vparikh wrote:
I wish Nikon would have released say a 50mm f2 S lens that is smaller and has an aperture ring.
Vento wrote:
Why not a Voigtlander 50mm f/2 Apo Lanthar Z?
In any case, if you like manual focusing, this is an absolutely brilliant lens with exactly the specs you want.
If applications such as landscape, architecture, city, nightscapes are required, there is nothing of higher optical quality with a native Z-mount and these key data.
Apart from that, the 50/2 Apo Lanthar is already pedaling wide open all the way to the floorboard and that from MFD to infinity.
I own and use the CV Z 50/2 Apo-Lanthar and I find it an outstanding lens.
However, I still use (and like) my old Nikkor AI 50/1.4 (compact and lightweight). I find it very good for (full-length and waist-level) portraiture @ f/2-f/2.8 (if you want to snap a headshot or a head-and-shoulders photo, getting too close to the subject may distort their features, making their nose look disproportionately wide). It's very good for cityscapes and landscapes from f/4 onwards. On the used market it is so cheap that it's a bargain.
I didn't preorder, but I walked into my local store today at lunch and bought one. Potentially going to replace my 50/1.8S and my 50/1.2 GM with it, since I really can't justify the cost of owning the GM since I'm shooting far fewer portraits and such that would require such quality, and I have the Voigtlander 50/2 APO-Lanthar for daily carry in a small package with impeccable image quality. This would be used for casual portraits / candids with AF.
I've barely shot with it, but so far it seems to be decent. (Edit...I've taken a few more test shots, and I'll amend that....so far it seems to be quite good). Some of the same classic rendering, with softness to the edges close up, but not as bad as the 35/1.4 was. It's also sharp at the edges by f/4 near MFD (the 35/1.4 never got sharp near MFD). Bokeh, while not perfect, definitely seems nicer than the 35/1.4 in my initial shots. There is longitudinal CA.
Sharpness looks actually quite decent once you get away from MFD...beginning at typical distance you'd shoot people. Some residual spherical aberrations for sure at wide apertures, but nothing insane. Sharpness and contrast increase quite a bit at f/2, but there is fairly good resolution even in the corners wide open when you're not focused super close up. By f/2.8, it's pretty much tack sharp corner to corner, at least on the 24MP Zf. I haven't shot it yet on the Z8, and won't be able to until this evening.
Overall, I think it looks like a better lens than the 35/1.4 and while it definitely isn't quite as sharp as the 50/1.8S at wide apertures, it's good enough that I think it's a really nice option. I'll obviously have to shoot a lot more with it, but I think my plan will work out well, and I'll just keep this and the CV 50/2 AL.
Edit: After a few more test shots, I'm actually coming away fairly impressed. It seems a fairly strong step up from something like the old Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (I've never shot with the Nikon F mount versions). It's more of a classic rendering than the S line lenses, but seems to have a nicer rendering and a bit more sharpness than a lot of older glass. Only real weaknesses seem to be edge sharpness near MFD at wide apertures, and longitudinal CA. Looking forward to shooting more.
vparikh wrote:
I wish Nikon would have released say a 50mm f2 S lens that is smaller and has an aperture ring.
Before they do an aperture ring, they have to allow changing ISO on a front wheel, and rename ISO button into something else. It seems like too radical idea and it does not fit into their current design thinking. It is a shame, and it is super annoying.
Ok, so tons o test images between my 4 50s. Testing the new Nikon 50/1.4, the Nikon 50/1.8S, the Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM, and the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar. All taken on the Z8.
First - here's the full scene wide open for each lens. Focus point is around 1m away.
From this, we can see overall rendering, and I don't think there's anything especially noteworthy except that the 50 GM is simply gorgeous.
OK, on to sharpness crops. These are 100% crops - for the most part they will probably shrink in the browser, so if you want to really pixel peep, you may need to right click and open the image in a new tab and zoom in.
So, the 50/1.4 is the softest of the 4, but still shows pretty good resolution wide open...the other lenses, especially the GM and Voigtlander, are very sharp from their maximum aperture. All lenses are very good stopped down, but the 50/1.4 lags a little until around f/2.8. Still very good at f/2, and very close (but slightly behind) at f/2.8 and f/4. I have no complaints about any of the lenses in the center part of the frame.
Here the 50mm f/1.4 actually shows slightly more detail than the 50/1.8 S in extreme corner, but the S lens has significantly higher contrast. The GM and the CV are both outstanding straight from their maximum aperture, and the GM is astonishing for f/1.2.
