The Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G lens is already available for sale in Slovakia and a [NR] reader posted some sample photos online. You can use Picasa's zoom feature for each photo for pixel picking. The lens is expected to ship on June 2nd (June 16th in the US?).
Thanks Viktor!
Related posts:
78 Comments
Looks promising!
By the way: First.
Finally there’s something sooner also by us, i’ll go and buy this
I can’t believe yet…
bokeh not that great at all
I’ll probably opt for the 1.4 sigma :-\
agree with your bokeh judge, but sigma f1,4 doesn’t get good enough IQ on image border for me thus no way for indoor group photo for me… even thought that bokeh stopped me to think of yet, but what can we await from 7blade lens of that price? i’m between nikkor 1,4G and 1,8G, but that 1,8G price is really really sweet !
Folk who want superlative bokeh in a 50mm are probably going to have to wait a while for a 50m f/1.2 and pay 85mm f/1.4 money.
Contrary to what the Cannonistas would have people believe, there is absolutely no reason that the F-mount can’t support a 40mm aperture lens which is what a 50 f/.2 would be. The 85 f/1.4 is a 60mm aperture.
My theory is that we should expect a f/1.2 to appear after the AFS refresh is complete. I base this on the following observations:
1) Fast prime lenses have sold really well. Every one of the f/1.4 lenses has been a hit outselling its nearest predecessor by several times.
2) The AFS refresh began with the 50mm f/1.4, it is ‘symmetrical’ to complete it with a 50 mm f/1.2
3) The Noctilux is one of the five or so all time superlative Nikon exotic lenses. Of those lenses it is easily the most practical and likely to have highest demand.
4) The 85 mm f/1.4 actually outperforms the Noctilux design on Sagittal coma flare performance without any other drawback being introduced.
Were we looking at the same images?
The bokeh is much better than both 50mm “D” versions and looks better than my old f1.8 AI-S.
That only leaves the “G” to beat and I don’t think the 1.4 looks any better.
Were you expecting the bokeh performance of a $200 lens to be on par with the 85 f1.4G?
yes, I looked at the images, and it seems the bokeh is just as mediocre, as the one that my 35mm 1.8 produces.
You are comparing it to a 10 years old lens and a 40 years old lens. Everything will look better.
If a 3rd party producer can deliver great bokeh at this focal length, why can’t Nikon ?
You are now comparing a rather massive Sigma f1.4 that weighs in at a hefty 17.8 ounces to that of this new 50 f1.8 which weighs a scant 6.6 ounces.
Then we get to the price comparison. $500 vs. $215.
Do we even need to mention the physical dimensions?
Sounds like you need to suck it up and fork out the dough for either the Sigma or maybe the Zeiss 50 f2 makro and move along.
The price / performance factor for this lens is perfect. Just like it is for the 35 f1.8.
P.S. The 50 f1.8 AIS produces more pleasing results than that of the AF-D. What year a lens was produced is not necessarily a key indicator of performance.
On the full frame the bokeh will be better
yeah, but vignetting and corner sharpness will suffer… besides, I am a DX shooter
Can’t wait for Samyang to put out a 50mm f1.4…
Interesting, I wonder if all the shots were taken at F1.8? I don’t see EXIF data on these. (Maybe I missed it?)
Not bad. But wouldn’t the F1.4 be a better bet for just a little more money?
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/N1YPl5LFmanHkWFRGu6mDA?full-exif=true
yes, the basic EXIF data is available when you click on the photo (on the right)
Ahh, thats what I was missing. Go me!
Or when you download the full sizes, and view with software that supports some basic EXiF data. (FastStone ImageViewer)
EXIF is on the panel at the right. Might have to click a << tab (top right) to make it visible.
In this case 2/3 of a stop for twice the money doesn’t make too much sense, More money doesn’t directly translate to Much Better!!
OTOH, if you have money to burn, have at it!! It is your money, right??
In my case, I’m a Professional, I won’t spend money on something that won’t make me the money back. The 2/3 of a stop is NOT going to make my images $270 better or make me that much more money, so I’ll stick to the 1.8 for the time being.
Yes, but those of us who bought the f/1.4 did so when the f/1.8 on offer did not have AFS. So for us it is really not worth selling the f/1.4 on EBay and replacing with a 1.8.
I have the 35 f/1.8 which is very good for the price. I might well have gone with the f/1.8 if buying now. But what I would really like is a 50mm with superlative Bokeh and neither really meets that criteria.
