The Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G thread

[rogersmj]

Apparently, these long-awaited primes are now shipping and a few people already have their hands on them. Sadly, I am not one of them, although I have been salivating over the possibility of this lens for months (my wife has forced me to wait until my birthday in February! Oh the humanity...). From what I've read on Ken Burns' web site as well as informal notes on preproduction versions, it's supposed to be quite excellent...possibly one of the best primes available.

I'm very eager to hear people's impressions and see some *good* sample photos. If you've got one, let's see 'em!

[rogersmj]

Anyone get this lens yet? As a Christmas present perhaps? It looks like it's becoming a little more available, I'm still interested in people's impressions.

[luminosity]

I've seen some less stellar things written about it, particularly in competition with the Sigma 50 mm 1.4 HSM. The Sigma may yet remain a standard-bearer for the 50mm AF-S class lenses.

[Sigur]

I'm very interested in sample pictures, too! And it would be nice if you could write a little about your experience with a non-zoom lens.

[Nikonut]

Apparently, these long-awaited primes are now shipping and a few people already have their hands on them. Sadly, I am not one of them, although I have been salivating over the possibility of this lens for months (my wife has forced me to wait until my birthday in February! Oh the humanity...). From what I've read on Ken Burns' web site as well as informal notes on preproduction versions, it's supposed to be quite excellent...possibly one of the best primes available.

I'm very eager to hear people's impressions and see some *good* sample photos. If you've got one, let's see 'em!

Here is Kens write-up on it,the pic he has posted is dynamite ! really clear and bright.....I would like one myself...might have to order one.
Hope this helps!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f14-afs.htm


Steve

[wheelhot]

Interesting, I dont use Nikon (I use Canon) but I like to know about the latest in camera technology (I guess I inherited this from my father). Anyway, in typical KenRockwell fashion, what does he mean by

"Trying to make what seem like simple shots like this with the Canon 5D Mark II and Canon's 50/1.4 USM just don't do this, because I can't get an AF sensor where I want it, and the Canon system can't nail every shot like this Nikon combo does. What you don't want to see is that almost all of the 100 other snaps were also in focus at f/1.4, even if Ryan wasn't smiling. At f/1.4, the depth-of-field is only about an inch, and remember, this kid was moving, not waiting for dad to snap his photo."

Hmm, what is Nikon Combo? and if the DOF is about an inch, why is his whole child (including his clothes) is perfectly in focus? (Lets hope I can learn something here :rolleyes:)

[luminosity]

I say again that I've rarely heard a bad word about Sigma's 50mm lens. They moved in hard on the AF-S/HSM corner, and I don't think they're suddenly going to give it up just because Nikon comes along to finally replace the AF-D version.

[Nikonut]

Interesting, I dont use Nikon (I use Canon) but I like to know about the latest in camera technology (I guess I inherited this from my father). Anyway, in typical KenRockwell fashion, what does he mean by

"Trying to make what seem like simple shots like this with the Canon 5D Mark II and Canon's 50/1.4 USM just don't do this, because I can't get an AF sensor where I want it, and the Canon system can't nail every shot like this Nikon combo does. What you don't want to see is that almost all of the 100 other snaps were also in focus at f/1.4, even if Ryan wasn't smiling. At f/1.4, the depth-of-field is only about an inch, and remember, this kid was moving, not waiting for dad to snap his photo."

Hmm, what is Nikon Combo? and if the DOF is about an inch, why is his whole child (including his clothes) is perfectly in focus? (Lets hope I can learn something here :rolleyes:)

Dunno my friend,Idont think I can answer that one! I sumtimes use his site for info and reviews,I kind of read between the lines if I can on his stuff.
I do wish I would have had that 1.4 yesterday to play with,it was the family trip with lots of faces and lots of cute kids....aw well,Iused the Nikon 24-120 that everyone nags about,but Iwill tell ya what,it cooked with the D-300 yesterday...sharp as nails...sum ya win,sum ya loose....thats what makes it fun.:D

Steve

[mrgreen4242]

Interesting, I dont use Nikon (I use Canon) but I like to know about the latest in camera technology (I guess I inherited this from my father). Anyway, in typical KenRockwell fashion, what does he mean by

"Trying to make what seem like simple shots like this with the Canon 5D Mark II and Canon's 50/1.4 USM just don't do this, because I can't get an AF sensor where I want it, and the Canon system can't nail every shot like this Nikon combo does. What you don't want to see is that almost all of the 100 other snaps were also in focus at f/1.4, even if Ryan wasn't smiling. At f/1.4, the depth-of-field is only about an inch, and remember, this kid was moving, not waiting for dad to snap his photo."

