|
|
Vandergaze
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
a benjamin cheaper than the af-s, pretty sharp from f2.8 onward on APS-C
|
|
Cons:
|
way too soft at 1.4, cheap plasticy quality
|
|
Price is no genius...optics aren't overly great or suck either
|
|
 Jun 10, 2010
|
|
phiggys
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Aug 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Speed and extra light gathering power beautiful Bokeh wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
I have owned a number of 50mm f1.8 versions which IMO are sharper with more contrast
|
|
This AFN lens came with a Nikon FM2n I purchased.
And a friend was after a 50mm for his D70 so I sold my AFN 50mm f1.8 to him. "Wish I had kept it now though"
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2008
|
|
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 945
|
|
Review Date: Apr 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $290.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a "real" scientific piece of equipment, sharp, fast!
|
|
Cons:
|
A little pricy, but you get what you pay for.
|
|
If I was to compare this lens with the 1.8 NIKKOR on overall, construction, and image quality I would only give the 1.8 a 9 on construction quality. If you are serious about your NIKKORs, then this lens is worth the extra $$ for a small margin of performance and a good margin of build quality.
Here are some sample shots taken with a D200:
NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D AF Lens Photo Samples
-Roy
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2008
|
|
traveler
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2860
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $285.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Speed/Wide aperture essential for low light
Amazing Contrast
Light weight and size
Good Focus accuracy
|
|
Cons:
|
Not AF-S
|
|
There must be some sample variation on this model so I guess some caution may be in order for having return ability in case your copy doesn't match up. On my copy the center is very sharp in the center and all over by f2......I don't think it's a freak as others have reported this kind of good result. The contrast beat the pants off of a copy of the f1.8 I sent back for this....and glad I did. The build IMHO is considerably better as well. There is a small amount of flare possible if not being careful shooting wide open, but I've found by f2.0 its a non issue. I have found it to be very accurate in focus as well as being instant to lock with my D300 body. I hesitated to consider this lens over the 1.8, but I can vouch (for my copy anyway) this is a wise move for the long term. It is clearly superior to the 1.8.......not as close as I thought it would be........and this is a good thiing...
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2008
|
|
Josh Bennett
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp at f/4. Small, light, compact. Relatively fast autofocus despite being driven by on-body motor. Inexpensive.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lots of flare at f/1.4 & 2.0. Clunky, sloppy build quality. Loose center barrel. Non AFS. With my copy, it looks like contrast starts to fall at f/5.6 and smaller. Vignettes pretty bad at f/1.4 on FX
|
|
I use this lens a lot for work. I know I can rely on it to perform when I need it to. I use it at f/4 for critical work when I need absolute image quality.
Not bad in the studio.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2007
|
|
Carl Feather
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 26, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 344
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light weight, solid. Fairly cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy focusing, not very smooth. Made in China.
|
|
It's the sharpest lens I own, and I have the 85 f/1.4, 70-200 and 17-55. This is the lens I reach for when I'm shooting billboard images or need that tack-sharp bridal portrait.
Bokeh is pretty decent, not up to the 85mm, but I get very nice results at f/2-2.8. I'm not afraid to shoot this at 1.4 at wedding receptions to get nice images.
The focusing is very noisy compared to SW lenses and takes some getting used to. It sounds like a blender.
Every photographer should own one of these. Wish it were not made in China, however.
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2007
|
|
James Harringt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness and color rendition are very crisp and contrasty. Light weight, and great for low light
|
|
Cons:
|
Manual focus not smooth, I've exprienced unusual flare in high key settings
|
|
This is a recent copy of the venerable 50mm 1.4, and was made in China. Now I've owned other lenses made in China such that were excellent, but in the higher priced Nikon glass I'm surprised to see this. I've also in the past used a Japan-made 50mm 1.8.
The lens is sharp enough for what I do wide open, and just excellent when stopped down. I'm normally burning or blurring the edges and cropping in from the 4 x 6 Dslr ratio to a 4x5 print ratio, so a bit of softness at the eges is not of concern to me and what there is has not been objectionable. The color rendition has the snap and contrast you expect in Nikon's pro line, and is, to my eye, nicer than the 1.8 I have. But that may depend on the user's preference.
Build quality is not what I expected from Nikon. The manual focus is not very smooth. I also use a fairly light Lindahl lens hood in the studio, and the auto-focus mechanism of this 50mm and the D200 can't handle focusing with the hood, I think due to the added weight of the hood. I don't have this problem with the 85 1.8, 80-200, or 20-35 that I also use.
If you are purchasing from a camera store, I would reccomend trying several samples from the shelf and make sure you get one with smooth manual operation, and maybe shoot a few test images to make sure your copy went through good quality control. I didn't do this, but will on all future Nikon purchases.
In high key settings I've found the lens a bit prone to flare. When it's not just been poor light placement on my part, it's been due to brightness on the white background causing the flare. Adjusting the lighting to proper ratios solves the issue, but the 50mm has more flare than my 85 or 20-35.
Outside or in low light, I can't say enough good things about the images I get with this lens. For those of you who still use a D100, as i often do, try this lens on the D100 in low light and high ISO's. The D100's low light performance may surprise you (especially if you were a fan of the high ISO BW films from Ilford and Kodak).
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2007
|
|
FryingPan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Mar 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $269.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp, compact, lightweight.
|
|
Cons:
|
It makes the rest of my lenses feel inadequate.
|
|
After owning this lens for over a year now, I feel like I can finally write an appropriate review.
