V1 + FT1 + fast lenses: disappointing...

André BARELIER · Sep 8, 2014

I have a V1 + 10-30 + 30-110 + 18.5 +FT1. Sold my DX gear, but kept the 35mm/1.8.

I bought the FT1 because I was thinking that I could use FX fast lenses with it. For example, the 35mm 1.8 AFS gives me a 95mm 1.8, a fast lens for portraits.

I was thinking about buying a 50mm 1.4, which would give me a fantastic 135mm F/1.4, a lens I would never have dreamed of.

But using the FT1 with fast lenses gives disappointing results.

When you buy fast lenses, you want to use them at fast apertures, often wide open with a CX sensor, to isolate the subject. I only have the 35mm F1.8. Used wide open with the FT1, this lens gives poor results (low sharpness, and a LOT of CA). To the point that I prefer to use the 30-110, which is slower, but gives much better results.

I read at Photozone the tests of the 35, 50, and 85 1.8 with FT1, and they all give poor results when used wide open, which seems to confirm my limited findings.

That's disappointing.

I'd like to know if the results would be better or worse with a higher pixel density (V3), and if someone has tried the 50/1.4 wide open with V1 (or V3) and FT1.

Thanks!

SirM00ndancer · Sep 8, 2014

There are only a few lenses that are sharp full open. The sharpest lens for the V1 is the native 32mm/f1.2

Maybe some of the manual lenses out there might do the trick but they will cost more than that 32mm.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses/nikon_1_32

The pixel density makes it hard to get a lens with enough resolution.

Getting a V3 will only make matters worse.

Stopping down the 35mm to 2.8 makes wonder for the image. But if you need that razor thin DOF you need to get a DX or FX camera. That's one of the reasons I still have my D90.

OleThorsen · Sep 8, 2014

andrbar said:
I have a V1 + 10-30 + 30-110 + 18.5 +FT1. Sold my DX gear, but kept the 35mm/1.8.

I bought the FT1 because I was thinking that I could use FX fast lenses with it. For example, the 35mm 1.8 AFS gives me a 95mm 1.8, a fast lens for portraits.

I was thinking about buying a 50mm 1.4, which would give me a fantastic 135mm F/1.4, a lens I would never have dreamed of.

But using the FT1 with fast lenses gives disappointing results.

When you buy fast lenses, you want to use them at fast apertures, often wide open with a CX sensor, to isolate the subject. I only have the 35mm F1.8. Used wide open with the FT1, this lens gives poor results (low sharpness, and a LOT of CA). To the point that I prefer to use the 30-110, which is slower, but gives much better results.

I read at Photozone the tests of the 35, 50, and 85 1.8 with FT1, and they all give poor results when used wide open, which seems to confirm my limited findings.

That's disappointing.

I'd like to know if the results would be better or worse with a higher pixel density (V3), and if someone has tried the 50/1.4 wide open with V1 (or V3) and FT1.

The most fast Nikon primes FX/DX shows CA even on FX/DX cameras, and are seldom very sharp wide open. These lens faults get more visible with the high pixel density N1 sensors, and V3 will show them even more than V1.

Before Nikon released the excellent N1 primes 32mm f1.2 and 18.5mm f1.8, I tested some potential fast primes for portraits and posted my subjective evaluation here on this forum and in my PBase gallery http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen/portrait_lenses and my evaluation was almost in line with the later published tests on photozone and your own test.

If I shoot NEF I can actually get quite acceptable results with my sample of the DX 35mm f1.8 wide open, and with my AF-S 50mm f1.4G at f2.8, and having a FXe FOV 136mm f2.8 lens is not bad specially if you have the lens already, but if you consider buying the 50mm f1.4 lens of course you must consider if the f2.8 limitation will be worth it. At f2.8 it still has potential for a nice OOF background in a "head and shoulder" portrait situation as shown in my test above.

Regards
Ole Thorsen

Galleries by Ole Thorsen

www.pbase.com

OMNISCIENCE
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

Paul Pasco · Sep 8, 2014

The results with fast DX and FX lenses are certainly disappointing but I still went ahead and bought a 50 f/1.8 to use primarily on the V1/FT-1. I had a few good reasons. If I really need the speed it's there, even if I take a hit in IQ. I always owned a 135mm f/2.8 lens for my 35mm SLRs and I liked the focal length. At f/2.8 the 50 is acceptable, better at f/4. It also makes a decent close up lens with one of my diopters on it and provides comfortable working distance.

