NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Hermann on January 08, 2016, 20:31:24
-
I really like using 50mm lenses on my DX bodies as short telephotos. I shoot most of my photographs with them, not just portraits. I've already got a 1.8/50mm AIS and an AF 1.8/50mm D (the old, horrible, plasticky version with the narrow focusing ring at the front, still "Made in Japan" though).
Now I was offered a 14./50mm AIS by a friend at a pretty reasonable price. Haven't seen it yet, so I don't know if it's OK, but I'm wondering: Does the 1.4 offer me something different, other than that it's wee bit faster?
Hermann
-
It offers excellent image quality and the build makes your AF 50/1.8 feel like a toy.
The 50/1.4 AIS can be modified for a CPU chip as well.
-
It offers excellent image quality and the build makes your AF 50/1.8 feel like a toy.
Thank you. The AF 50/1.8 is a toy ... I find I use it only if I think I need the AF. Most of the time I use my old 50/1.8 AIS. But then I always wanted a 1.4 ...
Hermann
-
The last of the AIS 50 1.4 lenses is very compact, almost the same size as the [long nose] 50/1.8 AIS.
-
I've got no idea which version he's got. I'll give him a call sometime next week. Maybe he's got some other lenses I'm interested in, such as the 105mm/f2.5. Even though that's probably a bit long for my purposes on a DX body.
Hermann
-
Ask for the serial number. That is the appropriate manner of finding out which lens is offered. Roland Vink's site http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/index.html to the rescue. That site is a gold mine of information for any Nikon aficionado.
No reason why the 105/2.5 shouldn't work well on a DX camera. I have used such combinations for many years. If the camera won't allow metering, the lens can easily be CPU-modified.
-
From a home testing session. Shooting distances were rather close, so I cannot judge performance at infinity on such basis. About 10 lenses were involved; I only quote the 50/1.4 vs 50/1.8 AIS cases
First scene : a kitchen corner in daylight, about 1.0 m
50/1.4 AIS vs. 50/1.8 AIS ___________________________
My 50/1.8 is a recent version, plasticky and with minimum focussing distance greater than 0.6m, so not the best choice, but for the chosen scene, it does not matter. I also got a 50/1.8 AI, which is better in both respects but with damaged coating, so it is used as a paperweight.
At f/2.0, colors and vignetting seem about the same. Center sharpness for the 50/1.4 is better; the 50/1.8 is still marred by some haze. Bokeh is similar in shape and tint (such as green outlining in the background), but the 50/1.8 has more outlining. The 50/1.8 seems to exhibit slightly less LoCA in the foreground; the 50/1.4 has more purple fringing, where the 50/1.8 rather produces blue fringes on shiny parts.
At f/2.8, the overall pictures are hard to tell apart. The 50/1.4 still has the very slightly better center sharpness. The actual FL of the 50/1.8 is also slightly longer. The bokeh is now about the same (both lenses by the way have a 7 straight blade diaphragm, so you won't expect more differences on stopping down).
At f/4.0, differences narrow further down. I still see slightly better center sharpness with the f/1.4 lens.
Second test : simulated night shots (dark room, lots of lit apparatus, crystal vase, computer with backlit keyboard...)
50/1.4 AIS and 50/1.8 AIS _____________________
At f/2, there is less blooming with the 50/1.4. Highlights are outlined in both cases, but they are smoother with the 50/1.4. Highlight shapes are however distinctly heptagonal with the 50/1.4, but still nearly round with the 50/1.8. Colors of the 50/1.8 AIS are more neutral; with the 50/1.4, I observe a pink cast. Keyboard letters are surrounded by a slight haze with the 50/1.8.
At f/2.8, the 50/1.4 still bleeds less: highlights still appear biggerwith the 50/1.8.
Please also note that while I always was pleased with the sharpness of my 50/1.2 AIS (and now with the 50/1.2 AI I bought in addition), it seems that the 1.4 is slightly sharper even at small f/stops (except maybe f/2.0). The 50/1.2 is a most interesting lens, but has more issues (field curvature, probably some focus shift, and sure more CA), so the 1.4 offers a better guarantee of good results, if sharpness is the criterion. Bokeh of the 1.2 is slightly better though.
If you mostly use the 50mm stopped down at 4.0 and beyond, the 50/1.8 is the better choice if distortion is your concern. At such apertures, these 50mm are generally very similar.
My personal feeling with the 50/1.4 is, I do not like the pink haze, so if I intend to do shoot color picture wide open I'll tend to look elsewhere (50/1.2, precisely, or Voigtländer 58/1.4 if coma is no issue).
-
Shortly i will post some images from Amsterdam done with Df and 50/1.4ais.