That single image at 1.8 is quite soft. Use the zoom function to close in.
I hope it’s just bad technique on Viktor’s side. (Sorry Viktor)
With only one shot it’s hard to be sure.
Thanks for posting these Viktor.
Agreed — as are the photos at 2.2. Some of the shots at 3.5 look stunningly sharp, but not all. Shutter speeds seem fast enough; not sure why some pictures are still soft.
Compared to the 50/1.8-D they are perfectly fine.
I don’t know what people expect — every lens requires sharpening on the final image. And if the user didnt do post-processing, then thats why it doesn’t look perfectly sharp. You can tell by the image that it is more than acceptable, however. Especially at $200, this lens is a winner.
For $130, you can get the 50/1.8-D.
For $450, you can get the 50/1.4-G.
No, I just think the single 1.8 picture is using a bad AF target.
Until a few more samples are released I’ll reserve opinion.
Like I say, I hope it’s user error. That is more forgiveable to today’s pixel peepers.
Looks like a great value.
Not just a great value — the bokeh is incredibly improved compared to the 50/1.8-D.
I totally agree!
I hope my posts aren’t getting deleted.
Really? Im not sure i feel the same. This lens reminds me of the 35 1.8 lens. Blotchy
We really need better examples to begin with. Even if the bokeh is like the 35mm 1.8, it is still leagues better than the 50mm 1.8D
leagues better. thats a lot!
Nice gear
the pictures look pretty sharp to me. I’m not impressed with the quality of bokeh though
it seems to be similar to what Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S produces
They’re the same lens. One’s just scaled smaller for DX sensors.
/sarcasm
Yes, I quote Global, I like this lens, good sharpening, excellent bokeh, and I like colors, also. I have the 50mm 1,4 D and I prefer this lens!
I looked at some of the photographs and what I saw was subject motion. It is very difficult to get a sharp image at F1.8 and thus, this is what I saw.
The person needed at least a monopod or learn to focus better and more accurately.
Lens seems fine to me, but photographer needs help on their technique.
As the F-stop lessens you need to decide on what of an object or person that you want to focus on, or you will have a messy photograph.
Some photograph on the eyes and let the rest go to heck, while others focus and get nothing in focus.
The first thing that I do when I am shooting with a lens of less than F1.8 is to adjust the diopter on the camera body and then test out its’ focusing ability, then I shoot and adjust until things are critically sharp and if not, then I try a monopod or tripod and then increase my shutter speed or ISO to get a crisp image.
A monopod at f.8 and 1/2000 sec? Lol.
@Greg.
You know what is weird today to someone who has spanned photography from film to digital – almost everyone thinks that everything can be FIXED in Post Production.
NOPE!
If you sharpen an out of focus image, it is just a sharpened out of focus image and YES, even at 1/2000 second, a monopod can give you sharper images than hand held as I have done and demonstrated myself with my own equipment at several focal lengths from 28mm to 500mm Nikkors plus TC’s under real shooting situations and I have the critically sharp pictures to prove that.
I also have used computers from the Commodore Vic-20, C-64 and Amiga days (so not afraid of or ignorant of computers and their importance and use as I still use them today) and shot mainly slides and thus by using loupes and a Nikon 6X head with a diopter adjustment built-in on my own F3 cameras, I was able to LEARN critical focusing and also what it is not.
Cameras are NOT what focus, but photographers do – EVEN if you are using an AF system (especially when the F-stop is lower and depth of field is now razor thin).
AF assists and at times is faster – but photographers DECIDE what and where they want to focus on and what is in focus or their intended point of focus! If the diopter is NOT set to your own eye settings, then how can you tell if things really are in focus? Have you ever presented your work to Agencies with people or pros who have a critical eye for focus accuracy?
Probably not!
Pointing a camera at a subject is NOT photography – that is using a camera – BIG difference.
Sorry to be blunt but those images are bland and there seems to be no point of focus whatsoever! They are like POINT and then shoot – so what!
+1 for greg… if you cannot produce a sharp image at 50mm @ 1/2000 of a second, you are doing something wrong.
After reading your response 3 times jabs, I am still trying to figure out how it is related to what Greg posted.
With proper technique, a monopod is pointless at shutter speeds shorter than about 1/(1.5*focal length). So if a monopod is beneficial when shooting a 50mm lens at 1/2000 sec you are doing something seriously wrong.
