lukeiam wrote:
I appreciate this summary! Thanks for sharing...I'm someone who loves the 50 1.8S, but, yes, the slower lens can sometimes make it more difficult to isolate the subject from the background, as I easily did with my 50 ART years back for environmental portraits (a lens I'm considering getting again if this 50 1.4 doesn't do the job). Truthfully, I use pro mist a lot with the 50 1.8S because it's just too sharp, even wide open.
What would you compare this 50 1.4 too? You mention the 58...Maybe Sonnar lenses like the Sony 55 or even the ART?
I cannot say it compares directly to another lens but it does contain so many positive traits with no real serious faults. Frankly, the lack of a good 50 almost drove me out of Nikon at one point. I found the Art too heavy and had AF issues on the DSLRs that always bothered me. It also lacked microcontrast detail I like. It is a good lens though. I would say the new 50 1.4 is a interesting merge between the 50 1.4D and the 58 1.4G with the big difference is that it is sharp at 1.4, more than what was expected. The bokeh might not always be as smooth but it is quite good nevertheless. Honestly, for its size, weight, cost, AF ability etc, its the best 50 I have ever used (relatively speaking). Certainly the 50 1.2, 50 1.8S lenses are superior in certain ways but for best all around, the 50 1.4 is it. Nikons balance of considerations here is well done. It truly is the lens that I have been waiting for (well balanced) and truly makes me want to shoot pictures. I now pair this with a 24-70 F4 for a very compact duo that has a wide range of capability for general photography. Much preferred than a 24-70 2.8 zoom by itself. Frankly, I wondered if this was ever going to be possible.....satisfaction at this level.
Nikon now has 3 outstanding 50's in its portfolio, where a few years ago it had only mediocrity. It is remarkable to see how Nikon has progressed here in the past 3 years. And to think how many people had this company written off.....what a hoot.
Nope. As Philip posted they reduce internal reflections which can cause flare and general reduction of contrast, not to mention lowering the effective transmission of the lens. Lack of high performance coatings is why there were few zoom lenses in the past - they require so many elements that without very good coatings the lens would have very low contrast. A modern lens without high performance multi-coating is an unusual thing with obvious loss of contrast and flare, usually intentional for effect (like LensBaby stuff). A few niche manufacturers will offer a “SC” version of a lens using only single coatings to behave more like a lens from the 1960s.
Chromatic aberration is improved by using ED glasses for some of the lens elements. How many ED elements, and how fancy an ED glass is used, depends a lot on the particular design. Manufacturers have a bunch of different trade names for various fancy ED glasses, often with Super or Ultra or other marketing words in them. So you may see a different alphabet soup of letters, but usually D is at the end!
While a lens without mutli-coated elements is typically quite obviously low contrast and flare prone, a lens without ED elements can still have very good chromatic aberration performance. Generally, faster lenses, wide angle, and telephoto lenses benefit most from ED elements. A slower normal focal length lens can have very good chromatic aberration performance just using traditional crown and flint elements.
I bought it.
It'll be an occasional walk around and portrait lens.
Tough choice between it and the 1.8 but the little bit better flare response, little bit extra light gathering and less clinical sharpness will be appreciated, hopefully the bokeh doesn't annoy me too much.
Jman13 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Still shocked how insane that Z 50mm 1.8 S, as good as Sony's 1.2 GM and can be had for $400 in like-new condition. I also tested the Z 50mm 1.8 S vs Sony 50mm 1.4 GM adapted to my Z5 and the 50mm 1.8 S was sharper.
In terms of sharpness, CA control and lens contrast, we are seeing a convergence with very similar performance levels across many disparate lenses. It is happening because the ability to attain this elevated level is now within reach of many more lens designs, And the ability of the best lenses to open a gap on the merely very good lenses is much lower than it used to be.
People must start buying lenses on factors other than sharpness, which unfortunately reviews do not presently help you with, most are measurebators (ugly term but accurate). People *learning to see better* will be the outcome, now that the sharpness dragon has been slayed. I've been waiting for this for some time now.
Reviewers need to move with the times and understand that only side-by-side image compositions shot in the same light will enable this to happen. Otherwise they are little more than PR exercises.
Standardized real world compositions can be used, hopefully typical of what their users want to shoot, in both good light and harsh light (some lenses keep on performing in poor light, others do not).
It's easy to set reviews up so that viewers will be turned off (CA in trees is a favorite ploy), so fairness is very important. One of Arri's top cine experts says that spherical aberration and CA can never be entirely eliminated. You really need to see many reviews of, and images from a prospective lens, and be sure what YOU want to shoot with it. good luck to all of us.
