| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2010 12:30:42 PM · #1 |
I'm looking into a quicker lens, and found a 'Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8' for $75. I do have a few questions though, what, if any, is the difference between:
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
---and---
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D
This also, works for Macros with a reverse coupler...right?
Pricing the lenses, $75 seems very reasonable...thoughts?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 12:58:38 PM · #2 |
D means it reports distance information to the camera for better flash exposures. I like the look of the older (non-D) lens better, and a lot of people have said that the D feature doesn't do much for them.
Since they are not G (gilded) lenses, they have a physical aperture ring. This means that in normal circumstances (lens mounted normally), you should be physically setting the aperture ring to its highest setting (22?) and locking it there, and controlling the real aperture through the camera settings the same way you would on a G lens.
It works well reversed, as you can actually set the aperture. This time, you set it manually using the ring... unfortunately, you'll be looking through that size aperture, so unless your subject is very brightly lit, the viewfinder image will be dark for apertures smaller than ~f/8. If you're using it reversed, I'd say keep it wide open, focus well, lock the focus (switch the A/M switch to A), change the aperture to get the right DOF, and THEN fire the shutter.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 13:05:49. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:15:49 PM · #3 |
| For the price the 1:8 D is an awesome lens, it is sharp and the focus is fast. Check out the photos on the equipment page for this lens and you will see a lot of people own it and the shots are impressive. New they are normally about 119.00 so be careful if someone is offering it at 75.00 new, just make sure you are dealing with a reputable company. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:22:00 PM · #4 |
I should add to the post above... make sure if it's new, you're getting one with a USA warranty. These will be marked on B&H as "USA." Also, make sure it's not "Gray Market"/"White Box." These were packaged with cameras as kit lenses and may have had warranties when they were bought with the cameras, but don't have the warranty now. Basically, you want the retail USA version brand new, in its own retail box. Oh, and when you get it, make sure you fill out your registration card within 30 days to get the 5-year warranty... otherwise it's just a 1 year warranty.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 13:24:00. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:29:04 PM · #5 |
That lens is about $125 US, and it's a personal taste thing. I hated it, had nothing but grief trying to get comfortable with it. A lot of people like 'em, but some of us just experienced frustration with it.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:32:22 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That lens is about $125 US, and it's a personal taste thing. I hated it, had nothing but grief trying to get comfortable with it. A lot of people like 'em, but some of us just experienced frustration with it. |
What?! My best shots were taken with this lens. Back when I had my film SLR... |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:37:53 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That lens is about $125 US, and it's a personal taste thing. I hated it, had nothing but grief trying to get comfortable with it. A lot of people like 'em, but some of us just experienced frustration with it. |
Originally posted by George:
What?! My best shots were taken with this lens. Back when I had my film SLR... |
Okay, you're one of the people that likes the lens.
Just my opinion....my suggestion would be to rent or borrow one before buying.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 01:56:43 PM · #8 |
I have no relationship with my 50mm 1.8. A lot of people swear by them but I've never been able to click with it (metaphorically). My other lenses are much sharper with better contrast etc. so, I'm always disappointed with the image quality by comparison.
For what I shoot, one would think the range is perfect but it always seems either too tele or not wide enough and never hits a balance that I like for walk around shooting.
It is inexpensive but I do think way overrated, as well but for $100 you can't really go wrong. Just an opinion.
 
Those are probably my best two taken with that lens but I can't say that I have taken many with it that I like.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 14:16:10. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:24:04 PM · #9 |
I have the 50mm 1.4, but seldom use it. It is a nice lens, though--sharp and very clean images, but the length is just a tad odd for crop factor cameras. On your d90, is it equivalent to 75mm, so it can work well for certain things, but as a walk around lens, not so much. As noted earlier, it was probably well suited to film slrs, with the full frame format.
