< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

New sample images taken with the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G lens

Pin It

In addition to the official samples provided by Nikon France (above), here are few more photographs taken with the new Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8G lens by flickr member Phantomas:

Update: all images were removed from flickr shortly after this post went online (???) Sorry, out of my control.

Update#2: some more sample images can be found here.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Gederts

    Nice

    • tere

      I think images from this lens looks much better than the 1.8D and 1.2AIS that I have.

  • broxibear

    So no new images on Deborah Sandidge’s site using the f1.8… I wonder how many times she said sorry when she phoned the Nikon press office last week lol ?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      I know, I checked her site few times since the announcement and she did not put back those images.

  • Gabe

    The bokeh looks awful :S not even close to pleasant :(
    (for ex.: the picture with the dog)

    • Trevor

      I don’t mean this as criticism, only a request for edification. While I’m sure it’s dependent on the viewer, what typically counts as pleasing bokeh or not pleasing? I’ve never been able to tell a difference.

      I’ve read some things about rings around circles and that reflex lenses leave donut circles that are harsh, but it typically looks fine to me.

      If it’s just personal taste, that’s fine. I’m really just curious. Thanks in advance!

      • John M

        Good bokeh should have a creamy appearance and no distracting rings.

        That being said, what matters most is how the image looks. Even a lens that produces bad bokeh in general can produce a creamy background under the right circumstances.

        • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com/ Slow Gin

          I hate creamy bokeh because this is just boring and oversimplifies photograph by cutting object in focus from background. Like when blurred objects are revealing theirselves in some nervous way and also love when light spots have lemon-ish look.

          • broxibear

            Hi Slow Gin,
            Couldn’t agree more.
            Too many people get hung up on bokeh as if it’s the only reason you would take images.
            File it under “internet forum crap” along with MTF charts, 100% crops and more mega pixels.

            • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com/ Slow Gin

              Hi, broxibear! To be honest, I am hung up on bokeh too. It can be somewhat strange, but I do placing high on active, exaggerated blur character. Bokeh is not just the characteristic of a lens, but a very serious and powerful artistic tool, which can and must work on ‘breed’ of picture, on connotation of the scene, it must be a course of the way in your story. Soft, creamy, Gaussian-way bokeh can be handy when you shoot children or tender women but there’s no way in any other situation.

              Boring bokeh is the case i will quit on Nikon optics after purchasing AF-S 50 mm 1.8G. Good morning, Carl Zeiss!

            • broxibear

              Hi Slow Gin,
              Admiting you have a problem is the first step to recovery lol. But seriously, each to their own.
              Bokeh is something that doesn’t enter my image taking process.

      • Steve

        Typically, we want to have blur circles that do not have harsh edges and blend well into the background and into each other. Bad bokeh typically refers to blur circles that do have harsh edges, and reflex lenses would be a prime example of harsh blur circles.

      • foo bar

        smooth blur with indistinguishable edges = nice,
        nervous looking blur with harsh edges = not nice.

        http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

        • Zograf

          Thanks for this link! I was looking for exactly this article for a long time. There are many discussions online about bokeh but this one is most “practically” revealing..

      • Trevor

        Thanks all!

        Foo bar, that link was great! I thought I never really cared, but some of the backgrounds in those images were really distracting.

      • Phil

        As foo bar says
        “smooth blur with indistinguishable edges = nice,
        nervous looking blur with harsh edges = not nice.”

        An example of good bokeh can be seen here, taken with a Samyang 85mm f1.4 wide open:
        http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/chloe_drum.jpg

        An example of bad bokeh can be seen here, taken with the new Nikkor 85mm f1.4 wide open:
        http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10548273-md.jpg

        Notice the shredded, banded-looking out of focus area on the new Nikkor versus the creamy smooth fade of edges in the Samyang.

        Yep, Nikon royally screwed up.

        • Bokuh

          Lesson #1: don’t judge bokeh by looking at the background made up of leafs. You will rarely get pleasant looking one. Too much mess as it is with too many highlight points in between.
          Anyone want to share a photo with a pleasant bokeh made out of leafs?

          • Phil

            Um, no. Look at any Nikkor 85 f1.4 image, and you’ll see the same bokeh.