Here the 50/1.4 has increased a bit in sharpness and contrast, and still holds a detail edge over the 50/1.8S, while the CV and GM are still incredible.
The 50/1.4 has now nearly caught up to the 50/1.8S in macro contrast and easily surpasses it in resolution. I was not expecting this. The GM and CV are essentially perfect here.
Here the 50/1.8S finally shows a nice resolution bump, closing the gap to the 50/1.4 and perhaps slightly surpassing it. Both are still a touch behind the GM and CV.
Overall, the 50/1.4 performs surprisingly well, I think, given the design constraints of the lens and its lower price tag. It's not perfect, and is lower contrast and a little hazy compared to the others, but shows good detail wide open and is quite sharp stopped down, even better than the 50/1.8 at f/1.8 through f/2.8. The 50GM and CV 50 are simply exceptional, and the 50GM is again astonishingly good here.
The 50/1.4 has probably the worst bokeh of the bunch here, but it's not crazy bad or anything. A little bit of CA and a small bright ring edge are visible, but still a good performance. The 50/1.8S is next, with good generally smooth bokeh. THe CV is technically very good, but shows a little more contrast than the others, while the 50 GM is very creamy (though not super perfect.) The 50 GM shows significantly more blur than the 50/1.4 here, and that continues in the shot below with both at f/1.4. This is partly because the 50/1.4 is actually slightly wider than the other lenses here (with the CV being slightly longer, yet having the smallest specular highlights), but there's something else going on with the GM, because it is MUCH more blur than you would expect given the aperture differences.
At f/2, the bokeh on the 50/1.4 smooths out a little and becomes very nice. Maybe even very slightly better than the 50/1.8S. In fact, it was an improvement enough that I went back and took shots of both at f/1.8, and even there, the 50/1.4 is very slightly better, in my opinion, with the exception of slightly different shapes to the edges of specular highlights toward the edges. Still, when comparing 50/1.4 vs 50/1.8, the 50/1.8 offers little advantage. That shot is below: https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/50bok_18s.jpg
Here, all the lenses look quite good, and honestly quite similar, which is surprising. So there you have it. Hopefully that helps people. Honestly, the 50/1.4 looks pretty good. It's objectively the worst of this group, but in this group we have two of the best 50mm lenses I've ever used in the 50GM and the 50/2 APO Lanthar, along with the already known to be outstanding 50/1.8S, so that's very, very stiff competition.
Thanks a bunch Jordan for that excellent set of test images! Looks like the Z50/1.4 does what it is suppose to do at its price point.
As a side note, it seems like something is up with the Z50/1.8S corner sharpness images. The F/1.8 image is sharper than the F/2.0 image, which it doesn't seem should be the case. Almost looks like slight focus error on the F/2.0 or motion blur, but if it is just a different crop of the same center images then that doesn't seem to make much sense either!
kwalsh wrote:
Thanks a bunch Jordan for that excellent set of test images! Looks like the Z50/1.4 does what it is suppose to do at its price point.
As a side note, it seems like something is up with the Z50/1.8S corner sharpness images. The F/1.8 image is sharper than the F/2.0 image, which it doesn't seem should be the case. Almost looks like slight focus error on the F/2.0 or motion blur, but if it is just a different crop of the same center images then that doesn't seem to make much sense either!
I do see that and it is an issue with that crop image. I took refocused corner images at f/2 and wider to eliminate the possibility I was very slightly out of square tot he target. However, the other f/2 image shows essentially identical performance to the f/1.8 crop.
Jman13 wrote:
I do see that and it is an issue with that crop image. I took refocused corner images at f/2 and wider to eliminate the possibility I was very slightly out of square tot he target. However, the other f/2 image shows essentially identical performance to the f/1.8 crop.
Ah, I see! Thanks for the details. So for the wide aperture shots we aren't really seeing any field curvature effects here then. (Which isn't meant as a criticism, just an observation of the conditions of the test).
Again, thanks for taking all the time to do this and share the results!
No...basically no field curvature from any of the lenses. I also have updated the post with the second image at f/2 for the 50/1.8, so you can see directly.
Some other test shots around my office on the Zf with the 50/1.4. It seems to be a nice little lens.
Truck at f/1.4 - taken mainly for bokeh at the corners with foliage/sky mix - does OK, but a little bit of roughness (WAY better than the 35): https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/n50_ram14.jpg
And the same truck at f/2.0 (sorry I didn't watch my metering here and blew some detail on the hood...it was raining and I didn't want to be outside for long). Note here again the bokeh smooths out a bit. https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/n50_ram20.jpg
So, at equal apertures it compares very favorably in rendering to the 50/1.8S, though the latter is sharper over most of the frame....but this little 50/1.4 does a very nice job.