As a long time Nikon user I was happy back in time with the 50/1.4D which on a DX sensor didn't show big flaws, once I got the bigger sensor the lens ended up collecting dust; the 50/1.4G never got good reviews and always been too expensive vs performance, the Sigma, as said above, huge and AF issues... at the end I got a 60G which is a very very very good lens but it's not what we look forward in a big aperture lens.
I was very lucky at getting the 58G, it's a very stunning lens, some may argue it's not sharp, field curvature, expensive, very expensive bla bla bla but it is a pleasure to shoot with and especially adapted on a Z body it raises the keepers rate to a higher magnitude.
Looking for a 50, with the idea of it being a small do it all lens (I can't really shoot anything wider than 50, it doesn't fit my brain), couldn't find anything and while on a trip I got the 50/1.8S, wow, it's beyond sharp, very well corrected, dunno how much of that is the lens and how much the camera's firmware but who cares, using it on a digital camera have to accept the compromises but results are amazing but when looking at the photographs I only see a very sharp and very corrected photograph, nothing else and as such I most often adapt the 58G, once in a while an old Contax 50/1.7 and still looking for a native Z mount with some character not being as big and expensive as a 300/2.8 so as much as I wish I could afford the 50/1.2S I will pass (have the 85/1.2S and as great of a lens it is I have a hard time deciding to take it for a stroll).
Thinking of a Voigltlander but as per MF I maybe keep the Contax or sell it and move onto the former, good to know that Nikon is back onto 50mm lenses with a variety of tastes to fit!
philip_pj wrote:
In terms of sharpness, CA control and lens contrast, we are seeing a convergence with very similar performance levels across many disparate lenses. It is happening because the ability to attain this elevated level is now within reach of many more lens designs, And the ability of the best lenses to open a gap on the merely very good lenses is much lower than it used to be.
People must start buying lenses on factors other than sharpness, which unfortunately reviews do not presently help you with, most are measurebators (ugly term but accurate). People *learning to see better* will be the outcome, now that the sharpness dragon has been slayed. I've been waiting for this for some time now.
Reviewers need to move with the times and understand that only side-by-side image compositions shot in the same light will enable this to happen. Otherwise they are little more than PR exercises.
Standardized real world compositions can be used, hopefully typical of what their users want to shoot, in both good light and harsh light (some lenses keep on performing in poor light, others do not).
It's easy to set reviews up so that viewers will be turned off (CA in trees is a favorite ploy), so fairness is very important. One of Arri's top cine experts says that spherical aberration and CA can never be entirely eliminated. You really need to see many reviews of, and images from a prospective lens, and be sure what YOU want to shoot with it. good luck to all of us....Show more →
Nice commentary....While we are at it, if we can standardize sensors used, words like character, clinical, 3D pop, painterly, transitions, etc we would really have it all. Personally, I am not on the super sharp band wagon any more and find my photographic vision falling on the photography as art side of the spectrum. To that point, similar to cameras being defined for sports vs landscapes vs street etc, so can lenses? The new 1.4s (50 and 35) in my opinion make great people lenses. If I am doing inanimate objects, the S line is just tremendous. One of the reasons why I stayed in Nikon was my perception that Nikon had an eye for human subjects, not just sports. Lenses like the 85 1.4D, Nikon 58 1.4G, Nikon 105 1.4 etc are great for people. But that is just my vision. YMMV.
Photographers see differently and need to understand better what they "want" out of their lenses. Its too clinical......no it lacks character.....its not sharp enough.... The 1.4s are jack lenses to be sure (jack of all, master of none) but I like that. With the 1.4s I have more creative control and options in a manageable form.
GiovanniAprea wrote:
As a long time Nikon user I was happy back in time with the 50/1.4D which on a DX sensor didn't show big flaws, once I got the bigger sensor the lens ended up collecting dust; the 50/1.4G never got good reviews and always been too expensive vs performance, the Sigma, as said above, huge and AF issues... at the end I got a 60G which is a very very very good lens but it's not what we look forward in a big aperture lens.
I was very lucky at getting the 58G, it's a very stunning lens, some may argue it's not sharp, field curvature, expensive, very expensive bla bla bla but it is a pleasure to shoot with and especially adapted on a Z body it raises the keepers rate to a higher magnitude.
Looking for a 50, with the idea of it being a small do it all lens (I can't really shoot anything wider than 50, it doesn't fit my brain), couldn't find anything and while on a trip I got the 50/1.8S, wow, it's beyond sharp, very well corrected, dunno how much of that is the lens and how much the camera's firmware but who cares, using it on a digital camera have to accept the compromises but results are amazing but when looking at the photographs I only see a very sharp and very corrected photograph, nothing else and as such I most often adapt the 58G, once in a while an old Contax 50/1.7 and still looking for a native Z mount with some character not being as big and expensive as a 300/2.8 so as much as I wish I could afford the 50/1.2S I will pass (have the 85/1.2S and as great of a lens it is I have a hard time deciding to take it for a stroll).