André BARELIER · Sep 8, 2014

SirM00ndancer said:
There are only a few lenses that are sharp full open. The sharpest lens for the V1 is the native 32mm/f1.2

Maybe some of the manual lenses out there might do the trick but they will cost more than that 32mm.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/lenses/nikon_1_32

The pixel density makes it hard to get a lens with enough resolution.

Getting a V3 will only make matters worse.

Stopping down the 35mm to 2.8 makes wonder for the image. But if you need that razor thin DOF you need to get a DX or FX camera. That's one of the reasons I still have my D90.

I think the 30-110 at 35mm can use an aperture of F/4. 2.8 is not enough larger than 4 (only 1 stop difference). YMMV. Thanks for the info.

Regards

--
André
http://a.barelier.free.fr/

André BARELIER · Sep 8, 2014

OleThorsen said:
andrbar said:

I have a V1 + 10-30 + 30-110 + 18.5 +FT1. Sold my DX gear, but kept the 35mm/1.8.

I bought the FT1 because I was thinking that I could use FX fast lenses with it. For example, the 35mm 1.8 AFS gives me a 95mm 1.8, a fast lens for portraits.

I was thinking about buying a 50mm 1.4, which would give me a fantastic 135mm F/1.4, a lens I would never have dreamed of.

But using the FT1 with fast lenses gives disappointing results.

When you buy fast lenses, you want to use them at fast apertures, often wide open with a CX sensor, to isolate the subject. I only have the 35mm F1.8. Used wide open with the FT1, this lens gives poor results (low sharpness, and a LOT of CA). To the point that I prefer to use the 30-110, which is slower, but gives much better results.

I read at Photozone the tests of the 35, 50, and 85 1.8 with FT1, and they all give poor results when used wide open, which seems to confirm my limited findings.

That's disappointing.

I'd like to know if the results would be better or worse with a higher pixel density (V3), and if someone has tried the 50/1.4 wide open with V1 (or V3) and FT1.

Click to expand...

The most fast Nikon primes FX/DX shows CA even on FX/DX cameras, and are seldom very sharp wide open. These lens faults get more visible with the high pixel density N1 sensors, and V3 will show them even more than V1.

Before Nikon released the excellent N1 primes 32mm f1.2 and 18.5mm f1.8, I tested some potential fast primes for portraits and posted my subjective evaluation here on this forum and in my PBase gallery http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen/portrait_lenses and my evaluation was almost in line with the later published tests on photozone and your own test.

If I shoot NEF I can actually get quite acceptable results with my sample of the DX 35mm f1.8 wide open, and with my AF-S 50mm f1.4G at f2.8, and having a FXe FOV 136mm f2.8 lens is not bad specially if you have the lens already, but if you consider buying the 50mm f1.4 lens of course you must consider if the f2.8 limitation will be worth it. At f2.8 it still has potential for a nice OOF background in a "head and shoulder" portrait situation as shown in my test above.

Regards
Ole Thorsen
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen
OMNISCIENCE
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

Thanks Ole,

Very interesting comparison in your Pbase gallery. Maybe your 35mm sample is better than mine. I don't consider its performance wide open as acceptable. Sample variations, maybe...

Anyway, thanks for the detailed info.

Regards

--
André
http://a.barelier.free.fr/

André BARELIER · Sep 8, 2014

Paul Pasco said:
The results with fast DX and FX lenses are certainly disappointing but I still went ahead and bought a 50 f/1.8 to use primarily on the V1/FT-1. I had a few good reasons. If I really need the speed it's there, even if I take a hit in IQ. I always owned a 135mm f/2.8 lens for my 35mm SLRs and I liked the focal length. At f/2.8 the 50 is acceptable, better at f/4. It also makes a decent close up lens with one of my diopters on it and provides comfortable working distance.

_sem_ · Sep 8, 2014

The FT1 cuts the bokeh with fast primes wide open doesn't it?