It really comes down to how you would want to use it, and whether it would suit your needs enough at that price. I have a 199 dollar 35mm 1.8 lens that just sits in my bag (and not the bag I take everywhere--the "other" bag that sits on my floor all the time)--so it was an okay deal on an okay lens, sure--but since I never use it, that $200 coulda gone toward a lens or something else more routinely useful.
If you think you will make lots of use of a 50mm lens, I would suggest saving up a bit and getting the 50mm 1.4. It will serve you well, migrate with you to full frame cameras, etc. I'm not sure if the one you are considering is a DX style lens, which would not move with you to a D700 someday :-) Or am I imposing my dreams on you? :-)) |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:31:39 PM · #10 |
I have the Vivitar MF Macro 55mm 1:2:8 f/2.8 for Nikon, I use this for all my macro's...I love the lens it's a beauty to work with...super sharp and has a great 1:1 ratio as well...
I have the 50mm 1.4D I'm getting to know that lens, and I'm starting to like it for it's clarity and 5-12' range...though I haven't used it often, it would NOT work for macros very well at all as the ratio isn't the same..I think the closest I can get is about 4/5 feet, not sure..I can't do the "macro shots" that I'm used to doing with the Vivitar...that one is totally manual I will add...but it is my first choice out of the bag almost all the time...love that lens...(now if I add an extension tube to this it's pretty amazing)
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 14:33:58. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 02:42:16 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
I think the closest I can get is about 4/5 feet, not sure |
That's why you reverse it :) |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:30:25 PM · #12 |
If you get the D version, you can also use it with an "Ai" extension ring with the lever to operate the aperture, and have open aperture focusing. I don't know how metering will work with a D 90.
I have the manual Ai versions, both the 1.8 and 1.4. The 1.4 is my constant companion when shooting at night. I also like the manual 35 f2 Ai for low light.
Since you have the zoom, set it at 50mm and walk around shooting with it at 50 for a day, to see if you can be comfortable with zooming by moving in or out from the subject. If you can afford the extra for the 1.4, it's very worth it if you like to shoot low light and existing light.
I tend to agree with this real world review of the 1.8 by Bjorn Rorslett
Bjorn Rorslett lens reviews
Read the review criteria section at the top of the page first, then scroll to the links at the bottom. I have bought a lot of older Nikon glass, and so far his experiences seem to be right in line with what I have observed in practice with the lenses.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 15:38:36.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:36:22 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I have no relationship with my 50mm 1.8. A lot of people swear by them but I've never been able to click with it (metaphorically). My other lenses are much sharper with better contrast etc. so, I'm always disappointed with the image quality by comparison.
|
50 1.8D=~$120
Pawdrix's "other" lenses that are sharper and with better contrast.
85 1.4=$1200
70-200 2.8 VR=$1800
28-70 2.8=$1200 used on ebay
Of course Steve's lens collection will be sharper, but they cost over 10 times as much. If you can afford to spend over $1200 dollars on a lens, I would not recommend the 50 mm 1.8. However I moved from my kit lens to the 50 mm 1.8 and I learned a lot about using shallow DoF and being able to shoot in lower light situations. The difference you will see in shutterspeeds compared to your kit lens will be a great treat. i would recommend it. If you can get a copy for $75 you could re-sell it for the same price if you don't like it. My only other thought would be to walk around for a day at 50 mm and see how it feels to you. Then also try walking around at 35 mm and see how you like those images/field of view. Nikon's new 35 1.8 is roughly equivalent to 50 mm on an old film camera, which is where the nifty-50 really built its reputation. The 35 mm 1.8 is $200. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:42:10 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I have no relationship with my 50mm 1.8. A lot of people swear by them but I've never been able to click with it (metaphorically). My other lenses are much sharper with better contrast etc. so, I'm always disappointed with the image quality by comparison.
|
50 1.8D=~$120
Pawdrix's "other" lenses that are sharper and with better contrast.