Hmm, what is Nikon Combo? and if the DOF is about an inch, why is his whole child (including his clothes) is perfectly in focus? (Lets hope I can learn something here :rolleyes:)
I assume "Nikon combo" is the Nikon D3 camera body and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens.

Can't help you on the DoF question, except that maybe the inch or two either side of the focal plane will be just a little out of focus, and when you shrink a 12MP photo down to ~VGA resolution it covers up a lot of stuff like that, at least in my experience.

Anyways, I have been salivating over the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM for a couple months, and the pricing on it keeps getting better. But, I received a SB400 for Christmas and it honestly completely changed my opinion of flash photography in about 3 minutes (I've never had an external flash). With the price of the 18-200mm lenses falling so much, I'm going to replace my D40 kit lens with one of those and wait for Sigma or Nikon to release a <$200 f1.8 or f2 AF-S/HSM prime. The extra 1/3rd or 1/2 step isn't worth the premium price to me.

[Nikonut]

I assume "Nikon combo" is the Nikon D3 camera body and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens.

Can't help you on the DoF question, except that maybe the inch or two either side of the focal plane will be just a little out of focus, and when you shrink a 12MP photo down to ~VGA resolution it covers up a lot of stuff like that, at least in my experience.

I think your right Mr Green,it does say D3 1.4 under the pic.....I still am thinking about the 1.4 G....I just looked at it a few minutes ago,Santa hurt me,but since Iam already injured...whats another 439.00.....well maybe beans &hotdogs!

Steve

[mrgreen4242]

I think your right Mr Green,it does say D3 1.4 under the pic.....I still am thinking about the 1.4 G....I just looked at it a few minutes ago,Santa hurt me,but since Iam already injured...whats another 439.00.....well maybe beans &hotdogs!

Steve

Heh, well, make sure you check out the Sigma 1.4 50mm. It's over $50 less, so if you are trying to stretch the budget that can make a difference. All the reviews I've read point to the Sigma being a little better than the Nikkor (except Ken Rockwell maybe, but even his was a pretty close call if I remember right, and he seems to have a lot of hate for Sigma).

Of course, the Sigma is crop sensor only and the Nikkor is full frame, so that's a nice option to have for the years to come, and it should make the crop sensor photos look fantastic, since your dark, blurry corners won't even hit the sensor...

[Nikonut]

Heh, well, make sure you check out the Sigma 1.4 50mm. It's over $50 less, so if you are trying to stretch the budget that can make a difference. All the reviews I've read point to the Sigma being a little better than the Nikkor (except Ken Rockwell maybe, but even his was a pretty close call if I remember right, and he seems to have a lot of hate for Sigma).

Of course, the Sigma is crop sensor only and the Nikkor is full frame, so that's a nice option to have for the years to come, and it should make the crop sensor photos look fantastic, since your dark, blurry corners won't even hit the sensor...

Thanks for the reply,I have looked at Sigma quite a few times and Tamron which I have quite a few of theirs,and I like all of them.
I might buy a D-700 on of these days,although I had one in my hand the other day,wasnt really impressed at all with the build,the crappy door on the side one would expect on a cheapy pointnshoot.
I would love to have its low-lite capability though,but word has it with telephoto its just not as sharp....thats mostly what I shoot is nature,but sumtimes in lowlite.
I might order one,I am still running it up and down the flagpole in my head !:D

Steve

[luminosity]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the D700 is a fabulous camera. I'd like to know where you're getting your info from.

It's low-light capabilities rival that of the D3, which is truly stellar.

[Digital Skunk]

...

This is because Rockwell is an idiot for the most part. He may have some skills in shooting and technical aspects of photography, but he stinks as a writer and reviewer.

He was obviously never a journalist like Dave Hobby over at Strobist, and Ken isn't that great of a shooter at all. Maybe in the past, but certainly not now or even 6 or more years ago when I really noticed he was a nimrod.

Either way I am also in the wait and see boat. The 50 AF-S has been a lens I have been waiting for for ages. Opting instead to get the 1.8 for price since neither that one nor the current 1.4 had AF-S.

