DSLRUsers.com

Evening all

I've just finished my review/initial thoughts of the 50mm AFS. It's much in the same style as my 200-400 review so if you enjoyed that, hopefully you'll enjoy this!

50mm AFS review

Enjoy

nice review Richard. i concur with most of what you found with a couple of exceptions.

1. i think its very sharp wide open if you nail the shot. certianly sharper than my 1.4D anyway. i think 1.4 is so razor thin we are sometimes mistaking being outside the focal plane with sharpness.

2. i think its inexcusable for it not to focus faster. this is an update to a 20year old lens. an update that wont likely happen again for another 10years. so this is THE best fifty nikon are going to offer in the foreseeable future. (unless there is a 50/1.2 IF AFS for the top end ??).

to the question of does it "need" to focus faster. my answer to that would be...absolutely it does. why shouldn't it ? i love my 1.4G. its tracking AF is excellent but the zero-infinity af-s is dismal considering its an af-s prime...and inexcusabley so.

Thanks, glad you liked it

Would you say the examples I posted are sharp at 1.4? I know my focus is accurate as in one of those test shots you'll see a tape measure next to the five dollar bill. I lined up a marker with the edge of the bill and when checking at %100my plane of focus is spot on. So either my lens is sharp as it should be and I am being too critical, or it's soft if it's not as sharp as your copy. Would be interested in your thoughts on my examples compared to yours

I see where you are coming from totally on the focus speed, it would be nice if it was faster. But what I mean by 'does it need to be' is that this isn't a lens you would use with high speed action and the chances of suddenly needing to focus from min to max are pretty slim, with a motorsport or wildlife lens sure...but on a landscape/portrait lens or general walk about I don't see the focus making you miss a shot. I agree it would have been nice to be faster though, no arguments there

i'm terrible at judging things from test shots. so i'm not much good at answering your question. the only way i "test" is by taking pics of what i'd normally shoot and judge from that.

these are at 1.4.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10435080@N00/3132231289/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10435080@N00/3132231119/

by f2 its already incredibley sharp and at f2.8 its sharper than my 24-70/2.8...no small feat.

Thanks for the links. Any unsharpened %100 crops of those, it's impossible to judge sharpness at websize

Thanks for the review. Nice blog as well, I've subscribed to it.

Great stuff, glad you enjoy ed viewing it

Very nice review!

I've also just subscribed to your RSS feed.

Nice review.

As to sharpness here is a 100% untouched one of my rug. I just got mine in the mail today, and it's my second lens (first being the 18-200VR) so I was shocked at how thin the focal plane is. I'm realizing now that the high ISO isn't helping with the sharpness factor but I already got it all uploaded and typed..

http://timlinden.smugmug.com/gallery/75 ... pgREj-O-LB
D300 / 50mm / 1.4 / 1250 ISO

Tim

timlinden wrote:Nice review.

As to sharpness here is a 100% untouched one of my rug. I just got mine in the mail today, and it's my second lens (first being the 18-200VR) so I was shocked at how thin the focal plane is. I'm realizing now that the high ISO isn't helping with the sharpness factor but I already got it all uploaded and typed..

http://timlinden.smugmug.com/gallery/75 ... pgREj-O-LB
D300 / 50mm / 1.4 / 1250 ISO

Tim

Tim, I carry the same lenses - the 1.4 is nice and agree with the focal plane - but thats the nice feature. - Matt

Great review, thanks for sharing - you've [yet] another subscriber! The review has been really helpful as I'm considering either this or the 35mm as my first prime, but am currently researching what the main differences would be as I'm still in my first week of dslring.. So your review is a great help as the photos you've taken are pretty much what I'd like to do with the lens [albeit much less skillfully hahaha!], and I LOVE it's versatility and DOF.

Thanks again!

Thanks Franky, glad you found it a good read

I found that my portraits gradually get softer at each stop from f4 to f1.4 with f1.4 being the softest.

Can anybody explain why this lens is not very sharp @ f1.4 as as compared to f4?

Also, I understand that the f1.4 will allow me to keep the shutter quicker in low light, but then what other other benefits comes with the massive price difference you pay for the extra f-stop?

matt, all lens' are sharpest when stopped down and at their weakest at their maximum aperture. here is the MTF chart for the 50/1.4G illustrating exactly what you are talking about. the other reason is that the dof is so razor thin that many people miss the focus point making the lens appear less sharp than it really is.

