I see it just like I see testing noise on cameras without using any sort of noise processing. Software cleans most everything up, sharpens it, removes CAs, but some cameras/lenses have nuances that are very difficult to deal with even with software. That last part is what I care about - what software can not handle easily - that is the thing that really makes a difference.

TaoTeJared said:
In practical use, I don't see much difference in them except the bokeh (hexagon, circular) […] The ones I usually use with film I really don't pixel peep at all but are all more than good enough.

Well said. There's many examples of tack-sharp looking images of the f/1.4 lenses (at 1.4) on the web, and also the example here in the thread. Back in the film days, I used to never care about lens sharpness, it's the digital pixel-counting age that made this (seemingly) important. I guess it's the same way that people want fast cars for: You can't really drive fast anyway, but it's the feeling that you COULD if you had the opportunity that sells these cars.

Anyway, there are some issues (like the better LoCA and haze behavior that I mentioned earlier in this thread) that make me prefer the cleaner f/1.8G over the others. Everyone has to realistically figure out if these things actually matter for their own photography at that focal length or not.

I'm not sure if I still have them anymore. Might be on my flickr page. I let the "pro" expire so many images are dropping off. Most stuff like that I post and then dump. I'll take a look.

I have a bunch of 50s that I should do a comparison to see. In practical use, I don't see much difference in them except the bokeh (hexagon, circular) and the lack of sharpness is usually due to missing focus or me swaying forward or backward - that is all it takes at that shallow of DOF. The ones I usually use with film I really don't pixel peep at all but are all more than good enough.

Thanks for the feedback, argonzero, good to know that it's of use to someone. Speaking of which:

golf007sd said:
Chris tests reminds of all those tests you did a while back TTJ.

Does anyone have a link to those tests TTJ made?

Thanks,
Chris

I would just like to add that this has been a very informative post, and although there have been many 50mm 1.4g vs 50mm 1.8g posts online they did not go in depth on sharpness at f/1.8 (they would measure at 2.0, ect) and LoCA's. I had the 1.4g in the past and now have the 1.8g and from what I could remember before the 1.4 was soft and had high amounts of LoCAs which made me think twice to use it at f/1.4. I was still debating to swap back to the 1.4g, but reading your experiences reminds me of the headache I had before trying to cope with the softness, LoCA's, loss of contrast, and slow AF speed, I'll stick with the 1.8g. I also have the 85mm 1.8 and that's just amazing wide open, so I don't see why a 50mm from Nikon couldn't deliver something near that performance. Once again, thanks everyone who contributed!

This is where Focus Peaking would be handy.

R8R, with my vision, that might be the only way I am getting a MF lens to hit the mark. ;- )

spraynpray said:
I find that without the old focusing aids of a film SLR (split prism, fresnel ring etc.) that MF lenses are not too useful in many situations.

Nah... just stick the darn DSLR in continuous mode and fire off 10 frames while slowly turning the focus ring. Repeat. Then spend 4+ hours in LR4 finding the good ones.

:)

spraynpray said:
I find that without the old focusing aids of a film SLR (split prism, fresnel ring etc.) that MF lenses are not too useful in many situations.

Had exactly the same experience! Plus, the "new" focusing screens that you can get (at least for Canon) have tiny split image circles which are completely useless. I recently picked up an old (cheap) Yashica SLR dunnowhat, the split image plus fresnel ring was huge, and manual focusing was a breeze. Well, Nikon at least always has the focus confirm light in the finder, but I already tried using that and it's just too slow and un-precise as opposed to AF.

I find that without the old focusing aids of a film SLR (split prism, fresnel ring etc.) that MF lenses are not too useful in many situations.

Godless said:
Have you tried the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar yet?

Ah, thanks, that's a good tip – although the manual focus is not my thing and I wouldn't spend so much money on a MF lens. I tried a lot of those lenses with my canon, for very little you can get excellent optical quality, but I tried it for a while, I just need AF in too many shooting situations.

tcole1983 said:
Lol the OCD comment was meant as a joke. You can "use" your time however you wish :)

Sorry, I'm new here :-)

chris_weinert said:
On a side note, I'd actually look into more expensive alternatives, too, if they were better, but it appears there aren't really that much.

