Oh my, which 50 mm lens?

[Peter Forsell]

I'm sorry if this question has been asked a thousand times before, but perhaps my question is a bit different. At least I hope so.

I sold my AF-S 50/1.4G because I didn't really use it and for what I might be using it I'd prefer an aperture ring. I have 50/1.8D left but it doesn't quite cut it either.

I want a manual focus lens that can be used as a normal lens, has better bokeh than 50/1.8D and can be used reversed and with extension rings and bellows for some macro work too.

The possible contenders:
* 50/1.8 AI or AI-S (but not E-series which has same optical construction as 50/1.8D) I have read somewhere that the non-E lenses have smoother bokeh than the E and AF-D. Expert's verdict?

* 50/2 AI seems to have the best bokeh of the group, but what about sharpness and usability in macro work? 6-bladed diaphragm not too pretty when closed down.

*50/1.2 AI-S I owned this, but found my focusing abilities lacking. The exposed back element scared too much so I didn't want to use it reversed either so it subsequently became a rather expensive book-end

* 50/1.4 AI or AI-S have similar nervous bokeh as the 50/1.8D that I have (and the 50/1.4D too)

* 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor might be the obvious choice for macro, but how about bokeh and shooting subjects that are further away... does this work as a general purpose lens at all?

The only prime lens I have between 28/1.4D and 85/1.4D is currently the 50/1.8D and sometimes the "gap" feels a bit too wide. I do have the 17-35/2.8D and 28-70/2.8D zooms, but they don't cut all the requirements either:
* nice bokeh
* aperture ring
* macro
* reversability

Is there a 50 mm lens that offers all of these, or should I get two (or more?) lenses instead?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 55/2.8 Micro is quite good also for more distant subjects. You won't need to reverse-mount the lens for close-ups either.

However, if you really insist on using a normal lens in reverse, either the 50/2 AI or the long-nose 50/1.8 Ais will perform very well.

[richardHaw]

i have the 50/1.8 Ai which has the same optics as the 50/1.8 Ai-S long-nose and I can vouch for it's performance. it does have some nervous bokeh, same with the 50/2Ai but it just makes my pictures look "painterly"

[John Koerner]

I want a manual focus lens that can be used as a normal lens, has better bokeh than 50/1.8D and can be used reversed and with extension rings and bellows for some macro work too.

You had the best option, but sold it.

*50/1.2 AI-S I owned this, but found my focusing abilities lacking. The exposed back element scared too much so I didn't want to use it reversed either so it subsequently became a rather expensive book-end

IMO, the 50/1.2 AiS was your best choice: best bokeh, fastest aperture, sharper than any 50mm Nikkor lens made, at f/4 (which is ideal aperture for reversed macro on bellows), which it is able to do and retain aperture control.

You say you want a manual, yet you sold yours because your focusing abilities "are lacking." IMO you should continue to work on your MF aptitude (nothing improves without work, time, and effort.)

If your vision is poor, try the Nikon DK-17 M Eyepiece, which increases visual magnification of your viewfinder to 1.2x, which I have found to be quite helpful. Either that, or use your rear LCD and blow the image up for optimal focusing (that's what it's for, esp. with macro on a bellows).

If you're afraid of the rear element, there is a solution for that as well: affix a Nikon BR-3 Mount Adapter Ring over the exposed rear element, when you reverse-mount, which acts like a protective lens shade.

The only prime lens I have between 28/1.4D and 85/1.4D is currently the 50/1.8D and sometimes the "gap" feels a bit too wide. I do have the 17-35/2.8D and 28-70/2.8D zooms, but they don't cut all the requirements either:
* nice bokeh
* aperture ring
* macro
* reversability

Is there a 50 mm lens that offers all of these, or should I get two (or more?) lenses instead?

Yes, the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S fils them all. If you implement the above, and actually use it (for something other than a bookend, lol), you will enjoy it. Here are some images I have shot with mine:


Reversed, hand-held, single image.



Reversed, tripod-mounted, 8-image stack.