Tokina and Sigma are starting to make very good comparable glass, and I have no qualms about sticking some 3rd party gear in my bag.

[Nikonut]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the D700 is a fabulous camera. I'd like to know where you're getting your info from.

It's low-light capabilities rival that of the D3, which is truly stellar.

The reports and reviews say that with the full frame sensor the pixels arent as concentrated as with DX which can cost clarity and sharpness loss ,even though the it does have awsum lowlite capabilitys,it would seem that where the camera would be at its best with non telephoto lenses.
I can forward sum of the reviews if you would like.

Steve

[Nikonut]

This is because Rockwell is an idiot for the most part. He may have some skills in shooting and technical aspects of photography, but he stinks as a writer and reviewer.

He was obviously never a journalist like Dave Hobby over at Strobist, and Ken isn't that great of a shooter at all. Maybe in the past, but certainly not now or even 6 or more years ago when I really noticed he was a nimrod.

Either way I am also in the wait and see boat. The 50 AF-S has been a lens I have been waiting for for ages. Opting instead to get the 1.8 for price since neither that one nor the current 1.4 had AF-S.

Tokina and Sigma are starting to make very good comparable glass, and I have no qualms about sticking some 3rd party gear in my bag.

Skunk,

I dont mean to sound like a kR advocate because Iam not at all,plus I dont like his begging....I bounce off of alot of authors and try and sort through the hype and BS.

Steve

[Digital Skunk]

Skunk,

I dont mean to sound like a kR advocate because Iam not at all,plus I dont like his begging....I bounce off of alot of authors and try and sort through the hype and BS.

Steve

I agree. I wish everyone does the same.

I hope I didn't come across as trying to insult you or anything you said, just KR simply because he confuses people half the time, insults others the rest, and somewhere in-between all of that he speaks nothing but personal opinion.

[Nikonut]

I agree. I wish everyone does the same.

I hope I didn't come across as trying to insult you or anything you said, just KR simply because he confuses people half the time, insults other the rest, and somewhere in-between all of that he speaks nothing but personal opinion.

Thats ok man,I know what you were saying and I didnt take anything personal.

:)

Steve

[Padaung]

I would love to have its low-lite capability though,but word has it with telephoto its just not as sharp....thats mostly what I shoot is nature,but sumtimes in lowlite.

Steve

From what I have heard/read the main culprit for this reasoning is the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200 F2.8, which just isn't up to the job of full frame digital shooting (which is far more critical of lens quality than either a digi crop sensor or 35mm film). It is not the camera's fault, it's just that the quality of the results from the cameras has once again caught up with the quality of the lenses. This problem was first noticed when the lens was tried out on a D3 when they initially became available. The D700, with the same sensor and focusing system, shows up the same problems with the lens. Nikon really need to update this lens asap as it is a standard piece of equipment in many peoples camera bags.

[Nikonut]

From what I have heard/read the main culprit for this reasoning is the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200 F2.8, which just isn't up to the job of full frame digital shooting (which is far more critical of lens quality than either a digi crop sensor or 35mm film). It is not the camera's fault, it's just that the quality of the results from the cameras has once again caught up with the quality of the lenses. This problem was first noticed when the lens was tried out on a D3 when they initially became available. The D700, with the same sensor and focusing system, shows up the same problems with the lens. Nikon really need to update this lens asap as it is a standard piece of equipment in many peoples camera bags.

I would be delighted if I were just one lense,I guess I need to post the question over at Nikonians about telephoto issues with the FX sensor and see what comes back,I really want to add the 700 to my collection,actually I would like the 3,but the price rurs me off,maybe when the 3x hits the 3 will drop like a rock(wishfull thinking).The 700 hasnt been much of a falling rock,but it is down sum.

;)

[compuwar]

Nikon really need to update this lens asap as it is a standard piece of equipment in many peoples camera bags.

Nikon's answer is vignette control in the camera body. While they may eventually bow to peer pressure, in general they hold their ground pretty steadily once they "solve" a problem. I wouldn't hold my breath on an update- though it certainly could happen, there are a lot of good candidates further up in line IMO.

[mdwsta4]

can't speak about the Nikkor, but Sigma's latest offering is phenomenal in the short time I've had it!

http://images44.fotki.com/v1418/photos/5/51621/4246906/IMG_8657-vi.jpg

[luminosity]

Well, the camera you have it on doesn't hurt ;).