Have you tried the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar yet? Although useless as a macro (too short for proper macro work IMO), that one is capable of impressive resolution figures. I dare say it wipes the floor with most normal 50mm lenses.

Lol the OCD comment was meant as a joke. You can "use" your time however you wish :) I just think there are tons of reviews of these lenses and not sure it is necessary. I personally have no experience with the 50's though...I always figured I would get the 50 F1.8G since I am happy with my 35 F1.8G...and for the price they seem to be the best deal.

Geoff_K said:
At 1.4 the sigma looks sharper to me. My imgination ?

Thank you for the showing the tests. I am half wanting a fast 50.

I don't see a pic in that last post for the Sigma @ f/1.4. But Yes, it is a sharper lens. I have had three Sigmas (different platforms)and one 50/1.4G and each Sigma was sharper than the Nikon up to about f/3.2.

Sigma 50 @ f/1.4 & D800E

100% Crop

At 1.4 the sigma looks sharper to me. My imgination ?

Thank you for the showing the tests. I am half wanting a fast 50.

Just for the archives, and despite this getting on the nerves of at least one person in here, here's my revised results from the focus chart test, round two, which I did last weekend.

As I said before, after I noticed issues in normal shooting, and after I read some of the reviews that people were linking to in here, I re-did that comparison more "properly", all the same session, tripod, 45° angle, same distance, mirror-up mode blablablah, to eliminate all error sources, so the results are 100% comparable.

(Exception is still the Sigma, which I didn't have available anymore, that one was taken only at 20MP (M) resolution, that's the reason is why it's smaller.)

The 100% crops are taken from the area as indicated in the first post of this thread.

Just like in the first round, please note the focus shift, which is unfortunately a "feature" of all lenses. Meaning the focus point shifts backwards while stopping down. The lenses were all AF-finetuned at f/2.8, so with the f/1.8 crops, the focus is more on the lower/front "-2mm" line than on the "be in focus". At f/8, the focus is towards the upper/back "6mm". (This is because AF was used to focus on the black line in the middle, check http://www.focustestchart.com for details). Results from f/1.8 (this time, I used the in-camera setting also for the 1.4D, so I could get 1.8 and not 2.0 like with the aperture ring.

Indeed, the 1.8G seems to be the sharpest. Then again, I'm not exactly sure that this difference is actually visible in real-world circumstances. What I can see in real-world circumstances is the reduced-LoCA behavior of the 1.8G, meaning contrasty out-of-focus stuff (such as the frame of black glasses on a light face if you shoot it wide open), will have less fringing. You can actually see this in the crops above, too.

The difference between the 1.4D and the newer 1.4G looks like this:

At f/8, all lenses are sharp, as expected. And very well so:

So, that's it. Thanks very much for the nice comments from everyone, I'm glad that for some of you, it's considered useful, and sorry again to those who consider it spam.

Done now with my test chart posting. :-)

Best,
Chris

@chris_weinert Nice job on all these tests on the 50 1.4G & 50 1.8G Chris. +1

Personally I have the 50 1.4G and so far have been happy with the results. However, now that I have the 85 1.8G, the 50 has not seen much day light :P Things that make you "hmmmmm?"

Chris tests reminds of all those tests you did a while back TTJ.

TaoTeJared said:
Chris I think what you are calling flair is actually correctly called "loss in contrast."

Ah ok, well I thought it was all one thing, if a bright light produces artefacts in the picture, be it spots or haze clouds. Thanks for correcting, then.

I actually never use filters for mere lens protection, for that reason.

Chris I think what you are calling flair is actually correctly called "loss in contrast."

Lens Flair is actual artifacts (spot, light "fingers", shaped hexagonal translucent blobs) created by the lens. Artificial light can cause it, but to test you need to get outdoors and point it at the sun. Note that Mirrors create double images as well.

Also note that both can be affected and reduced (or heightened-more likely) with the quality of filters you use. This also works the same with contrast.

Emceee said:
@Chris_weinert I did find it funny that the thread started with you criticizing the performance of the f/1.4G wide open, but then sticking with the f/1.4G to use the lens to save that 2/3rds of a stop (which you deemed almost unusable) only to be disappointed by flare performance and decided to go with the f/1.8G.