This lens is on my camera almost 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time, I'm feeling like my other glass just isn't as fun to shoot with. It's my absolute favorite by far. The bokeh is outstanding, the images produced are razor sharp, and the versatility of the wide open f/1.4 aperture is incredible. The 50mm (75mm on a digital body) focal length is narrow enough to force good composition, but wide enough to not be restrictive.
I shoot everything from portraits, landscapes, macros (coupled with extension tubes) candids, etc with this lens. It truly does it all.
Using this lens on a digital body makes for the ultimate available light photography combo.
I truly love this lens, and highly recommend it to anyone.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2007
|
|
Chipouille
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Sep 10, 2004
Location: Afghanistan
Posts: 206
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact lens, very sharp beyond 2,5, nice bokeh under f/2
|
|
Cons:
|
Very from 1,4 to f/2, flare flare flare...
|
|
It's my 3rd sample, all of them behaved the same : very soft @ f/1,4, very sharp after f/2,5.
So what's the use of such a wide aperture if you can't use it ? The little cheapo 50 f/1,8 is so much better in this regard, and sharper too at the same apertures.
I don't even mention very bad flare control, a shame at this price.
It was a bit better on film than it's now on digital, and once again, why purchasing such a lens if it's unuseable wide open ?
Disappointed.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007
|
|
Carlo r. lopez
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent optics, compact size, razor sharp depth of field, great low light performer
|
|
Cons:
|
none other than the cheap printing instead of engraving
|
|
This is one of nikons finest lenses. dont make its size and price fool you as this is one of the sharpest lenses in my bag. its small, sleek and compact and should be in every nikon users bag. its also darn fast and the bokeh is very appealing. not harsh as others claim it to be. since most can be had for cheap in the used market, i suggest you get it. you wont be sorry
|
|
|
Nov 7, 2006
|
|
panos.v
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 15, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3657
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, sharp, very fast aperture, fast AF, sharp, contrasty.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bokeh of point light sources can look a bit rough sometimes.
|
|
This is my favourite lens. It is small and light and sharp from f/1.4. From f/2 down it is just superb. Contrast is a bit low at f/1.4 but by f/2 it is as good as it gets. I love it for portraits as I can blur the background into a nice creamy nothingness. The only problem is that highlights appear as geometric shapes in the bokeh as it does not have a circular aperture. But really, that is a very minor point, just watch your background if you are that concerned about it.
I just cannot praise this lens enough. It is what I use for most of my shooting, inside or outside. It excells in situations like dark museums or other indoors areas and is great for general shooting outside, giving you crisp, contrasty, beautiful pictures. AF is also fast and precise, although a bit noisy compared to AF-S.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2006
|
|
John Basic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 15, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight, sharp images under specific conditions (for me at least), fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
FLARE! GHOSTING! picky focusing
|
|
I'm not at all thrilled about this lens -- in fact I'm tempted to sell it and just get the f1.8.
The flare and ghosting I've experienced with this lens is on an unprecedented scale. It's perfectly happy to take very sharp photos under diffused light, or in absence of a direct light source at all, but introduce even the slightest lighting and the entire image fills with flare, spots, and/or ghosted images.
It ought to be labeled a "special effects" lens as far as I'm concerned.
I tried using this lens at night at the Los Angeles County Fair recently, and images that I NEVER have a problem using a moderately fast zoom on are rendered virtually useless with this lens. The neon, flourescent, and incandescent lighting just overwhelms this thing to the point that it's a joke. Tried stepping it down and using a faster ISO -- doesn't help either. It's like you have to point this thing into virtual darkness to get a decent picture.
I've also tried it on landscape and nature photos. Yes, it works, but I spend so much time trying to recompose myself to avoid the flash-ups of stuff I don't want that it ruins the experience.
Further, what's the sense in having a lens this fast if you can't use it in Program Auto or AE without toting a decent flash unit around with you?! I've found the focusing to be both unprecise and unpredictable on both of my camera bodies (even the new D80) under low light conditions, and even with a shutter speed of 1/125th or more at f1.4 I still get many, many blurry images. I'll be damned if I'm going to stick an f1.4 lens on a tripod at dawn or dusk just to get a blur-free image.
And yes, I've been shooting a long time and know all about how to hand-hold a camera and squeeze the shutter to minimize blur. Like I said, I've had better results with lenses 2+ stops slower than this one under the same conditions. In fact I've had better luck with the 18-70 f3.5 kit lens than this thing, and that's the LAST lens one would seek out for low-light photography.
The news isn't ALL bad, though. I've taken some photos with this lens that are absolutely razor sharp. I've also taken a series of the same image in P mode where some are great and others are blurred beyond belief -- even in continuous frame shots.
Maybe I got a dud. Maybe the factory ran out of lens coating goop when my glass went through the spray gun. Who knows.
I'm going to talk to the dealer that sold me the lens and see what his other customers have to say about it. It seems to me that an expensive, "prime" lens like this should be far more predictable and usable than what I've expereinced with it so far. But I can absolutely guarantee that if I had it to do over again I'd just opt for the f1.8 model if this is what's to be expected of today's Nikkor 50mm line of lenses.
p.s. I'm also seriously considering purchasing the 85mm f1.8 Nikkor lens, but I'm almost afraid to dish out that kind of $$$ on another fixed lens if this is what I can expect.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2006
|
|
|