            • Phil

              That’s for the NEW Nikkor only. It doesn’t apply to older Nikkor 85mm f1.4s

            • Bokuh

              Um, yes, I see leafs in the background. So, any examples of good bokeh with forest in the back?

            • Bokuh

              I mean, I have 85 1.4G and find bokeh quite pleasant, so to look at examples I just look at my own photos. However, it is a fact that busy background with such a mess of highlights will make any lens’ bokeh look unpleasant.

          • chad lawson

            ill have to agree. your comparing 2 photos with completely contrasting backgrounds. and also take into consideration of the distance of the background to pof . you want a true comparison, take the same picture mounted to a tripod, using the 2 different lens. and to add, to your post below, yeah the editing in both is not the greatest, plus lighting is horrible. oyu want a true comparison, or a “scientific” comparison, do it in a controlled environment with controlled lighting, ect… personally, i prefer the 50 1.8 to either, and at a fraction of the cost, weight, and just as sharp with great bokeh. and yes i do have a nikkor 85 1.4…

        • Ronan

          Phil like always you are absolutely clueless :D

          • Phil

            Well, have a look at these Nikkor images with no forest in the background and you’ll still see the same shredded, banded bokeh, such as in the items to the right of the person inthe bacjground:
            http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/DSC_1402.jpg

            Or in the general background here:
            http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/DSC_1393.jpg

            This issue is studied quite well in this review:
            http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/nikkor_zeiss_85mm_f14/nikkor_zeiss_85mm_f14.shtml

            Make no mistake about it. Nikon did make their new 85mm f1.4 lens sharper at the critical point of focus, at the expense of the main reason why you buy a lens like this in the first place, bokeh.

            • Bokuh

              Well, since you’re an expert than why don’t you look a little closer and see that the images have been altered. The background doesn’t look like bad bokeh, the background actually looks horrible… because it’s pixelated! Just look closely, I see pixels the size of my mouse pointer. Great editing job :)

            • Bokuh

              It actually looks like someone was purposefully messing around to make it look bad, maybe they’ll convince some dumbos that are purposefully looking for flaws, but anyone that will take 3 seconds to look closer will see what’s been done there. Great examples!

            • Phil

              Hey, it’s cool. You’re free to live in denial.

            • Bokuh

              Nice comeback. I think it’s quite obvious who’s in denial, or blind, or more accurately, who has some grudge and makes baseless comments and posts obviously wrong photos as evidence. I feel sorry for you, so angry… at a brand :)

            • Phil

              Sure.

  • http://www.chriswrightphotography.com Photographer Dundee

    I have to agree with Gabe somewhat. Not hugely impressed but it is only a small collection.

  • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com/ Slow Gin

    Wish to see more samples.

  • Fredrik

    Flickr says “Oops! You don’t have permission to view this photo.”

    • hexx

      same here

    • http://petrklapper.com Petr Klapper

      Anyone saved hi-res samples ?

      • iamlucky13

        Even if so, they should respect the copyright holder’s apparent wishes (and legal right) to keep the images to their self.

        I’d love to see them, but the rights of the original photographer are more important than my desire to see samples from the lens a couple hours before some other person who cares less about holding their own copyrights closely posts another set elsewhere.

  • http://www.stanley-goodspeed.com Manuel

    Now the pictures are private.

  • Fargo911

    Maybe it is just be, but it looks like there is noticeable falloff in the corners, more than I would like. We’ll have to wait to see some more samples once they come out.

    • Steve

      I am guessing Adobe would make a profile for this lens quite soon, so falloff would be a relatively minor problem for LR users like me : )

    • EAJ

      No, not just you : )

    • http://LeicaGlow.com Axel

      My jaw didn’t exactly drop when I saw these images. The build of the lens looks beautiful, but I very much enjoy my D version. And despite its lower quality build, it keeps shooting and shooting. I thought it would be done by now.

      As for comparing the 85mm f/1.4, that’s not a fair fight, if not for the focal length itself.

  • http://www.ricardogisinger.com.ar Ricardo Gisinger

    “Oops! You don’t have permission to view this photo.” :-(

  • http://www.timelesscapturesphotography.com Lucas G

    oh geez, can’t see them.

  • Vlad

    Holy negative Nancys. You expect perfection from a successor of the plastic-fantastic 50/1.8D, a lens for around $200? Sure it ain’t perfect, but it looks sharp and if you want perfectly pleasant bokeh and no light falloff in the corners, there are expensive alternatives.