-
This is Jan Anne enjoying tomato juice an Amsterdam morning. Df with 50/1.4 AIS near wide open (before Erik and I had chance to CPU-modify the lens).
-
Here the 50/1.4 at its worst (daytime case), which is far from bad, wide open of course. The "issue" here is the glow around highlights. You will also notice the somewhat "milky" shadows. Of course nobody in his right mind would shoot an organ with such settings.
Edit : CA was autocorrected in LR, but I left distortion and vignetting alone. Camera: Df
-
For comparison sake, this is what the Voigtländer 58/1.4 yields, wide open :
-
Airy, thanks for the comparison shots. That's very interesting.
-
You're welcome. But to make it clear : this depicts a relative weakness on one less suitable type of subject ; overall, wide open, the 50/1.4 AIS beats many others, see above. Glow aside, the Nikko looks sharper than the Voigtländer. This might be caused by misfocussing, not sure.
-
This kind of lens slightly defocused certainly will add "glow" to all kinds of shiny objects.
I see surprisingly little CA on my sample of the 50/1.4 Nikkor AIS in general use.
-
Airy, thanks a lot for the comparison shots. Very interesting stuff. I actually like the "glow" around the highlights, makes the images look interesting. I think that may be used to good effect in some photos.
I'll have a look at the lens as soon as I get round to visiting my friend sometime next week. He's not in a hurry to get rid of it, it's only he realized he can't use his old manual lenses anymore because of his eyesight and doesn't want to have them sit unused in his cupboard.
Hermann
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1493/24149658232_077b856e7f_b.jpg)
Df 50mm/1.4 ais @f8
Amsterdam
-
This kind of lens slightly defocused certainly will add "glow" to all kinds of shiny objects.
I see surprisingly little CA on my sample of the 50/1.4 Nikkor AIS in general use.
I suspect the 58 to be off focus. For the 50, I picked the best out of several and it looks spot on. Never could get rid of the glow. But once again, it is a minor issue concerning a very good lens.
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7510/16123007321_c60b28b3c2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qyJCmR)20141227-029-2 (https://flic.kr/p/qyJCmR) by (https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7530/16099135586_26c955bdb0_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com[url=https://flic.kr/p/qwCh8d)20141227-20141227-029-2 (https://flic.kr/p/qwCh8d) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickr/photos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. In my long experience with Nikkors 50-th, most of them are suffering with poor performance to infinity. So, it is extremely important to perform accurate FT. But, as I know, there is significant focus shift when the lens is closed down. My new G 50/1.8 SE Nikkor is at its best at f4.0. So, I've done FT for it when it set to 4.0. It was not fast nor easy, but does pay for my efforts. Image, crop. LZ
-
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5468/8784959077_e2d540da80_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/eoidgF)20130522-012 (https://flic.kr/p/eoidgF) by (https://c7.staticflickr.com/4/3752/8835031238_66c563ca50_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.co[url=https://flic.kr/p/esHQYN)20130522-012-4 (https://flic.kr/p/esHQYN) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrm/photos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. With all due respect to members, but old Nikkor AF 50/1.8 (Japan, non-D) is not a toy. Test at f 4.0, crop. LZ
-
"Toy" was aiming at the manufacturing quality. Optical qualities at f/4 are obviously very good, but that can be said of any Nikkor 50/something (including the older 50/2 AI).
-
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7148/6434070173_e5cfee5a4d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/aNyhUn)0608 308 - Copy (https://flic.kr/p/aNyhUn) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickr. In this case, agreed, Airy! The old 50/2 is working for me when I need an extra tonality. Nothing is comparable! This image at 5.6. Old wonder, no words! LZ
-
What do you mean by "extra tonality" ?
From a quick check, with the 50/2 AI, pics are hazy at 2.0, contrasts rises sharply at 2.8 ielding a sharp center, and overall sharpness is good from 4.0 (with the Df), 5.6 being of course better. But that's not tonality. Something with the colors ?
-
For me "more tonality" means more shadows of gray, deepest highlights. Not possible for many today's glasses, due to high contrast. It is very subjective, of course, as everything in art. LZ
-
Longzoom, do you mean the current AF-S50/1.8G with "My new G 50/1.8 SE Nikkor"? I've had a smearing right side problem with my first sample, but now I'm really satisfied with the second sample I'm using now.
-
Yes, I mean this one, but SE - Special Edition , black one from the DF kit. LZ
-
Yes, I mean this one, but SE - Special Edition , black one from the DF kit. LZ
Oh, I see. Thank you!