@ Gerry and Greg,
I do not often agree with Jabs and dislike his style of writing and lecturing others with bloated comments completely, BUT he is right.
Monopods and tripods are pretty helpful for accuracy in focusing and/or composing an image. This is why Pros use them regardless of the shutter speed.
Maybe he just wrote too much and thus buried his (valid) point alive.
so even at high speeds of 1/2000 you agree with jabs and recommend a monopod?
Does that mean anything below 1/2000 we really should be using a tripod to eliminate shutter blur?
You guys are insane. I doubt anyone would be using a monopod to to eliminate shutter blur at 1/2000, the only reason to use it at those speeds is for comfort when shooting long hours.
NO, I recommend tripods for any kind of shot that does require an insane accuracy in composition and point of focus. Apart from that I didn’t say anything.
Now tell me: How is focus or composition related to shutter speed, blur or insanity?
if you read the original comment, greg was questioning jabs about using monopods on a shot at 1/2000 to eliminate blur, if that doesn’t sound insane to you then, you’re insane haha. =p
if you read the original comment, greg was questioning jabs about using monopods on a shot at 1/2000 to eliminate blur, if that doesn’t sound insane to you then I give up.
Jabs, for example, I have sturdy hands and I have no problems with shooting sharp with 200 mm lens at just 1/20 sec. without stabilizer or tripod or monopod. With 50 mm lens I am able to produce sharp images up to one second handheld. What’s the point to use a monopod at sunny day? 1/2000 is fast enough to not to blur anything, unless you rotate your body and thus track the subject?
Also, as Gerry, I didn’t understand how your post was related to Greg’s comment.
Judging posted by Victor images there’s nothing else to say that he just misses focus sometimes. Anyway, I highly appreciate his efforts and even with all inconsistences of them they are still solid to help us to make a decision buy or not to buy AF-S 50/1.8 G. By Victor’s samples I saw what I wanted.
Cheers!
“With 50 mm lens I am able to (…)”
LOL.
To All here:
There is a difference between a sharp image and a critically sharp image. Hand held, you can often get a very sharp image until you compare it to one either shot with a good monopod or tripod and then when you zoom in – you will see the difference yourself. This is why in lens tests, they usually use a tripod no matter what the focal length of the lens is!!!
Diopter adjustments are one of the first things a Pro does to their bodies whether they use/wear glasses or not, as it adjusts the camera’s viewing system for YOUR use especially when you use manual focus. No two humans have the same vision, so hence adjust it properly. Many people complain about photographs being out of focus and then do not do the first required thing after getting your camera.
I am thankful that the person posted their images for us but when zoomed, the problems showed and thus my comments. The equipment has gotten so great nowadays that sloppy technique is now the number one problem with most photographs and thus my rants. Many photographers with older or lesser equipment can outshoot many as they stick to the basics of photography and then use the best equipment available to them to make critically sharp images. We have a tendency to be equipment obsessed (me included) and thus a dose of reality here by ME!
Sorry to inflame you, but someone needs to emphasize that here over all the hysteria of new, newer and newer things.
There is a reliance on sloppy technique and later fixing it in PS or post production but years ago, I saw several articles in Photographic magazines that tested hand held shooting on smaller focal length lenses (below 135mm, I think) versus monopod or tripod mounted cameras and the differences were amazing to me. I tried it myself and was amazed at the differences and bought a Gitzo monopod with a quick release head to remove the camera when I wanted to or it was impractical to use. I was using an F3HP, F3T and an F3AF – all properly adjusted too. I think that they shot up to 1/2000 sec (the limit of the F3, then). With longer lenses than say a 200mm, then it is a no brainer.
Anyhow, have a great day!
“There is a difference between a sharp image and a critically sharp image. Hand held, you can often get a very sharp image until you compare it to one either shot with a good monopod or tripod and then when you zoom in – you will see the difference yourself”
Yeah, sounds like you need to spend some time figuring out what you can safely handhold without a monopod. There are many of us that never use a tripod or monopod and yet are able to get consistent maximum sharpness at the pixel level because we understand the fundamentals of photography. Blinding thinking that a monopod will increase sharpness of all shots is just naive. Most working pros do not use monopods or tripods.