    You get what you pay for, this looks like a solid new entry level lens to me.

  • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

    I guess they (he) took the images offline. What’s the big deal? Maybe this was a pre-production version fo the lens and Nikon did not give their approval to publish the images online.

    • Darkness

      Doh.

  • Julien M.

    There’s a test here with sample images on a French website :

    http://www.nikonpassion.com/premier-test-du-nouveau-nikon-af-s-nikkor-50mm-f1-8g/

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      thanks, I added this link

  • Marc W.

    That user still has some samples up it seems.

    http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon50mm18afs/discuss/72157626469321021

    • Marc W.

      Crap, still private.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/KaceyJordan CTLG

    Wow, you guys are out there. I think these images look amazing considering this is a $200 plastic effing lens! Even at any price, these look really good.

    • Greg

      Take a look at the $130 50mm 1.8D and be equally amazed!

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/KaceyJordan CTLG

        Oh yes. I own 2 of them. When I want super sharp images with interesting bokeh, I pull out the 50 1.8D.

  • Mario

    Excelente Lente! Para mi Nikon D3100 esta de 10. Saludos Cordiales!

  • dan

    Is it just me or are these exactly the same photos as were taken last time Nikon released some new lens. Especially the one of that starfish and the path down to the beach.

  • JofK

    Damn – it seems that the bokeh highlights have rather ugly “cat-eye-shape” that gets worse near the borders of the image… The 85/3.5 Macro has same problem (or “feature” for the fanboys :) ).

    • Roger

      LOL

      every fast lens in existence has that

  • andy

    poor bokeh was the first thing that struck me too.
    Almost looks like a mirror lens!
    Looks OK on the nikon samples though so I guess we should wait for more samples to show up on the web to decide.

    Can’t really judge the resolution from these small pics but the contrast and micro contrast looks excellent wide open, in the borders too. Probably due to the aspheric element. That alone make this lens more desirable to me than the 1.4G. I’ve never seen such crisp looking images from a 50mm lens @ f1.8

  • andy

    I just found a brand new unopened 58mm hoya pro 1 digital filter in the back of my wardrobe. I can’t even remember what I got it for. Sweet, I’m definitely going to buy the lens now.

    • http://LeicaGlow.com Axel

      Probably a Canon.

  • Chris

    Hmm.. the bokeh doesn’t looks so great. The depth of field doesn’t even seem the shallow in the wide-open shots… which is surprising because in one the photos the background is actually quite far away. I hope these are just bad shots.

    • EAJ

      I missed where it mentions these are all taken wide open – the EXIF is scrubbed on Flickr. With regard to the DOF, you can’t fight physics – IIWIS. Bokeh is largely subjective and I don’t see why folks are complaining; to me it appears neutral and even pleasant. The only problem I notice is the significant falloff.

  • LOLCATmasterFTW!!!

    I´m dead serious whenI say that these tactics are done by a PR team, stunts to draw the public attraction without spending a dime on advertising. They have all rumors sites, forums, Nikon fan sites talking about them before they release it.

    This is called an “expectation campaign” and they do it every time a new product is launched be it a photo/spec/box shot “leak”.

    Ask anyone in PR :D. I know because I have worked with several PR firms :)!

    This is not something that happened by “chance” at all.

  • http://LeicaGlow.com Axel

    I’m concerned about the light falloff at the corners. My D version doesn’t look that bad wide open on my D700.

  • ukj

    love to see some samples on a D7000

  • PM

    Amazon just gave me an delivery estimate.
    and it May 17, 2011 – June 15, 2011.

    WOO HOO CAN’T WAIT!

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/KaceyJordan CTLG

    I just pre-ordered mine on Adorama last night, no estimated date was given. B&H isnt even allowing pre-ordered, as of last night.

  • Viktor

    I have got my new Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G lens yesterday, for 205 EUR, see http://www.alza.sk/nikkor-50mm-f1-8g-af-s-d236339.htm

    I hope that some sample images could be useful (D7000 & AF-S 50mm f/1.8G lens). However, sorry for the low-level quality:
    https://picasaweb.google.com/Witkovsky/2011_05_20TestNikonD7000AFS50mmF18G#

  • Back to top