Reversed, tripod-mounted, 10-image stack.



Properly-mounted, hand-held, single image.

With your 4 requirements above, the f/1.2 is your best option IMO, unless you want to plop down $4,000 for a Noct (which, while superior at f/1.2, is not quite as sharp at f/4 for reversed-macro work).

Jack

[Akira]

Frankly I don't think there are any candidate lenses that offer much smoother bokeh than 50/1.8D.  Nevertheless I would go for Ai 50/1.8.  It is sharp, can be used in reverse for good result, and its longer focus throw is preferable than that of Ais version.

Ais Micro 55/2.8 used to be my preferred all-rounder during the film days with my trusty F3, but I didn't find its bokeh particularly smooth, especially focused at non-macro distances.  Its very short focus throw could be difficult to manage on DLSRs.

[Tristin]

*50/1.2 AI-S I owned this, but found my focusing abilities lacking. The exposed back element scared too much so I didn't want to use it reversed either so it subsequently became a rather expensive book-end

Using the BR-3 will alleviate your concerns with the rear element and is very cheap.  I would use it with any reversed lens.

On the focusing, I can't see why it would be any harder than the other 50s at the same aperatures.  I personally recommend using an alternate focusing screen if you use plan on using f/2 or faster mnual lenses on any regular basis.

There is always the Zeiss 50/2 Makro if you don't require mgnification higher than 1:2

[pluton]

I have recently re-investigated the 50/1.8 Ai ("long nose") using a D800, and found that it is very useful lens with what Bjørn R. has described as the classic Nikkor 'rounded' look.  The rounded look seems to mitigate or moderate any poor bokeh effects that might be generated by the non-rounded 7-bladed iris.   Conventional limitations apply:  If you want a 'super sharp' look, don't shoot wide open, and like most double-Gauss normal lenses, it's not flare-proof when pointed into the sun.
Haven't tried it reversed.
It is possible to find a lightly- or virtually unused copy of this lens even today, but be aware that the helicoid of an unused copy at this point in time ( some 35 years after it ceased production ) is likely to need to be re-greased at additional expense.

[Roland Vink]

The series-E/pancake AIS/AF/AFD versions all share the same optical design (but with progressively improved coatings). In my experience with this range, the bokeh is rather nervous. You can read about this lens here: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0060/

The 50/2 versions also tend to have nervous bokeh, and I'm not a fan of the 6-blade aperture either (however a picture posted here http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00eJZY?start=20 shows delightful 6-point stars so it's not always bad). Yet many photographers like this lens so it may be worth looking at. Read about the optics here: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0002/

The 50/1.8 "long nose" AI and AIS versions are a definite improvement, bokeh is quite acceptable in the middle of the image although it does become more nervous towards the edge of the frame. The AI "long nose" is my favorite 50mm lens - the AIS version has a shorter focus throw so focusing is faster but less precise, and also the AIS has a rather narrow aperture ring (only 2 rows of grip vs 3 rows) so is not as easy to grip. Overall I think the AI has best combination of good build, handling and optics.

Faster 50mm lenses such as the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 tend to perform less well at close range if sharpness is your main criteria, but may give other effects that you prefer. The 50/1.2 only focuses to 0.5m compared to 0.45 for most other 50mm lenses, so the close range performance is already more limited. Based on your original question, I would not consider these lenses since the slower 50mm lenses perform better at close range, on bellows or reversed. Faster 50mm lenses also tend to have higher barrel distortion.

The AIS 55/2.8 micro is also a worthy option if f/2.8 is fast enough as a standard lens. The focus throw between infinity and 0.45m is short compared to the other 50mm options but it still quite acceptable, and of course you have the option of focusing to 1:2 without needing extension tubes or other closeup accessories. I often used this lens when travelling to double as a standard and macro lens, and it performs brilliantly. Bokeh can be on the hard side at times (often the case with highly corrected lenses) but is not often troublesome. Read about it here: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0026/

As for exposed rear elements when reversing a lens, get a BR-3 as has been mentioned. It mounts onto the rear of the lens and has 52mm filter threads at the other side so you can mount filters. It also acts as a short hood and protection for the rear element. Failing that, turn the focus ring to the closest focus setting - it makes no difference to focus on a reversed lens, but it extends the barrel over the rear element, giving a measure of protection.