85 1.4=$1200
70-200 2.8 VR=$1800
28-70 2.8=$1200 used on ebay
Of course Steve's lens collection will be sharper, but they cost over 10 times as much. If you can afford to spend over $1200 dollars on a lens, I would not recommend the 50 mm 1.8. However I moved from my kit lens to the 50 mm 1.8 and I learned a lot about using shallow DoF and being able to shoot in lower light situations. The difference you will see in shutterspeeds compared to your kit lens will be a great treat. i would recommend it. If you can get a copy for $75 you could re-sell it for the same price if you don't like it. My only other thought would be to walk around for a day at 50 mm and see how it feels to you. Then also try walking around at 35 mm and see how you like those images/field of view. Nikon's new 35 1.8 is roughly equivalent to 50 mm on an old film camera, which is where the nifty-50 really built its reputation. The 35 mm 1.8 is $200. |
That's really good advice: set at 50mm on your zoom and limit yourself to it for a while, same with 35mm. Nice idea, sir! |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 03:47:39 PM · #15 |
| Thanks for all the advice all, I'm much apprecitive of all the useful information. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 04:24:40 PM · #16 |
True, I did say "my other lenses" but the lens I was using at or around the time I bought the 50mm was the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. That lens served me better across the board rendering the 50...even with the f1.8 ability pretty limp.
I know a lot of people say the 50mm is a really really sharp lens but I've never gotten consistently sharp images with it. I do have a few but in general I'll stick with "I think it's overrated" statement. I tried gluing it onto my camera's both full frame and the ones with the 1.5x crop factor many times and I never could get cozy with it. In fact, I was willing to take a personal hit and admit that it was me being lame...operator error (?) but my last attempt to use it a few weeks back again fell short.
Between the inexpensive Tamron and my more expensive lenses which came later, it never made sense but still, it is a great lens for $100.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 16:47:36. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 05:06:21 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
True, I did say "my other lenses" but the lens I was using at or around the time I bought the 50mm was the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. That lens served me better across the board rendering the 50...even with the f1.8 ability pretty limp.
I know a lot of people say the 50mm is a really really sharp lens but I've never gotten consistently sharp images with it. I do have a few but in general I'll stick with "I think it's overrated" statement. I tried gluing it onto my camera's both full frame and the ones with the 1.5x crop factor many times and I never could get cozy with it.
Between the inexpensive Tamron and my more expensive lenses which came later, it never made sense. |
true, the 28-75 is an excellent alternative. Oddly enough I owned the 28-75 as a walkaround lens and didn't like the field of view. I tried using it for street photography and it always felt cramped and I felt like couldn't fit enough in the frame at 28 mm. So I sold it and eventually got the Tamron 17-50 mm. I will add that up until October of last year, I did not own a piece of decent glass that was longer than 50 mm. So perhaps I just got accustomed to the range. to each their own. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 05:12:17 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by George:
Originally posted by Ja-9:
I think the closest I can get is about 4/5 feet, not sure |
That's why you reverse it :) |
ya, but I don't have the mount to reverse it....YET...or am I still missing something here...(probably) and like  MelonMusketeer mentioned I do have the extension tube set... |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 09:13:32 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I know a lot of people say the 50mm is a really really sharp lens but I've never gotten consistently sharp images with it. I do have a few but in general I'll stick with "I think it's overrated" statement. I tried gluing it onto my camera's both full frame and the ones with the 1.5x crop factor many times and I never could get cozy with it. In fact, I was willing to take a personal hit and admit that it was me being lame...operator error (?) but my last attempt to use it a few weeks back again fell short. |
Yep.....that's my story, too. I bought it 'cause I kept hearing all these glowing testimonials, it's a "must-have", and that kind of thing, but I just couldn't get anything I was really happy with. I walked away from it a couple times, came back, just couldn't get to like it. It was one of the lenses I traded in on my 18-200 VR.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 09:36:33 PM · #20 |
| Personally, in terms of how the images turn out, I prefer the images from my E-Series MF 50mm 1.8 to the AF1.8 I have. There's something very different about the images that are produced by the E series in comparison. Then again, it's also MF but it's a lot more fun for that reason and I like the images more. My 85mm 1.8 gets way more time than the 50mm 1.8, same with the 24 2.8. Personally, I think the best thing about the 50mm1.8 is its size/weight, and if I think I might need that extra bit of aperture over the Tamron 28-75, I'll bring the AF50mm along in my pocket (it's that small). Versatility though, that Tamron is way better, not just because of its zoom but also due to focus distance and image quality. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 10:00:50 PM · #21 |
If you're using a 28-75mm on FX, you're going medium wide to a pretty short tele. There's not much of a wide effect at 28mm, and not much of a tele effect at 75mm... so you're really just using it to get closer or farther from your subject... but at those focal lengths, you really could just move back and forth with a prime instead. It's just being lazy in my opinion. Once you get past 100mm, you're either using it for a "tele effect" (however you'd describe that), or you actually do need something that long to get close enough. And at that point, you also need zooms, because moving closer or farther to change your composition may not be a choice at those subject distances.