Rooz wrote:matt, all lens' are sharpest when stopped down and at their weakest at their maximum aperture. here is the MTF chart for the 50/1.4G illustrating exactly what you are talking about. the other reason is that the dof is so razor thin that many people miss the focus point making the lens appear less sharp than it really is.

Thanks Rooz for clearing that up.  BTW, what does the bar values represent in laymans terms?

- Matt

MatthewRoberts wrote:I found that my portraits gradually get softer at each stop from f4 to f1.4 with f1.4 being the softest.

Can anybody explain why this lens is not very sharp @ f1.4 as as compared to f4?

Chris's explanation is spot on. You will find this lens to be at its best between around f/5.6 through f/11. You should play with the lens to find its sweet spot, whch is where it will help you to yield magical images.

Also, I understand that the f1.4 will allow me to keep the shutter quicker in low light, but then what other other benefits comes with the massive price difference you pay for the extra f-stop?

The benefits are many, but mainly in just a couple of areas. As you've noted, the larger f-stop means that you have the ability to shoot in lower levels of available light. You need to accept that the lens is not at its sharpest wide open, and also that you have a very limited plane where the image is in focus. But when it may provide you the difference between getting the image, or no image at all, that becomes a very significant point.

The design of the lens is such that, with a suitably wide aperture, it provides your images with suitably soft and more attractive bokeh.

gstark wrote:The benefits are many, but mainly in just a couple of areas. As you've noted, the larger f-stop means that you have the ability to shoot in lower levels of available light.

Another benefit, if I am correct, is that the larger aperture will assist in focusing - because the lens is open at 1.4 until the point of shooting, there is more light coming in to allow the camera to focus.

Thanks guys for your simple explanations - and now the hard part is up to me to "yield magical images".

I really like the creamy backgrounds (bokeh) when doing portraits at home with the kids. It conceals the clutter and makes their faces softer except the eyes which have the focus.

Also, when I use the DOF button (on my D90), I don't see anything different through the viewfinder while this lens is wide open. Can anyone tell me what I am suppose to achieve using this DOF feature

MatthewRoberts wrote:Also, when I use the DOF button (on my D90), I don't see anything different through the viewfinder while this lens is wide open. Can anyone tell me what I am suppose to achieve using this DOF feature

Due to the viewfinder optics on your camera, you probably see something like the DOF equivalent to about f2.8 - f4 when the lens is wide open at f1.4 (the normal condition).

When you hit the DOF preview button, the lens will stop down to its set value, so you will see a difference in the viewfinder only if the lens is stopped down to f4 or less. Try setting the lens at f11 or so, and try it then - the image will show more DOF, but will look a bit dim though. The DOF preview on a film camera (or FX) is more representative of what the final image will look like.

Cheers

MatthewRoberts wrote: BTW, what does the bar values represent in laymans terms?

- Matt

i dont wanna get into the whole pixel peeping thing cos i dont really udnerstand it, sufffice to say that the higher the bars, the sharper the lens. but in case you were so inclined...http://www.imatest.com/docs/sfr_MTFplot.html good luck !! lol

personally, i find mine plenty sharp at 1.4, (in context of the fstop), its certianly way sharper than my 1.4D used to be. i find that at f2 i'm getting excellent sharpness and by 2.8 its really superb. i've heard alot of complaints about it, i can only relay my personal experiences. from f2.8-f8 its pretty much as sharp as my 24-70/2.8.

here's one at 2.8 for ya.

Rooz wrote:its certianly way sharper than my 1.4D used to be

Is this because of the new nano-crystal coating or the wider filter?

OK, I just snapped my daughter holding an imaginary camera (wide open )

Camera: D90, 50mm AF-S f1.4
Settings: f/2.5, 1/30s, ISO 800, +0.3EV


Thanks again - the results are spectacular!

MatthewRoberts wrote:

Rooz wrote:its certianly way sharper than my 1.4D used to be

Is this because of the new nano-crystal coating or the wider filter?

i wouldnt have the faintest idea. i know the bokeh is smoother cos they have rounded the diaphrams. i just assume its cos of an improved optical design

If anybody reads Australian Photography magazine, there is a good review of this lens in the May issue.