Thinking of a Voigltlander but as per MF I maybe keep the Contax or sell it and move onto the former, good to know that Nikon is back onto 50mm lenses with a variety of tastes to fit!...Show more →
Hey Gio....have you tried the 50 1.4 yet? I know we have similar tastes here. The 1.4 has replaced my 58 1.4G and 50 1.8 S as a best all around. Now to be clear, the 2 aforementioned lenses are superior to the 1.4 for what they offer. The 50 1.8s has strong subject pop with higher contrast and sharpness etc. The 58 1.4G can blur a background with outstanding color reproduction and wonderful transitions but can frequently leave you hanging on the subject detail unless you stop down and are at the right distance. (I know you are aware of all of this). I found the 50 1.4 to have the best distillation of these qualities into one lens that I have encountered to date. I am looking for maximum range here. I am not playing the decision game of should I pick this or pick that like its a tie. No, I am going to master that lens and accept its limitations. Think Alfred Eisenstadt here...... a great candid photographer who mastered his 50 F2 on a Leica. The 50 1.4 lens is just a humble Nikon but I am happy with it on a Zf.....
I did watch this video on YouTube a short while ago just for the sake of curiosity, back in time 50mm were the cheap lenses with simple design to accompany first camera, they have since then evolved and we ended up with glass in the 1.500+ range which is simply outrageous and this did good to third party makers not to mention that in Nikon we got stuck with the meh 50/1.4G.
To be honest the guy in the video seems more like a Nikon sponsored guy, the samples he shows don't say much about the lens.
I love the 58G and the lack of sharpness is probably either a myth or a comparison with the trendy ultrasharp lenses, I have no complains at all, actually once learnt its quirks, which I am not at yet, it is an amazing piece of glass, I wanted to shoot a seascape where optimal focal length to achieve best DoF was in the 50mm range, thought of using the 60G Macro believing it would be much sharper but the number on PhotoZone actually give more credit to the 58G than to the 60G and even wide open I haven't seen yet an flaw in the lens, if there is, and there sure are, they are my flaws.
I don't think the 50/1.4Z makes sense if one already owns the f1.8S, size wise no much of a difference, rendering I can't tell, only attractiveness being the price if one doesn't already own another similar focal length.
I wanna anyway see one in a store as to maybe take some sample shots, I am about to travel and rather than taking the 50S with me I'd bring the 58G with the FTZ along with 24-120, 14-24 and very much probably a MF Contax Planar 100/2, I know I will be too heave and leave something behind but I hope to have the chance to give the 58G good use and not regret having the 50S with me which, as much as I like it as a general purpose lens, doesn't really excite me nor on the rendering nor on size.
I did watch this video on YouTube a short while ago just for the sake of curiosity, back in time 50mm were the cheap lenses with simple design to accompany first camera, they have since then evolved and we ended up with glass in the 1.500+ range which is simply outrageous and this did good to third party makers not to mention that in Nikon we got stuck with the meh 50/1.4G.
To be honest the guy in the video seems more like a Nikon sponsored guy, the samples he shows don't say much about the lens.
I love the 58G and the lack of sharpness is probably either a myth or a comparison with the trendy ultrasharp lenses, I have no complains at all, actually once learnt its quirks, which I am not at yet, it is an amazing piece of glass, I wanted to shoot a seascape where optimal focal length to achieve best DoF was in the 50mm range, thought of using the 60G Macro believing it would be much sharper but the number on PhotoZone actually give more credit to the 58G than to the 60G and even wide open I haven't seen yet an flaw in the lens, if there is, and there sure are, they are my flaws.
I don't think the 50/1.4Z makes sense if one already owns the f1.8S, size wise no much of a difference, rendering I can't tell, only attractiveness being the price if one doesn't already own another similar focal length.
I wanna anyway see one in a store as to maybe take some sample shots, I am about to travel and rather than taking the 50S with me I'd bring the 58G with the FTZ along with 24-120, 14-24 and very much probably a MF Contax Planar 100/2, I know I will be too heave and leave something behind but I hope to have the chance to give the 58G good use and not regret having the 50S with me which, as much as I like it as a general purpose lens, doesn't really excite me nor on the rendering nor on size.