[rogersmj]

can't speak about the Nikkor, but Sigma's latest offering is phenomenal in the short time I've had it!

Interesting you bring that one up. I just checked out the Sigma on Amazon (http://tr.im/2p7i) and the first reviewer specifically compares it to the new Nikkor 50mm -- and he far prefers the Sigma. They're about the same price, and if the bokeh is really so far superior on the Sigma...it's something to think about.

[dllavaneras]

can't speak about the Nikkor, but Sigma's latest offering is phenomenal in the short time I've had it!


Well, the camera you have it on doesn't hurt ;).


I can certainly tell you it's an awesome piece of glass, and my camera is nowhere near as cool as yours ;)

http://xs134.xs.to/xs134/08515/sigma_50mm_f1.4_03697.jpg (http://xs.to)

[Sigur]

I need your help.

I actually wanted to buy a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM for my Nikon D40x but since I'm in the United States and the Dollar is rather weak I got more money than in Germany :D.

So now I have the possibility to buy a Nikon/Sigma 50mm 1.4 and some kind of standard zoom for example 17-135 with only 1:3.5-5.6 or so.

What would you prefer?

[Abstract]

Sigma 50 mm f/1.4. ;)

[rogersmj]

I gotta say after more reading that I'm completely torn. I've been awaiting this Nikon 50mm for months, but now that it's out I'm not sure. Since they're the same price it seems to come down to this:

Nikon
Pros: Pretty dang sharp wide open, smaller/lighter than the Sigma
Cons: Not very good bokeh

Sigma
Pros: Creamy bokeh. Creamy bokeh. Creamy bokeh. Really sharp at f/2 and up.
Cons: Slightly soft at f/1.4, but still better than the other 50s it was compared against; larger, heavier.

[Sigur]

I gotta say after more reading that I'm completely torn. I've been awaiting this Nikon 50mm for months, but now that it's out I'm not sure. Since they're the same price it seems to come down to this:

Nikon
Pros: Pretty dang sharp wide open, smaller/lighter than the Sigma
Cons: Not very good bokeh

Sigma
Pros: Creamy bokeh. Creamy bokeh. Creamy bokeh. Really sharp at f/2 and up.
Cons: Slightly soft at f/1.4, but still better than the other 50s it was compared against; larger, heavier.

Does it make any difference if you use a Lens from the same brand as your camera?

[rogersmj]

No, that really has nothing to do with it. There's plenty of examples of third-party lenses that aren't as high quality as the camera manufacturers' own lenses, and some people will only buy Nikon lenses for Nikon cameras, but that's just ignorant brand loyalty IMO. If Sigma makes a good lens -- like in this case, they have -- it's just as worthy of consideration as the first-party lenses.

[luminosity]

Until Nikon's AF-S lens was released this year, I think a good argument could have been made that Sigma had the best 50mm lens available for Nikon. They exploited Nikon's sloth in getting an AF-S version of the 50mm out, and did it with what by most accounts is a great lens.

It may still be the best.

[Digital Skunk]

No, that really has nothing to do with it. There's plenty of examples of third-party lenses that aren't as high quality as the camera manufacturers' own lenses, and some people will only buy Nikon lenses for Nikon cameras, but that's just ignorant brand loyalty IMO. If Sigma makes a good lens -- like in this case, they have -- it's just as worthy of consideration as the first-party lenses.

Very true. The Tokina 12-24 f4 has been regarded as the better lens for the Nikon DX body... over Nikon's own version of the lens. The Tokina is just as sharp, and just as quick at focusing at about half the price.

The only caveat I have noticed and seen is the lens extension during zoom, and I would put up with that to get an on par lens at $500 less.

[compuwar]

Very true. The Tokina 12-24 f4 has been regarded as the better lens for the Nikon DX body... over Nikon's own version of the lens.

Actually, I think that's a bad example. The Tokina is generally thought to be almost as good and economically a better buy, not a better lens overall according to pretty-much every review I've read. At 12-14mm, the Nikkor smokes it, and the Tokina has vignetting and chromatic aberration issues that are noticeably worse than the Nikkor.

http://davehutchison.blogspot.com/2007/11/nikon-vs-tokina-12-24mm-f4-dx-lense.html
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/super-wide_shootout_5.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=13366600

[Hmac]

Do I understand correctly that the new Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is made in China?