 |
|
|
vitalishe
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 22, 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 450
|
|
Review Date: Feb 12, 2016
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $220.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, solid build, sharp at f2 and smaller, fast AF, well controlled flare for an older design
|
|
Cons:
|
inconsistent AF (at wide apertures), quite soft wide open
|
|
|
This is a very pleasant lens to use. I used to have a newer 50mm 1.8G and did not particularly enjoy it on my FF bodies. It could have been psychological - the difference in light gathering between 24-70 f/2.8 and 1.8G is roughly a stop. The difference between 24-70 f/2.8 and 1.4 is two full stops. This is substantial. You just know that if you need to get more light you can.
The size of the lens is also appreciably smaller than 1.8G. It focuses at least as fast or faster. Around f/2 1.4D overexposes by 1/2-2/3 of a stop when compared to 1.8G. It seams that the aperture opens wider than it supposed to, as out of focus highlights look significantly larger (more blurred) than on 1.8G.
Wide open AF was inconsistent (shooting from a tripod) sometimes focusing a bit closer or a bit further. So when I shoot wide open I try to double number of shots to compensate for possible AF inconsistencies.
In general, in low light I prefer to use this lens between f/2 and f/2.8 where it AF reliably and is very sharp. Kepp in mind that at f/2 setting this lens already collects more light than 1.8G wide open. The f/1.4 setting is for situations where I need to catch every photon there is in the room, but I have to negotiate with AF.
|
|
 Feb 12, 2016
|
|
vitalishe
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 22, 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 450
|
|
Review Date: Aug 26, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very compact, light gathering, fast AF, AF can be fine-tuned manually
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft wide open
|
|
|
I switched to this lens from 50mm 1.8G. Although the G lens may have been sharper it did not have enough differences with some of my f/2.8 zooms (35-70, 24-70).
This lens on the other hand has much more compared to those f/2.8 zooms:
- faster by 2 spots vs 1
- quite a bit smaller than 1.8g
- at f/2 it is almost half a stop brighter than 1.8g is. Go figure why.
And it costs almost as much as 1.8g.I live this lens. At times I wish it was sharper wide open though.
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2015
|
|
esquire1954
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 23, 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 275
|
|
Review Date: Jul 31, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $232.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
A all around great lens, good bokeh, very sharp stopped down the 2.2
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2015
|
|
Mark K
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2003
Location: China
Posts: 823
|
|
Review Date: Jul 15, 2013
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $249.99
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive, light weight, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
faint colour, less contrasty,
|
|
|
Having owned Minolta 50/1.7, 50/2.8 Sony 50/1.4, Canon 50/1.4, 50/2.5, I came to my own conclusion that all 50mm lenses are super buy with good quality and feather light weight.
After websurfing for months, I came to my own Nikon 50. This one came to me as surprises. The first was its price. The second was its build quality and the last was its optical quality.
It is not sharp unless you step down to f4.0. Unlike Sony/Canon counterparts, the colour is very faint and contrast very low. I suspect this must be the same in all the D lenses I have....from 20/2.8, 85/1.8, 85/1.4 to 105/2.8 macro.
I have to admit digital cameras have bought us new challenges in lens quality and only a few legend can survive. Obviously this one is not
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2013
|
|
Oskar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 16, 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 25, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light fast sharp cheep
|
|
Cons:
|
There are none
|
|
|
The most underrated lens on the market , blows most so called fast lens out of the water one of the few lens I have that actually perform across all numbers , I have been able to get a sharp point at 1.4 unlike other lens that have to be set at 2.8 up to get anything sharp , why makers put such inaccurate claims is a joke why pay money for under f 2 ratings
When all you can get is a soft image , that aside why pay big money for a brag sized 50 to go with a 30 pocket vest when you can buy this gem for peanuts , stick it on a D3 or D800 and you have a lethal weapon .
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2012
|
|
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7895
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
again, like the other 50mm, it needs fine tuning in camera
|
|
One of my go to lenses of all time. I look shooting weddings in Pittsburgh with this lens. To view some images taken with it, check out my site. A lot of the images on the site were taken with it http://nbombichstudios.com
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2012
|
|
E.Kase
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great for low light
|
|
Cons:
|
Focusing will be a little bothersome if you're used to SW lens, not as fast and doesn't seem as accurate
|
|
|
This is a super sharp lens, esp from 2 up. Plenty good wide open though. It is great for portaits, I prefer it over any other. Focus is a drag compared to new silent motor lenses, but it does the job. Nikon 50's are great, and I prefer this to my 35 1.8 DX because of the extra speed and lack of distortion. They're cheap on the used market which is great. Build quality seems good, but these lenses seem like they could be sealed up better to keep from haze/fungus. But really, this is a great lens purely for its IQ.
|
|
|
Apr 7, 2012
|
|
wolfbreath
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 4, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great combo of speed and image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Requires AF fine tuning on newer high res Nikon bodies.
|
|
|
*Edited this review after 8 years of ownership.
I can and have used this lens for nearly all purposes; general photography, landscape, portraits, low light, etc. It almost does macro because you can focus so close to the subject.
In terms of sharp focus to shallow depth of field, it outperforms most other lenses. I can't believe how sharp and clear it is straight out of camera. It needs no processing. Out of all my lenses, I always come back to this one.
It especially performs in low light. Used it for astrophotography and the results were amazing thanks to the 1.4 aperture.
I would give almost a perfect score when factoring its capabilities at great price, save for one factor. The AF is a bit finicky. High res Nikon bodies vs sharp lens. AF fine tune is necessary. I found out with 2 copies of this lens on 2 different dslr bodies.
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2012
|
|
jessi74
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2011
|
|
Marc de Wit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF , sharp wide open , bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This lens is a musthave for each Nikon shooter.
Fast AF . Supercomfortable lightweight yet very allround especially on FF
Very nice bokeh
Fantastic sharpness starting at 2.0 but allready very good at 1.4
Out of 10 shots at 1.4 really 5 or 6 are keepers.
Compared to my very expensive 24-70mm I rate this little monster AAA+
Buying this lens will never end up in a disappointment , if it does then you probably have a bad one , just return it for another .
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2011
|
|
macvolkz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very light to carry, easy to use, my copy is sharp @ 1.4 (2.0 and above, very sharp)
|
|
Cons:
|
hunts a little in very low-light condition but not a problem
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2011
|
|
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: 1076
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 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 17, 2008
|
|
traveler
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4011
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
41
|
180900
|
Feb 12, 2016
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
85% of reviewers
|
$251.46
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.30
|
8.85
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