The shot at f1.8 was blurry for one of the following reasons:
* Lens was misfocused
* Lens is very soft at f1.8
* Photographer was jumping on a trampoline at the time of the shot
* Photographer applied a blur effect in post
(I think the first two possibilities are the most likely
I think that 1/2000 is pretty safe but I’d like to note that the old “1/Focal” rules is outdated. This thumb rule is from the film era where film resolution was typically around 100 lines/mm. Current sensor like the D7000 one is about twice that (210 lines/mm). For newer camera, the rule should be stated as follow: 1 over twice the shutter 1/(2*F). For the D7000+50mm combo it would mean about 1/ (75 * 2) = 1/150. From my own observation, it give acceptable results with a steady hand.
Now, let do some scientific calculation. Based on Criner’s observations, it’s can be assumed that a realistic human tremor is around 3.8 deg/sec. Based on D7000 sensor size, resolution and 50mm lens focal, I calculated that for hand held shooting and to be withing a 0.5 pixel blur you would need to take a picture at 1/1500 sec. This is only an average, and based on the oscillation cycle of your hand there is a point where peak movement speed is higher. It’s also safe to assume that people shooting at 1/2000 doesn’t pay as much attention to have a steady hand then when they are shooting at 1/60. Based on these fact I would say that movement blur is still possible at 1/2000 with a D7000+50mm. It’s also important to note that in macro shooting, the angle of view is affected by the magnification ratio, further increasing the shutter speed needed for sharp picture.
Ref to Criner web site: http://enginova.com/Minimum%20Shutter%20Speed.htm
Just wondering, (ignoring the rule for hi res digital cameras) you’re saying because of the crop factor the rule of 1/focal length should be 1.5/focal length. What I don’t understand is; shouldn’t it be the same? Why is it 1.5? It’s still a 50mm lens, I know it’s cropped, but that doesn’t mean it’s a 75mm lens.
Going by that rule, if you were shooting full frame, and you know you will be cropping you’re photo 1.5 times in size, does that mean that you should be shooting at 1.5/focal length, even though you are shooting a full frame camera?
Humm, good question actually. I tend to say that the original rule used the focal length in the “formula” because it’s easier to calculate. However, the physical phenomenon is related to the angle of view of the lens+sensor combination. For this reason I tend to say that we should put the 35mm equivalent focal length in this rule of thumb formula.
With the D7000′s high resolution sensor, my own rule is keeping the shutter number above twice the focal distance. Or getting VR and a very steady grip.
@Martin.
Great and rational post plus observations.
Got your points and only comment – as the lines per inch or resolution went up from film to digital, then the problems of blur and focus error actually went up (or became more noticeable and common) BUT the perceived increase in “picture quality” versus film caused many to NOT realize this and thus we got the same conclusions in different ways.
It is like this high ISO or high speed film that covered your miscues with higher film grain and you noticed less BUT shoot low ISO slide film and your miscues are now clear due to lower film grain and greater clarity. Same as shooting a D3X with sloppy technique versus shooting a D40 and then looking at the results critically! The D7000 is a great and revolutionary DX camera and it thus magnifies your mistakes – lost on too many, it seems. This is one of the main reasons why people now complain about the D7000 – it ‘outresolves’ THEIR own ability to take an in focus or an image with minimum blur because of their sloppy techniques. As sensors resolve more, then technique becomes more important.
Thanks and enjoy your day!
BTW – I learned to shoot using Fuji Velvia Pro 50D, 64T, Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 50 slide films plus looked at high magnification loupes (plus used the 6X mag head on an F3HP) using a MacBeth table and have now transferred these lessons to digital. I wish Nikon would bring back that wonderful 6X mag head to a digital camera and teach people the IMPORTANCE of proper focus again.
The VR in long tele lenses are suggested to be turned off at speeds over 1/500 ( see Nikon forums ) meaning there is nothing to be gained by VR over those speeds . Yet you are suggesting using a monopod at 1/2000 . ! ! A monopod beating the VR function ! ! LOL ……
Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/05/21/nikon-d7000-nikkor-af-s-50mm-f1-8g-samples.aspx/#ixzz1N6xbiecb
How does adjusting the diopter help with af accuracy? I thought it only helps people with glasses. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
It helps you visually confirm that you are focused where you think you are.
subject motion at 1/2000? unlikely.
I’d consider the subject being a bad AF target. It’s red with little contrast, filling the centre of the AF sensors. At work I can’t see picasaweb so can’t refer to exif for focus patterns used.
If the user relied on AF-S mode rather than C and the flower moved between focus lock and shooting then yes, I can understand it being subject motion related.
velmi zajimava cena i u vas na slovensku
Thanks to uploader!