OleThorsen · Sep 8, 2014

_sem_ said:
The FT1 cuts the bokeh with fast primes wide open doesn't it?

Rob Galbraith tested this effect with a 85mm f1.4 lens showing the cuts of pinpoint light sources circular bokeh at f1.4-f1.6 here http://www.robgalbraith.com/content_page461b.html?cid=7-11668-12212

I believe the effect also is subject distance/background distance dependant, but I'm not sure. I haven't seen this effect in normal bokeh i.e. with my 50mm f1.4 lens.

Regards
Ole Thorsen

Galleries by Ole Thorsen

www.pbase.com

OMNISCIENCE
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

D300SandV1shooter · Sep 8, 2014

OleThorsen said:
_sem_ said:

The FT1 cuts the bokeh with fast primes wide open doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Rob Galbraith tested this effect with a 85mm f1.4 lens showing the cuts of pinpoint light sources circular bokeh at f1.4-f1.6 here http://www.robgalbraith.com/content_page461b.html?cid=7-11668-12212

I believe the effect also is subject distance/background distance dependant, but I'm not sure. I haven't seen this effect in normal bokeh i.e. with my 50mm f1.4 lens.

You can see the FT-1 cutout sometimes in bokeh using a lens wider than f/1.8.

Here's the bokeh of the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G wide open (to save image space, I omitted any subject):-

Just bokeh

dougjgreen1 · Sep 8, 2014

andrbar said:
I have a V1 + 10-30 + 30-110 + 18.5 +FT1. Sold my DX gear, but kept the 35mm/1.8.

I bought the FT1 because I was thinking that I could use FX fast lenses with it. For example, the 35mm 1.8 AFS gives me a 95mm 1.8, a fast lens for portraits.

I was thinking about buying a 50mm 1.4, which would give me a fantastic 135mm F/1.4, a lens I would never have dreamed of.

But using the FT1 with fast lenses gives disappointing results.

When you buy fast lenses, you want to use them at fast apertures, often wide open with a CX sensor, to isolate the subject. I only have the 35mm F1.8. Used wide open with the FT1, this lens gives poor results (low sharpness, and a LOT of CA). To the point that I prefer to use the 30-110, which is slower, but gives much better results.

I read at Photozone the tests of the 35, 50, and 85 1.8 with FT1, and they all give poor results when used wide open, which seems to confirm my limited findings.

That's disappointing.

I'd like to know if the results would be better or worse with a higher pixel density (V3), and if someone has tried the 50/1.4 wide open with V1 (or V3) and FT1.

Thanks!

--
André
http://a.barelier.free.fr/

Your experience mirrors mine using the Sigma 30mm f1.4, but that being said, if I stop it down to f2, I'm pretty happy with it. I don't thing moving to a higher pixel density camera like the V3 will improve things at all - as the pixel density of the V1 already pretty much maxes these lenses out wide open. You just need to deal with the fact that extremely fast lenses are invariably going to be improved optically if you stop them down 1 stop or even 2 stops from wide open.

Nung · Sep 8, 2014

andrbar said:
I have a V1 + 10-30 + 30-110 + 18.5 +FT1. Sold my DX gear, but kept the 35mm/1.8.

I bought the FT1 because I was thinking that I could use FX fast lenses with it. For example, the 35mm 1.8 AFS gives me a 95mm 1.8, a fast lens for portraits.

I was thinking about buying a 50mm 1.4, which would give me a fantastic 135mm F/1.4, a lens I would never have dreamed of.

But using the FT1 with fast lenses gives disappointing results.

When you buy fast lenses, you want to use them at fast apertures, often wide open with a CX sensor, to isolate the subject. I only have the 35mm F1.8. Used wide open with the FT1, this lens gives poor results (low sharpness, and a LOT of CA). To the point that I prefer to use the 30-110, which is slower, but gives much better results.

I read at Photozone the tests of the 35, 50, and 85 1.8 with FT1, and they all give poor results when used wide open, which seems to confirm my limited findings.

That's disappointing.

I'd like to know if the results would be better or worse with a higher pixel density (V3), and if someone has tried the 50/1.4 wide open with V1 (or V3) and FT1.

Thanks!

