron 40, I find the Ultron easier to MF since it has a longer focus throw.

Between the Ultron and the 45P, I would go for the Ultron, even though distortion is higher on that lens. The extra stop and easier MF are my reasons. The Ultron is only slightly bigger than the 45P and both use a pancake style lens hood which makes them very unobtrusive - a big plus for me. Also, as I mentioned to you in the other thread, my Ultron does not overexpose and I haven't heard of any others that do, so that should not be a reason for the OP to avoid that lens.

--
Jeff Kott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top