-
you can never own too many of them :o :o :o (seriously)
-
Richard, you are seriously leading us all astray. (LOL) ;D ;D ;D ;D
you can never own too many of them :o :o :o (seriously)
-
I agree, never too many 50's in a household
direct comparison between the 50mm f1,4 Nikkor-S.C not being discussed here and a 5cm f2 Nikkor-S which, in my opinion, performs better then the mentioned 50mm f2 Ai whcih I also owned at one point... for some 10+ years
50mm f1,4 Nikkor-S.C (contrasty)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1479/25111180153_5923f3fbe4_b.jpg)
5cm f2 Nikkor-S
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1709/25642813951_d308272ff9_b.jpg)
The image from the 5cm f2 appears darker. When I darken the 50mm f1,4 image I lose shadow detail right away. I therefor adjusted both images for shadow detail and the 5cm lens gives me an image with a narrower dynamic range, but an image that because of this looks more appealing because the difference between the bright and dark areas is smaller and the image appears to be more evenly lit.
-
The 5cm f/2 is sharper. however, some people say that the 50 1.4 has more micro contrast. :o :o :o
if anybody of you read the 1001 nights article about the 5cm, it was pointed out that the 5cm f/2 changes character in various f-stops which may be desirable for some.
-
I read that, but only after I found this 5cm f2 lens stuck to a Nikon F I bought.
I only used it wide open so far but I might try stopping it down some time ;)
-
the older lenses' weakness is flare. try shooting it at the sun and it becomes apparent :o :o :o
-
You mean lik ethis?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1497/26781004545_fb00aa4f36_b.jpg)
I love it!
-
Hi Buddy,
Do not give lenses with flaws to good photographers. ;)
Harald
-
Hi Buddy,
Do not give lenses with flaws to good photographers. ;)
Harald
I will keep that in mind Harald. In the meantime I consider myself a photographer with flaws that are outflawed by flawed lenses. Minus and minus makes plus. ;)
-
You mean lik ethis?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1497/26781004545_fb00aa4f36_b.jpg)
I love it!
Yes :o :o :o
The blobs can get uglier if the sun is barely out of frame. I love the cats eye bokeh on this lens. For me this gives the lens so much character wide open
-
I owned a 50/1.8 AI and a 50/1.4 AI at the same time and I found the 50/1.8 to be sharper at f/2.0 so I sold the f/1.4. I figured the only reason to own it was to shoot at f/1.4.
Today I've got a 50/1.8 AI, AF 50/1.8 late, AF-S 50/1.8G, 50/1.4 Nikkor-S AI-ed, 50/1.4 AIS lube contaminated and 50/1.2 AIS. I bought a spanner wrench so I could do a full strip and relube on the AIS as a friend has cleaned it twice and the oil just oozes out again. My guess is someone baked it in a car trunk. I want to do a round up for the heck of it.
My gut feeling is the 50/1.8 AI and 50/1.2 AIS will be my favorites while the AF-S 50/1.8G will see a lot of use because the AF makes it fast and easy to use.
-
David, if you are looking for sharp 50mm lenses you already made the right choices.
Some might recommend the 55mm f1,2 for it's superb qualities in rendering things unsharp. The 50mm f1,2 and 50mm f1,8 are better in sharpness (even if the 55mm f1,2 is no slouch there, but it does have soft corners at nearly all apertures)
-
Of all the 50ies I ever shot I liked the 2.0 Ai best. All correctly focussed eyes glow like stars at 2.0. Totally love it. Also a solid metal build from the late 70ies / early 80ies: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0002/
The one 50 I shot most was the 1.4/50 Ai which is very soft & glowy wide open. I feel Airy's first shot in #10 shows very nicely the effect this lens has wide open. Hate it or love it.
The 1.8/50D plasticky China lens is wonderful if you avoid bright spots in the back. It creates a rather blocky bokeh. Color rendition is nice though, very nice, but fine skin tones render a tad too harsh for my taste.
The 1.4/50G was wonderful on the D3, awful on the D600, very bad match. Yet I have seen some classy wide open shots with that very lens taken with the D8xx-series.
My current love in the AF-S 50/f=1.8G ... superb in nearly ever respect.
I will soon replace it with (or add to my collection) the 1.4/58mm which I want as the portait offer for my D500.
-
In that case one should mention the special 45mm/2.8 P ;)
-
Special indeed. A bit too narrow for my hands. It is a very sharp lens indeed, and more then decent background seperation can be achieved because of the close minimum focus distance. If I remember correctly it has 9 aperture blades?
-
7 rounded blades. Its rendering is beautiful too. The older 45mm GN version I didn't like, also by the very long close focus distance...
-
The close focus distance of the 45P is 0.45m, same as most other 50mm lenses, so close focus distance is average for this focal length. The older 45GN has a rather long 0.8m close focus limit, due to the GN mechanism. Early 45GNs have 9 aperture blades, but that later changed to 7.