André BARELIER · Sep 8, 2014

dougjgreen1 said:
andrbar said:

I have a V1 + 10-30 + 30-110 + 18.5 +FT1. Sold my DX gear, but kept the 35mm/1.8.

I bought the FT1 because I was thinking that I could use FX fast lenses with it. For example, the 35mm 1.8 AFS gives me a 95mm 1.8, a fast lens for portraits.

I was thinking about buying a 50mm 1.4, which would give me a fantastic 135mm F/1.4, a lens I would never have dreamed of.

But using the FT1 with fast lenses gives disappointing results.

When you buy fast lenses, you want to use them at fast apertures, often wide open with a CX sensor, to isolate the subject. I only have the 35mm F1.8. Used wide open with the FT1, this lens gives poor results (low sharpness, and a LOT of CA). To the point that I prefer to use the 30-110, which is slower, but gives much better results.

I read at Photozone the tests of the 35, 50, and 85 1.8 with FT1, and they all give poor results when used wide open, which seems to confirm my limited findings.

That's disappointing.

I'd like to know if the results would be better or worse with a higher pixel density (V3), and if someone has tried the 50/1.4 wide open with V1 (or V3) and FT1.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

André BARELIER · Sep 8, 2014

Nung said:
andrbar said:

I have a V1 + 10-30 + 30-110 + 18.5 +FT1. Sold my DX gear, but kept the 35mm/1.8.

I bought the FT1 because I was thinking that I could use FX fast lenses with it. For example, the 35mm 1.8 AFS gives me a 95mm 1.8, a fast lens for portraits.

I was thinking about buying a 50mm 1.4, which would give me a fantastic 135mm F/1.4, a lens I would never have dreamed of.

But using the FT1 with fast lenses gives disappointing results.

When you buy fast lenses, you want to use them at fast apertures, often wide open with a CX sensor, to isolate the subject. I only have the 35mm F1.8. Used wide open with the FT1, this lens gives poor results (low sharpness, and a LOT of CA). To the point that I prefer to use the 30-110, which is slower, but gives much better results.

I read at Photozone the tests of the 35, 50, and 85 1.8 with FT1, and they all give poor results when used wide open, which seems to confirm my limited findings.

That's disappointing.

I'd like to know if the results would be better or worse with a higher pixel density (V3), and if someone has tried the 50/1.4 wide open with V1 (or V3) and FT1.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

toomanycanons · Sep 8, 2014

"Thanks Ole,

Very interesting comparison in your Pbase gallery. Maybe your 35mm sample is better than mine. I don't consider its performance wide open as acceptable. Sample variations, maybe...

Anyway, thanks for the detailed info."

The two copies of the 35mm f/1.8 that I've had were very very sharp at f/1.8. Sharper than my previously most sharpest lens (a very sharp Tamron 17-70 f/2.8) was at f/3.5 or f/5. So, either you don't have a sharp copy or can't remember if it was actually sharp on your long gone D90.

I only sold them because I'm not a prime shooter. I wish all my lenses were as sharp as them at all apertures but that's called "dreaming now".

André BARELIER · Sep 8, 2014

toomanycanons said:
"Thanks Ole,

Very interesting comparison in your Pbase gallery. Maybe your 35mm sample is better than mine. I don't consider its performance wide open as acceptable. Sample variations, maybe...

Anyway, thanks for the detailed info."

The two copies of the 35mm f/1.8 that I've had were very very sharp at f/1.8. Sharper than my previously most sharpest lens (a very sharp Tamron 17-70 f/2.8) was at f/3.5 or f/5. So, either you don't have a sharp copy or can't remember if it was actually sharp on your long gone D90.

I only sold them because I'm not a prime shooter. I wish all my lenses were as sharp as them at all apertures but that's called "dreaming now".

Hi TMC!

Glad to see you here. As far as I remember, my 35mm was already sharp wide open on my D90, and very sharp stopped down. But I haven't used it very often. It was much sharper than with the FT1 and V1. That's disappointing, because I expected the DX/FX lenses to be as sharp with the V1 as they are coupled with their native sensors. That's not the case. Too bad. I would like to use a 50mm (135mm equiv) /1.4 wide open for concerts shots. A dream...

