edwardkaraa wrote:
I wasn't very impressed with my own copy of the ZE 50. This said I looked at several tests on the linked site and they don't seem to make any sens.
I hate when things don't make sens.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I wasn't very impressed with my own copy of the ZE 50. This said I looked at several tests on the linked site and they don't seem to make any sens.
Interestingly, in the "blur" test, it suggests that the Nikon is virtually as sharp at f1.4 and f2.0 as it is over the rest of the aperture range, and doesn't suffer from diffraction even at f16 on a D3x -- and the corners are as good as the center at all apertures! Amazing!! ;-)
Even the Nikon MTF's don't suggest wide open or corner performance anywhere near that http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/normal/af-s_50mmf_14g/img/pic_002.gif
I looked at a few other tests as well, and the results are weird to say the least According to them, my Zeiss/Sony 24-70 is a crappy lens. Maybe I should get rid of it
Lotusm50 wrote:
Interestingly, in the "blur" test, it suggests that the Nikon is virtually as sharp at f1.4 and f2.0 as it is over the rest of the aperture range, and doesn't suffer from diffraction even at f16 on a D3x -- and the corners are as good as the center at all apertures! Amazing!! ;-)
Even the Nikon MTF's don't suggest wide open or corner performance anywhere near that http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/normal/af-s_50mmf_14g/img/pic_002.gif
Sometimes opinions may be more useful than lab tests. The opinion on the Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-S is that it is a good lens, but not as wonderful as the site makes it to be.
I considered the ZF 50mm f1.4 (so that I could use it on Nikon and Canon with an adapter). Based on results and comparisons between the store copy that was avaialble to me and what I saw the Sigma 50mm f1.4 was capable of, and of course the new Nikon 50mm AF-S, I ended up getting the Sigma 50mm f1.4. The Nikon samples I tried out did not perform as well as the Sigma did - which was a bit surprising. The Sigma meets my needs for the best results at f1.4 and f2.0 aperture.
That said, i was very impressed with what the ZF 50mm f2.0 Macro was able to render. I would choose it over the ZE/ZF 50mm f1.4.
Best test to me is rent the lens. Lensrentals.com has them. Not that expensive, and who better to inform you, some MTF chart (or worse, those at the original link) or your own eyes and hands?
I liked a lot of how the 1.4/85 ZE performed, but it was not impressive at close distances. From about 5-8 feet out and beyond, it was very nice. Closer...not so much. My ultimate conclusion from hands on with that lens and comments from others here is that the C/Y 85 performs better. The difference in price between those two is a lot to pay for auto aperture on a - slightly - softer lens.
Jim
pascal03 wrote:
Sometimes opinions may be more useful than lab tests. The opinion on the Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-S is that it is a good lens, but not as wonderful as the site makes it to be.
I considered the ZF 50mm f1.4 (so that I could use it on Nikon and Canon with an adapter). Based on results and comparisons between the store copy that was avaialble to me and what I saw the Sigma 50mm f1.4 was capable of, and of course the new Nikon 50mm AF-S, I ended up getting the Sigma 50mm f1.4. The Nikon samples I tried out did not perform as well as the Sigma did - which was a bit surprising. The Sigma meets my needs for the best results at f1.4 and f2.0 aperture.
That said, i was very impressed with what the ZF 50mm f2.0 Macro was able to render. I would choose it over the ZE/ZF 50mm f1.4. ...Show more →
I shoot canon and I'd prefer ZE. There's no ZE 50mm Makro
I use ZE 50mm, ZE 85mm, 35L and 135L, and my brother shoots a D300 with the Nikkor 50mm G. From thousands of shots with these lenses, and based on my copies, the ZE 50mm is a fantastic lens. I use it primarily for landscape and cityscape, not for close-up, wide open portraits.
Here are 2 shots from Venice which show why I love its rendering:
pascal03 wrote:
Sometimes opinions may be more useful than lab tests. The opinion on the Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-S is that it is a good lens, but not as wonderful as the site makes it to be.
I considered the ZF 50mm f1.4 (so that I could use it on Nikon and Canon with an adapter). Based on results and comparisons between the store copy that was avaialble to me and what I saw the Sigma 50mm f1.4 was capable of, and of course the new Nikon 50mm AF-S, I ended up getting the Sigma 50mm f1.4. The Nikon samples I tried out did not perform as well as the Sigma did - which was a bit surprising. The Sigma meets my needs for the best results at f1.4 and f2.0 aperture.
That said, i was very impressed with what the ZF 50mm f2.0 Macro was able to render. I would choose it over the ZE/ZF 50mm f1.4. ...Show more →
Not very surprising that the conventional Nikkor design did not perform as well as the Aspherical Sigma design. The aspherical element and larger front elements are the key to the Sigma's better vignetting and edge performance.
The ZF 50/1.4's not the Sigma, but it is better than the 50G, especially for centre sharpness in the f4-5.6 range. Unsurprisingly it fits right in between the Sigma and the 50G in price.
The 50G is a very nice upgrade over the mediocre older Nikon 50/1.4 design, which was extremely long in the tooth (it hadn't had an optical update since the 1970's and the basic design dated to the early 60's), but the other f1.4 options available all outperform it to some extent.
The ZE 50/1.4 that I tried was not impressive in my opinion. Bokeh was much improved over the C/Y 50s, but it bloomed massively and wasn't particularly sharp wide open.
mawz wrote:
Not very surprising that the conventional Nikkor design did not perform as well as the Aspherical Sigma design. The aspherical element and larger front elements are the key to the Sigma's better vignetting and edge performance.
The ZF 50/1.4's not the Sigma, but it is better than the 50G, especially for centre sharpness in the f4-5.6 range. Unsurprisingly it fits right in between the Sigma and the 50G in price.
The 50G is a very nice upgrade over the mediocre older Nikon 50/1.4 design, which was extremely long in the tooth (it hadn't had an optical update since the 1970's and the basic design dated to the early 60's), but the other f1.4 options available all outperform it to some extent....Show more →
I have the Sigma. While it's very good at short distances and wide open (1.4-2.0 or so), I'm don't think it'd be able to beat a classical design lens f4.0-8.0 at long distances. I guess I should try the Zeiss and compare.
Judging from the photo samples I've seen so far, I would agree that this lens seems to be designed for close range wide open shooting.
trajan wrote:
I have the Sigma. While it's very good at short distances and wide open (1.4-2.0 or so), I'm don't think it'd be able to beat a classical design lens f4.0-8.0 at long distances. I guess I should try the Zeiss and compare.
Even though I am an engineer, all those technical reports do nothing for me. If I use a lens and it gives me images that look great and pass my own inspection at 100 & 200%, then I'm happy. The world is awash in endless technobabble.
According to them, my Zeiss/Sony 24-70 is a crappy lens. Maybe I should get rid of it 