Which wireless trigger is that on your D800, the ML-3?

Haha, yes true. It's a long ride, figuring out what's best for one's own use, since everything is always a compromise. Well, I initially didn't see a big difference of the 1.8G in performance, but after I tried them out, noticed the differences more, and then did the test again that I did a couple of days ago and the difference was more evident.

The wireless trigger sure isn't the overpriced ML-3, but a third-party device, 35 Euros, and very nice quality, too. This is the link for Germany: http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0058SPCXO/ref=oh_details_o06_s00_i00 but I guess it can be found in the US or elsewhere as well.

msmoto said:
As I suggested four days ago it looks like an issue of flare, yet all the 50mm f/1.4G lenses you looked at had the same problem. This is really a mystery. Have you found any lens reviews that brought this issue out? Or have you mounted the lens on another body and tested this? I cannot think of what might be going on here, but it certainly would be disappointing in a prime lens which is such a staple.

No, I haven't tried on another body, but to be honest, I don't think it's THAT strange. Looking at all those review pictures now, I see the same results test-chart wise. Nevertheless, I think one should not forget that it really depends on what you're shooting whether this matters or not. The web is loaded with beautiful wide-open shots from the 1.4G.

SquamishPhoto said:
Lens hood, maybe?

Well, that doesn't help if the light is in or close to the frame. But I also tested that (flash from something like a 60° angle towards the lens, a standard studio situation), and it doesn't really matter if the hood is on the lens or not. By the time the light source hits an angle that the hood will cover, the lenses were immune anyway.

Lens hood, maybe?

@Chris_weinert I did find it funny that the thread started with you criticizing the performance of the f/1.4G wide open, but then sticking with the f/1.4G to use the lens to save that 2/3rds of a stop (which you deemed almost unusable) only to be disappointed by flare performance and decided to go with the f/1.8G. Hope the f/1.8G performs like you want it to cause you sure have found the faults in the f/1.4G.

Which wireless trigger is that on your D800, the ML-3?

@ chris_weinert....what a nice comparison...the test eliminated all variables and even showed the lens stopped down...great!

As I suggested four days ago it looks like an issue of flare, yet all the 50mm f/1.4G lenses you looked at had the same problem. This is really a mystery. Have you found any lens reviews that brought this issue out? Or have you mounted the lens on another body and tested this? I cannot think of what might be going on here, but it certainly would be disappointing in a prime lens which is such a staple.

bossa said:
This is not a '50' but it does give an example of what I'm on about and any APS-C user would do well to think about this before selling off beloved lenses.

Or think before selling off a crop sensor body to make the jump to full frame. I just stepped up to a D3 but I hung on to the D7000.

So here's the flare comparison shots.

Not that this issue would be relevant for everyone, but for my shooting conditions, it sometimes is, I actually noticed this in a normal shooting and then decided to compare. So, the (extreme, but that's what the test's for) setup is the camera on a tripod in front of a mirror with a bright lamp above it and shining directly at it. In the frame, it is right next to the camera itself. So let's see how the lenses cope with this. We're looking at the crop from the red frame here:

The crops are not 100%, because that's not the point. The point is the difference in contrast:

The 1.4D and 1.8G lenses are totally immune (wide open already), while the 1.4G's flare issue is there wide open and doesn't change if stopped down to f/16.

Everyone has to decide for themselves if this is relevant or not, and – more importantly – if it's relevant in this focal range. I.e. for all my shots with sunstars in them I've used 35mm and wider, I never use the 50 for this. But I do use it in studio situations with lights in the frame or close to the frame, and I know "documentary" shooting situations where it's important not to worry about lights shining towards you.

On a sidenote, it's actually funny that the 1.8G has an aspherical element in there. With its optical performance, you could perfectly market the 1.8 for twice the price of the 1.4G and use the ASPH as a feature. The only "downside" for making it twice as expensive would be that it's so light (people want weight for the price). It's really so light you have to feel it to believe it. Fantastic!

So I guess I've just turned into a 1.8G fanboy :-) The best thing is that that actually happened by finding out about the performance in real shooting conditions, not by others' praise, and not even by looking at my test charts.

Thanks for everyone contributing to this thread and sorry if to those of you who consider it spam.

Best,
Chris