Well I understand the commentary about Bobby but I just happen to agree with his points and I am not a schill for Nikon I can assure you. The extra 2/3 stop can be very nice. But no doubt the 50 1.8 is fantastic. I have owned 3 copies. I just like the looks I am getting on the 50 1.4. I just want to simplify my life and I found that lens to be a good all around solution. But thats me. Anyway, its nice to have choices. BTW, how does your 60 G look on your Z6II? I always thought the rendering of that lens made 'classic" portraits. More stunning in some cases than the 58 1.4.
He is always out and about so it's a demo of how to engage people in the street as well for newcomers to it. (I'm a little different, but I'm in non-English places, Tibet and India.) He covers a lot of ground and he does it fast and snappy, and with a solid background.
I don't think that is a controversial view, just look at his work. He uses a lot of left of center lenses - my kind of lenses - that are out of the mainstream. AF and MF both. It sure beats some guy sitting at his desk giving his take, like 'trust me bro'.
On the terminology, it's some indication of how far we have to go. Some is unavoidable so images really help to demo your take. I've been looking into the cine world, they are so far in advance of stills it's not funny, more of a parallel universe.
I think they way out is to combine known terms for aspects of images with clear phrasing. Not easy. Stills photography is full of half truths or blatant untruths. Like DOF formulas when DOF is determined by many factors and is really a perceptual quality. Did you know the level of correction of spherical aberration (known often as SA) has a big effect on DOF? I'll end with a link to a great article everyone should read or at least scan, from an Arri cinematographer and lens specialist. (I'm interested in the new Simera-C lenses which have appeared in E-mount, hence the research):
"It’s difficult to describe the look of a lens from scratch without using words that often have multiple meanings. For example, I once asked three cinematographers to define the word “creamy.” One said it referred to the quality of skin reproduction. The next said it referred to the quality of bokeh. And the last said it referred to the quality of a specular flare. Clearly words were not going to be enough. I set out to gather images."
"They are older lenses that likely contain some leaded glass elements. Leaded glass solves a lot of chromatic aberration issues while remaining neutral in color. It is a key glass component in vintage lenses.." The Angry Photographer was not wrong.
I'd like to test the new f1.4 50Z might be a pleasant surprise, seems just to good to be real for the price given how accustomed we became with prices well over 700-800 for a premium 50 when they used to be among the cheapest glasses back in time.
I don't have much shot with the 60G, never really used it a lot, keeping because it is anyway a stunning lens and because some day I wanna buy the adapter to scan film with the D850 and the 60G Macro.
Here a sample on the D800, can't really tell about the out of focus qualities of the lens, for sure at f2.8 can't perform like an f1.8 but when blurred background is not a priority it does well especially on male portraiture.
I picked up a used copy to try out. From the back of the screen reviewing photos zoomed in, the sharpness and contrast in crap I door lighting wide open at MFD is appalling compared to the 1.8S. I plan to keep it around and test it in some different circumstances as this particular extreme is not representative of overall performance.
So far, it reminds me of the F mount 50mm D/G lenses. Not exactly a compliment as I didn’t enjoy any of those lenses—but I’m withholding judgement until I can give this lens a fair shake.
Yeah at MFD it’s fairly soft wide open. Much better once you get to more normal portrait / environmental differences. It’s quite a bit sharper than the 50/1.8G.
Below are some of my initial tests indoors with the 1.4 when it arrived. You can see the detail up close is night and day from the 1.8S wide open, viewed 1:1 or even full size. I've got a couple of other shots from the 1.4 added here as well. Need to spend more time with this lens before if I decide if I keep it around or catch and release.
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S lens50mmf/1.81/60s500 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.4 lens50mmf/1.41/60s500 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.4 lens50mmf/1.41/60s500 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.4 lens50mmf/1.41/400s500 ISO0.0 EV
BSPhotog wrote:
Below are some of my initial tests indoors with the 1.4 when it arrived. You can see the detail up close is night and day from the 1.8S wide open, viewed 1:1 or even full size. I've got a couple of other shots from the 1.4 added here as well. Need to spend more time with this lens before if I decide if I keep it around or catch and release.
You can over analyze a lens by studying the nuances between the comparisons of a 100-200% crop of a crinkled streamer hanging down a balloon, or you can appreciate the rendering quality of the charming portrait like your last image.
craigjohn wrote:
You can over analyze a lens by studying the nuances between the comparisons of a 100-200% crop of a crinkled streamer hanging down a balloon, or you can appreciate the rendering quality of the charming portrait like your last image.
The balloon image? Meh. The portrait just sings.
I agree in-as-much as the lens needs to be judged in actual use. The 1.8s is very predictable and consistent, so knowing how and when the 1.4 is going to perform differently can be an important deciding factor. I haven’t set a timeline but I plan to keep it for at least a month before really evaluating the results.