Very appreciated!
Looks quiet nice. I think that sharpness @ 2.2 is just fine, images don’t look like they have had any sharpening applied to them, they might even have been shot in JPEG. For $200 it’s a bargain, especially for DX portrait lens. I do see a bit of purple fringing in the eyes @2.2, but that can easily be taken out. If Nikon can get me an 85mm f/1.8 for double the price of this baby I’ll be all over it.
f2.2 and below looks soft but could be due to user error etc. Looking forward to more reviews before deciding
I hope the focus is much better!
i want to say something bad, but i better shut up.
please, be constructive, it doesn’t matter if it will be bad
If only the photographer could focus right…
Wonderful lens. For 200$ there’s can be nothing better. Also, its bokeh much nicer than AF-S 50/1.4 G one’s. I will buy this lens as fast as it will reach our local shops.
Am I the only one who thinks the f1.8 image is plenty sharp? Maybe I’ve been shooting too much film recently…
The bokeh actually looks a bit nicer than the F1.4G to my eye – it seems to avoid the horrible fringing around out of focus highlights that plague that lens.
+1
Yeah that fringing is called Spherochromatism I believe.
I don’t know why people are complaining about the bokeh of this, it’s leagues better than the D.
I’m waiting for the unexciting dry tedious scientific chart shots for accurate sharpness info, bokeh looks similar to mt 35 1.8, ie could be better.
Pics look nice enough for me. My technique isn’t perfect either, so I consider these very good and adequate real-life examples. Thanks toViktor, and congratulations.
Would love to see some “off center” shots ; the main weakness of the 1.8D was the softness in off center . Near borders had 40 to 50% less resolution than center.
And to those who earlier discussed 1/2000 shutter speed benefiting from a monopod …. The VR in long tele lenses are suggested to be turned off at speeds over 1/500 ( see Nikon forums ) meaning there is nothing to be gained by VR over those speeds . Yet you are suggesting using a monopod at 1/2000 . ! ! A monopod beating the VR function ! ! LOL ……
Why do you keep repeating this?
There are times when a monopod is more beneficial than the VR function. Example: if an elephant accidentally stood on one of your foot and it’s too tiring to balance on the other foot for a long period, then it is better to have a sturdy monopod to lean on and snap way than to have a lens with VR.
You know one thing in life – it is difficult to criticize anyone EVEN if you offer possible solutions, as they will NOT look at the details of your suggestions but will often look at the tone of your message, hence they learn nothing, as most people expect to be spoon fed by sweet persons ‘dripping honey’ instead of telling them things that can improve them, so you leave them alone.
I suggested many things to improve the images that are appreciated by most of us here, but instead you get strange results or remarks as though I said that these things are mandatory or the only way to get excellent results.
I am experienced with shooting F1.8 lenses (50 F1.8 and 85 F1.8 mainly) and when I shot a Parade in a big city in America, photographers looked at me weird when I was using Fuji 100 and 200 color negative film with a Gitzo monopod in bright sunlight with all the fast moving action. I had a fast set of F3′s and my results were tack sharp even with the bright daylight, this film and shutter speeds often above 1/1000 sec.
I just looked at my images and after all these years, they still are very sharp. In fact one person who saw the PRINTS made by Fuji Anaheim Labs, told me that then that they look like ‘high definition’ images and they had never seen anything like that. Of course, I don’t believe all of that, but results speak for themselves to me and you can do as you wish. Mediocrity – equals following the herd and excellence is going the extra mile to do what seems unnecessary or uncomfortable but puts you often above your competition. And, yes for all critical shooting WHEN it was possible, I used the skinniest Gitzo monopod that I could get away with using just to go the extra mile!
Perfectionists to a fault here – LOL!
My suggestion – try 1/1000 speed this time WITHOUT the monopod … You will get the same perfect sharp photo . If not , there is really something wrong with the way you shoot – if you can’t get tack sharp results with a 50mm at 1/1000 .
Or maybe the photography books should be rewritten .
A lot of bullshit. If you cant get perfectly sharp shot at 1/1000 with a 50mm lens something´s wrong.
more pix up. nice f stop series (with tripod used) up now
Hmm I dunno to me the Bokeh is not so hot but I am not sure if i would call it worse than the D lens, aint better either, so far I am looking at some of my f1.8 images and they seem softer… question of subject and distance leaves etc… I dunno…