[John Koerner]

Faster 50mm lenses such as the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 tend to perform less well at close range if sharpness is your main criteria, but may give other effects that you prefer. The 50/1.2 only focuses to 0.5m compared to 0.45 for most other 50mm lenses, so the close range performance is already more limited. Based on your original question, I would not consider these lenses since the slower 50mm lenses perform better at close range, on bellows or reversed. Faster 50mm lenses also tend to have higher barrel distortion.

I agree that the limitation of the 50 f/1.2 is its lack of close minimal focusing distance, when properly oriented.

However, I disagree that it does not perform as well, when reversed.

Do you have actual examples to show the difference, when reversed, or some type of reference material?

I would like to see any reversed images you have taken with other 50 mm lenses as documentation for your position.

The AIS 55/2.8 micro is also a worthy option if f/2.8 is fast enough as a standard lens. The focus throw between infinity and 0.45m is short compared to the other 50mm options but it still quite acceptable, and of course you have the option of focusing to 1:2 without needing extension tubes or other closeup accessories. I often used this lens when travelling to double as a standard and macro lens, and it performs brilliantly. Bokeh can be on the hard side at times (often the case with highly corrected lenses) but is not often troublesome. Read about it here: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0026/

I agree that the 55/2.8 micro would be the best possible alternative, superior when properly oriented.

It lets the user get to .25m as a close focusing distance, when properly oriented, which is preferable to the .5m minimal focusing distance of the 50 f/1.2 AIS, properly-oriented.

However, I do not believe the 55mm f/2.8 is any better when reversed at at the 50mm AIS' sharpest aperture (f/4) ... nor does the 55 f/2.8 have the unique "signature" bokeh, wide open, when properly oriented.

[Airy]

Concerning MF, I can only agree with John Koerner :
1) get a DK-17M. I have these since my D700 times (2009), then on D800, now on Df.
2) practice, practice and practice
I do not (yet) feel the need for another focusing screen.

Concerning lenses, if macro is important and frequent, maybe get a macro lens for ease of use.
The 55/2.8 is nice, and I have many keepers shot with it and either a FF Nikon, or a m43 Olympus with adapter. I do not remember cases of outrageously disturbing bokeh, but
1) beware of oily blades (cases reported by B.R.) - when testing, also shoot series from f/2.8 to the narrowest and check that the illumination remains the same (but for vignetting)
2) contrast is relatively mild. Easily corrected to your taste if you want it strong, but...

Concerning the non-macro Nikkors, my vote would go to the 50/1.2 AIS (= 9 blades).
The 50/1.8 AI is fine, but for some reason I never got enthusiastic about it. At wide apertures, the 50/1.2 beats it (but for distortion). For general photography, I feel more attracted by the 50/2 that seems to have more character + no need for a hood because of the recessed front lens, a useful feature when travelling. Call it a confidence builder. Bokeh can be *very* busy, but not disagreeable.

The old 50/1.4 SC can have busy, painterly bokeh. Otherwise the handling (non Ai !) does not make it an allrounder.

The Summicron R (with Leitax mount) is mechanically and optically excellent and could suit you, but it is even more manual (no aperture lever). Try it if you can find one. Slow photography only. The full aperture is quite usable, albeit not at the level of the "M" summicrons. Otherwise, a broadly aberration-free lens with good bokeh. Amazing.

Well, in terms of macro, sharpness, contrast, bokeh, nothing beats the Zeiss 50/2 (and the price is out of sight). By all means get the Milvus version (better coatings) if against-the-light shooting is important to you. It is rather big and heavy, but does not trade quality for universality. Its short focus throw between 5m and infinite is compensated by the rather firm, but fluid (i.e. no dry friction-feel) and slack-free focus ring movement. I was lucky enough to find a brand new second hand copy...