I bought a 45P with my FM3a. Although I don't have big hands I found it too small for my liking - the focus and aperture rings are very narrow and there is no grab ring so it's not so easy to take on and off the camera. When I need a compact standard lens I use the Japanese "pancake" 50/1.8 which is based on the series-E lens but focuses to 0.45m instead of 0.6m. It's still very small but there is more real estate on the barrel to make handling easier. It's also over a stop faster which is useful.
My favourite 50mm is the AI 50/1.8. It has a different optical design from the Series-E/pancake/AF versions, sharpness is possibly better and background rendition is smoother, becoming harsh only towards the corners. The focus throw is also longer. It has a full size barrel so handling is even better, although it is still compact compared to the current AFS models.
If close focusing is important, the AIS 55/2.8 micro is worthy of consideration. The AI 55/3.5 is also excellent but f/3.5 is starting to feel too slow for this focal length, and I'm not a fan of the bokeh produced by 6-blade apertures. The AIS 55/2.8 feels fast enough (just) to be used as a general purpose lens, and it has a nicer 7 blade aperture.
-
PS. Browsing prices I also found a Voigtländer 58/f=1.4 never heared of it before. Opinions?
-
PS. Browsing prices I also found a Voigtländer 58/f=1.4 never heared of it before. Opinions?
Frank, Airy has posted some reviews on the lens here in NG. You may want to look for them to refer to.
-
I have one, a very fine lens. There are a few topics about the Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,768 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,768)
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3626.0.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3626.0.html)
-
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/4/3823/9295909842_ca1610ff0d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/farY8C)20130714-078-2 (https://flic.kr/p/farY8C) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickr. Old 50/1.8 AF(non-D), F4.0. LZ
-
I found some rauchous adepts to the 1.4/58G, the 1.2/55Ai and the 1.2/58Ai ... all of them seem to be in
another price range. Starting with the 55 at 400€ for a very good used one to the Neo Noct at 1100 for a very good
used one and the Noct for 3000 ... gosh
-
I might be impaired, but I am very happy with my 50 f/1.4 G. I just must have AF for street and some of the exotic 50's are large enough to look like telephotos, which attracts attention.
-
I might be impaired, but I am very happy with my 50 f/1.4 G. I just must have AF for street and some of the exotic 50's are large enough to look like telephotos, which attracts attention.
I guess you use it a f=4 to f=8 ... ???
-
I have a question regarding the AiS 50mm 1.4.
My sample seems not to be af the same quality as seen in the examples shown.
The focus confirmation dot gives wrong OK, in liveview things gets a little better.
The 2 pictures are approx. 100%, and shows a lot of color fringing, but at f2.0 all get better. Focused in liveview on my D800.
The question is: Will it be worth repairing, or is this how the perform?
Br Bent
-
I have a question regarding the AiS 50mm 1.4.
My sample seems not to be af the same quality as seen in the examples shown.
The focus confirmation dot gives wrong OK, in liveview things gets a little better.
The 2 pictures are approx. 100%, and shows a lot of color fringing, but at f2.0 all get better. Focused in liveview on my D800.
The question is: Will it be worth repairing, or is this how the perform?
Br Bent
Looks about normal at f/1.4. You should expect fringing and glow at that aperture. Stop down to f/4 to get some sharpness.
-
I agree with Jack. This looks normal.
-
Agree, seems also what I have experienced before. Older versions seem sharper. At least the 5.8cm/1.4 is. (in the center)
I never was a fan of the Ai/Ai-S 50/1.4, perhaps bad luck with the samples I had.
-
Looks about normal at f/1.4. You should expect fringing and glow at that aperture. Stop down to f/4 to get some sharpness.
Thanks for the quick feedback.
It seem that I should use some of my f1.8 or my old pre-Ai 50/2.0 ;)
The problem is not the fringing as it goes away already at f2.0, but that the focus confirmation does not work as the fringing is so severe, that I get backfocus, (focus is further away than expected), in liveview I can take the fringing into account and get sharp images from f2. Liveview is not very practical, so the lens must stay in the cupboard :(
-
My opinion from many years ago was the 50/1.8 AI was sharper at f/1.8 than the 50/1.4 AI was at f/2.0. That was with only one sample of each. I don't feel there is much point in an f/1.4 unless one is planning to shoot at f/1.4.
The best performance will be around f/4.0 to f/5.6 depending on the model. My first 50/1.8 AI knocked my socks off at 1/1,000th at f/5.6 in a lucky accident that taught me to keep my shutter speed up if possible and aperture in the sweet spot at or a bit before f/5.6.
Note that I weigh the sweet spot more heavily on the center and less on the deep corners. With some lenses one might see the center fall off even as the edge gains at f/8.0. By f/11 everything is off a bit with most lenses.
Dave