Yes, I do use an 18-55mm (27-83mm equivalent)... but that's 'cause it's the kit lens and I can't afford anything else at the moment. I'll be switching to the 35/1.8G whenever I get some money.
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 22:03:45. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 10:14:54 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I know a lot of people say the 50mm is a really really sharp lens but I've never gotten consistently sharp images with it. |
i have no idea how this particular 50mm (F1.8) is at wide open. Usually faster primes are not so sharp wide open. If they are very sharp they cost a lot of money. The 50mm F1.8 in question may not be very sharp wide open where you might have tried.
When people say some lense is sharp, they might not be talking wide open. They might be talking about aperture say f2.8 or so. (Anyway using a fast prime stopped is defeating its purpose. ).
edited to add:
from this thread:
//www.testfreaks.com/lenses/nikon-50mm-f-1-8d-af-nikkor/
here is one of the posting.
"[...]. My primary purpose for this lens was low light exposures where I wanted to use it wide open at f/1.8. Unfortunately, at f/1.8, the images are soft. At f/4 and smaller however, the images are crisp and very contrasty. Closer to f/22, softness creeps in again."
Message edited by author 2010-02-19 22:18:12. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 11:55:14 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
from this thread:
//www.testfreaks.com/lenses/nikon-50mm-f-1-8d-af-nikkor/
here is one of the posting.
"[...]. My primary purpose for this lens was low light exposures where I wanted to use it wide open at f/1.8. Unfortunately, at f/1.8, the images are soft. At f/4 and smaller however, the images are crisp and very contrasty. Closer to f/22, softness creeps in again." |
At 2.8 it's good... sweet spot is from f/4 to f/11... then you get diffraction, which you'd get on any lens. |
|
|
|
02/20/2010 08:40:29 AM · #24 |
This is my favourite lens. I also have the 18-200 VR, but I feel constantly limited by the maximum aperture. I love shooting in low light with narrow DOF, and I do a lot of family portraiture, which this lens is great for (particularly on a DX body).
I know people say that it's a bit soft wide open, but to be honest, I don't really know what they are talking about. Not that I doubt their expertise, but I just don't know enough about what I'm looking at to see what they are talking about. I constantly achieve super sharp results with this lens at f1.8. Examples with a wide aperture from my portfolio are:
 at f2.2
 at f2.2
 at f3.2
and my very first submission ever (a bit embarrassing actually)  at f1.8
|
|
|
|
02/20/2010 03:53:56 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just my opinion....my suggestion would be to rent or borrow one before buying. |
It's $125 at B&H, with free shipping and a 5 year warranty (as long as you fill out the registration card). I'd say try it out, and if you don't like it, sell it within a couple weeks for $100 and it'll be like renting it for $25. It's not that big of a loss. |
|