Nikon released the very sharp CX 32/1.2. Maybe they will make a CX 50/1.4. Wow!

nigelht · Sep 8, 2014

andrbar said:
I have a V1 + 10-30 + 30-110 + 18.5 +FT1. Sold my DX gear, but kept the 35mm/1.8.

I bought the FT1 because I was thinking that I could use FX fast lenses with it. For example, the 35mm 1.8 AFS gives me a 95mm 1.8, a fast lens for portraits.

The V1 (or any Nikon 1) is not an optimal camera for portraits. While there may be good portraits here and there in member galleries there are much better cameras for this.

The 50mm f1.8 + FT1 has done pretty well for sports and dance since the AF on that lens isn't slow.

nigelht · Sep 8, 2014

andrbar said:
I think the 30-110 at 35mm can use an aperture of F/4. 2.8 is not enough larger than 4 (only 1 stop difference). YMMV. Thanks for the info.

1 stop is ISO 3200 vs ISO 6400. I have a bunch of shots from the kennedy center (V2 + FT1 + Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4) at ISO 3200 f4 I wish were at ISO 1600 f2.8.

I wish the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 had VR. A FT2 with built in VR would be nifty even if the battery life is already weak with the 17-70 with VR on.

toomanycanons · Sep 8, 2014

I'm telling ya, Andre, you need to get a DSLR again. I consider my J1 a snapshot camera. It's great it's lightweight but when I want to do more than snapshots I have one of my DSLRs with me. Look into getting a refurb D5200 just to get back into the DSLR game. If you don't like it (I can't imagine you wouldn't) you could sell it.

I owned a D90 in the past. It's "moral equivalent" is my D5000. My D5000 is now a snapshot camera and my D5100 and D5200 are my money cameras. I know firsthand what sensor improvements each iteration brought.

Of course, that's me talking with my requirements. I make money with my cameras and need more than my J1 (your V1) can deliver.

Lava Lamp · Sep 8, 2014

I started a similar thread saying that the performance of my V2 and 300mm f/2.8 and 1.7x TC was "poor." As you can read, the replies took issue with my technique and generally assigned my poor results to user error.

Several months ago, I tried the 35mm f/1.8 DX with the J1 and V1 and the FT-1 and like you, I was disappointed.

Many of the replies here suggest that you shouldn't shoot with the lens wide open, but it seems clear to me that the wide open performance of my FX and DX primes is better on a DSLR than with the FT-1 and V1 or V2. The images are clearer, sharper, and have better bokeh.

The performance of the CX lenses I own (10mm, 18.5mm, 10-30mm, 30-100mm, and 70-300mm) with the V2 is better than any of the DX or FX lenses I have tried with the FT-1 adapter on the V2. Admittedly, I have not stopped the DX/FX lenses down the 3 stops or so that would seem to make the "equivalent" to the CX, but I'm not sure I see the need.

I actually bought an FT-1 several months ago and was so disappointed with it, I sold it. Recently, however, I found a used one at a price I couldn't resist and bought it. I am beginning to regret that. The only thing it does for me that I can't do with a CX lens is let me use my 300mm f/2.8 and 1.7X TC on the V2 for more reach than I can get out of the 70-300mm. But as I opened this post, those results have been poor.

So far, I think the V2 and 70-300mm CX gives me better results at an 810mm focal length than anything I have tried to give me similar reach including the older Nikon 80-400mm, Sigma 50-500mm, and Nikon 300mm f/2.8 with 1.7x tele-converter in use with a D300s, D7000, or D700.

The V2 and 70-300mm CX with extension tubes gives me better macro results than the above DSLR bodies with the Nikon 200mm micro or 90mm Tamron macro, though the DSLR and 200mm is close. The V2 and 18.5mm gives me better portrait results than the D7000 and 16-85mm DX.

I haven't found a V2 and lens combination that can touch the D7000/D300s and my 70-200mm f/2.8 or 105mm f/2 DC, or 300mm f/2.8 when I am looking for pleasing background blur or low light performance. Telephoto (non macro shots) with the 200mm micro are really nice with the DSLRs, too.

V1 + FT1 + fast lenses: disappointing...

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Keyboard shortcuts