[Peter Forsell]

Thank you gentlemen for in-depth comments and thank you John for the great sample images. I learned a lot and now I regret selling the 50/1.2 AIS. I bought it brand new directly from Yodobashi because I could not find one anywhere near. By that time the exchange rate was favorable and I could get my money back when I later sold it.

But now I decided to try the 50/1.8 AI version (long nose) with its long 210 degree focus throw. We'll see if I can learn some new skills. And I bought the BR-3 ring too, thanks for the tip.

[David H. Hartman]

My picks are the 50/1.8 AI, 50/1.8 AIS (early model only). The 50/1.8 AI has a longer focus throw for precise focus. The early AIS has a faster and probably smoother throw for PJ type photography. The 55/2.8 AIS Micro is extremely sharp. I've seen double line bokeh when photographing a juvenile katydid long be for a had a word for bokeh. This was one of my very first shots with the lens. I recomposed to get some dry grass out of the background. I find the bokeh of the 55/3.5 pre-AI (compensating version to be quite smooth). If Bjørn corrects you know to believe his over me. Sadly I haven't use the 55/3.4 that much. 50/1.2 AIS is an outstanding lens that is still priced so mortals can own it. Mine has Super IC coatings and very good contrast. The thing I note about this lens is it is easier to focus than to hold focus at a distance of 1.5 to 2.5 meters. I can't hold focus unless I'm leaning on something solid. The DoF at f/1.2 to 2.0 is so shallow that slight body movement easily blows the focus. The in focus shots on a D300/D300s come way up if I'm leaning on a counter or door frame especially at f/1.2. I also own the AF 50/1.8 (non-D) and AF-S 50/1.8G. My understanding is the AF 50/1.8 has the same optical formula as the 50/1.8 Series-E, late 50/18 AIS. My pick for general photography is the AF-S 50/1.8G. Thom Hogan (byThom) feels that lens isn't up to the D810 and kind of think he is right.

Not in any order as all bring something to the table...

50/1.2 AIS
50/1.8 AI
55/2.8 AIS Micro (treat it like a scalpel or you many get cut.)
55/3.5 (compensating version)

At this time I can only use the 55/3.5 (compensating) at 1:2 - 1:1 using its match M tube. The M and M2 tubes have a bevel that clears the non-folding meter coupling lever on my D800 and D300s.

For the 55/2.8 AIS Micro I recommend a full set of PK rings: PK-11a (not for AF-S or later), PK-12 and PK-13. Try to use the shortest PK tube needed to keep the floating elements at the near focus position. This may not matter if edge sharpness is not important.

Oh Hell! buy them all...

Dave Hartman

[David H. Hartman]

1) get a DK-17M. I have these since my D700 times (2009), then on D800, now on Df.

I ware glasses and could use the DK-17M on my D2H but I can't see the information at the bottom of the screen with my D800. If one doesn't ware glasses I highly recommend the DK-17M. If they do I recommend trying the DK-17M in the hope that one can use it while wearing glasses. I found focus easy about like a F3HP with a red dot screen on the D2H. For me the Nikon F3 (non-HP) gave me the most comfortable viewfinder experience and higher finder magnification for manual focus than the HP model. The reason I shoot through glasses is I have astigmatism. Also it"s easier to keep them on, shoot through the center and look down through the bifocal to see the top of the camera.

Dave

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Reverse-mounting very fast lenses might not always be a good idea. The likelihood of strong chromatic and/or spherical aberrations and other optical nasties would be high. Thus, some of the samples presented in this thread show for example heavy blue fringing.

Slower lenses with less complex designs or glasses inside of lower refractive index would be the better alternative.

[Airy]

One more hint : if you lean towards slightly longer FL, then consider the Voigtländer 58/1.4 SLII. Rather rare, nevertheless cheap.
Very sharp, very well corrected, flare-resistant, good color, top mechanics, top handling, and... nice bokeh too. Focuses very close (1:5 or so) but you'll have to stop down to about 5.6 to get good sharpness on close-ups.