So, I also decided (before I broke things down) to see how the 50/1.4 stacked up against my F-mount 50mm f/1.8G. I don't have the 50/1.4G, but the 50/1.8G is a somewhat known quantity - and from what I've seen, it's generally better than the 50mm f/1.4G. As you'll see below, the new Z 50/1.4 is quite a bit better than the 50/1.8G (and therefore likely a very big step up from the 50/1.4G).
Still haven't gotten a chance to really stretch this lens' legs...just been busy at home and work. Stopped by the little bridge I tested the 35/1.4 at again, as it's a good torture test for bokeh. Overall, I really like what I'm seeing from this lens. Wide open, the edge bokeh can get a little rough as has been shown before, but it's not ever too bad. However, stopping down a little takes that edge off if desired, which is really nice to have in the kit. Overall, I'm very surprised at the sharpness. Obviously, it's not as good as an ultra-corrected high end modern optic, but it is significantly better than most 50mm lenses from the DSLR era, and is definitely showing fairly good resolution, even on a 45MP sensor, from wide open, and stopped down it's excellent. Overall, I'm really pleased with this lens..significantly moreso than I was with the 35/1.4, and I think it's really a great lens to have in the lineup. I prefer it to the f/1.8 S, despite the latter being a little sharper at f/1.8.
Just received my copy and going through initial evaluations. Very happy with bokeh/sharpness ratio and balance. Not going to quite match the stellar 50 1.8 at 1.8 but for the people photography user case I think this lens will work better. I plan on keeping this lens and it will live on my Zf as a general run and gun lens. If I was shooting landscapes I would have stayed with the 50 1.8S. The 50 1.2 is obviously the superior lens if you want maximum sharpness and bokeh at the same time. The 50 1.8S is resolution centric whereas the 50 1.4 brings in better bokeh at the slight expense of resolution (but very slight). The trade off is a good one here as I see it. But I still maintain that for inanimate objects, the 50 1.8S is the lens to own. On a Zf, the new lens looks like it will work very nicely for general street and portrait as it was intended. Mission accomplished.
This thread kind of talked me out of the 1.4. Having the 1.8S forever and the 40 f/2, I’m not sure it adds much to my bag other than unnecessary choices.
The 35 f/1.4 behaved a lot like the 40mm in some tests here, I am wondering if the 50mm will as well (in terms of sharpness and rendering).
If I had nothing and was starting from scratch, I’m not sure which 50 I’d go with 🤔.
BSPhotog wrote:
This thread kind of talked me out of the 1.4. Having the 1.8S forever and the 40 f/2, I’m not sure it adds much to my bag other than unnecessary choices.
The 35 f/1.4 behaved a lot like the 40mm in some tests here, I am wondering if the 50mm will as well (in terms of sharpness and rendering).
If I had nothing and was starting from scratch, I’m not sure which 50 I’d go with 🤔.
IMO the 50/1.4 is a superior lens to the 40/2, with a smoother overall rendering and it is a bit sharper as well. But yeah, if you don’t need the extra speed, and you already have the 50/1.8S I’m not sure it adds that much.
Jman13 wrote:
IMO the 50/1.4 is a superior lens to the 40/2, with a smoother overall rendering and it is a bit sharper as well. But yeah, if you don’t need the extra speed, and you already have the 50/1.8S I’m not sure it adds that much.
Yep, the 40/2's differentiating feature is being a lightweight muffin. You can toss it in anything, including a pocket, with little thought and any optical flaws are easily written off as the trade for compactness (and certainly cost as well on the used/refurb/sale market).
The 50/1.4 is definitely a different beast than the 40/2 as it is bigger, more expensive, and of course optically superior if not necessarily "perfect" or "clinical" either.
I think you own the 50/1.8S or the 50/1.4 but probably not both. But I think the 40/2 could live next to either of them just based on the size advantage, though perhaps it brings some extra difference in rendering to the 50/1.8S owner that's less notable to the 50/1.4 owner.
I'm sort of thinking that owning the 50/1.4, 40/2 and CV 50/2 could all have utility to single person who really likes working around this FoV. I actually have both the CV 40/1.2 and the 40/2 and I'm not about to sell either one...
Lastly, for those who like a bargain above all else, the 50/1.8S is still just such a smoking deal for its performance. I get the sense that in many cases though people are kind of letting the tail wag the dog as there seem to be a lot of folks that don't really love the 50/1.8S but almost grudgingly own it because it "makes sense". To be fair, I'm probably part of that population.
