where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
JJump said:
... and the barrel distortion (which was next to nothing on the D at .3 %) jumped to 1.1%. I'd personally rather have sharper center and lower barrel distortion than slightly better bokeh and border resolution. I'm sticking with my D.
So if I showed you a picture from both lens versions and didn't tell you which is which, you'd be able to spot the difference with your eyes between .3 and 1.1 percent distortion?!
I think we are seeing the manifestation in words upon these pages, of the internal conflict inside people's minds that are trying to convince themselves, that they don't need the shiny new lens.
Tao - indeed most of us doesn't need the latest and greatest lenses, moreover the difference between .3% and 1.1% wouldn't be visible for most of us, but apart from that there's one difference that make sense for upgrade - AF-S. The old lens (AF-D) version is nice, but it's sooooooooo slooooow and pretty much unusable on all entry level cameras.
NikoDoby said:
So if I showed you a picture from both lens versions and didn't tell you which is which, you'd be able to spot the difference with your eyes between .3 and 1.1 percent distortion?!
Depends on what you are shooting. If I were shooting architecture or landscapes, I would be able to tell. Shooting people or other things that aren't straight near the frame edges, probably not. In the grid that photozone uses for test, one can easily see the line curvature of 1.1%. The point is, when you upgrade a lens, nothing should get worse.
Sure test charts will show the distortion, but I agree with NikoDoby. 1.1% distortion doesn't show up in real life shooting.
Isnt it kind of moot since correction for this in post is pretty simple?
NikoDoby said:
Let's see an architectural photo with 1.1 percent distortion and then let's see the same scene with .3 percent distortion.
1.1% is not a straight line. Maybe you couldn't tell, but I would.
SquamishPhoto said:
Isnt it kind of moot since correction for this in post is pretty simple?
The point is not to have to correct in post if you don't have to.
From Photozone's review
"The lens shows moderate barrel distortions at around 1.1%. This is more than you'd expect from a fix focal lens. However, this is actually a typical amount of distortion for fast standard primes and unless you shoot subjects with straight lines near the image borders it's usually not field-relevant."
Note the *unless* part.
Lol. We are spliting hairs here. Such small distortion is very easy to correct. The new AF-S 50mm 1.8G looks like a big step up from the current D version. Especially wide-open. Frankly, I can't wait to get mine. It will compliment my D version nicely.
I know the answer...if you rely soley on reviews and you have the old lens and can't stop complaining about the new one....don't buy it :)
J Jump
While your arguments have some weight keep in mind that 50mm prime isn't really a landscape lens. It's more for portraiture etc.
If it's sharper in the center than the old AFD version than I am quite happy.
I personally don't really care for anything else. I preordered the lens from Amazon. I will test it out, if I don't like it I will return it with no hassles.
Hey guys! Just got the 50mm f/1.8G today.
I've taken some sample shots and posted on Flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/studioloupe/sets/72157626742331501/
The weather isn't too good today, so I'll go out and take more pics tomorrow and upload more!
poster said:
J JumpWhile your arguments have some weight keep in mind that 50mm prime isn't really a landscape lens. It's more for portraiture etc.
If it's sharper in the center than the old AFD version than I am quite happy.
I personally don't really care for anything else. I preordered the lens from Amazon. I will test it out, if I don't like it I will return it with no hassles.
We need more tests, obviously, but according to Photozone's the new one is NOT sharper in the center than the old D version. The new version slightly beats the resolution of the D wide open and at F8, but the D version has better center results at all other apertures. Also remember that Photodo, another respected lens testing site, rated the older f1.8 as one of the highest MTF test scores of any Nikon lens. The new G will be hard pressed to match or surpass the old version as far as overall center sharpness.
The 1,8 50mm AFD focuses very fast. If you had a SLOW version, it was probably down to your body's motor. Mine is a D200 and that lens zipped into focus (unless it hunted). In fact, it is hardly a slouch in comparison to the 24-70.
One reason I'd not like to invest in AFS lenses is that motors will break and eventually turn the lenses into manual focus lenses. AFD versions rely on the camera. Manual lenses rely on your hands.
I broke my arm earlier this year and wasn't about to perform the duty of a motor, but today, I am back in the saddle again and glad. But, my 30 year old 50 mm 1,2 is working miracles today but I'm not so sure it would if it relied on any type of motor.
adamz said:
Tao - indeed most of us doesn't need the latest and greatest lenses, moreover the difference between .3% and 1.1% wouldn't be visible for most of us, but apart from that there's one difference that make sense for upgrade - AF-S. The old lens (AF-D) version is nice, but it's sooooooooo slooooow and pretty much unusable on all entry level cameras.
shigzeo said:
The 1,8 50mm AFD focuses very fast. If you had a SLOW version, it was probably down to your body's motor. Mine is a D200 and that lens zipped into focus (unless it hunted). In fact, it is hardly a slouch in comparison to the 24-70.One reason I'd not like to invest in AFS lenses is that motors will break and eventually turn the lenses into manual focus lenses. AFD versions rely on the camera. Manual lenses rely on your hands.
I broke my arm earlier this year and wasn't about to perform the duty of a motor, but today, I am back in the saddle again and glad. But, my 30 year old 50 mm 1,2 is working miracles today but I'm not so sure it would if it relied on any type of motor.
NikoDoby said:
I have never seen an AF-S lens motor "break" from constant use.
I'm curious about the longevity of an AF-S motor too. Knock on wood, my 18-135 will chug on forever, mainly because I don't want to spring for an 18-105 VR or an 18-200 VR. :D
On the other hand, I wonder if the in body AF motor would be more prone to failure because every AF lens needs it to be driven, especially if every lens you owned is an AF-D lens.
Also- I would imagine replacing a body AF motor to be pretty expensive.
NikoDoby said:
I have never seen an AF-S lens motor "break" from constant use.
I would have to agree. I have seen the insides of AFS lenses and they look to be more sealed then the AFD versions. I have had AFD lenses gum up and freeze and have yet heard of that with an AFS lens.
LeoRivas said:
Hey guys! Just got the 50mm f/1.8G today.
I've taken some sample shots and posted on Flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/studioloupe/sets/72157626742331501/
The weather isn't too good today, so I'll go out and take more pics tomorrow and upload more!
Good photos! To me, it looks to perform as expected. Great sharpness, great images, slightly jittery bokeh but it looks a bit better than the AFD version which is a good improvement.
Just like the 1.4 AFS, if you don't have the AF motor or if you want manual over-ride than it is your only option under $300.
does anyone came across side comparison of 50/1.8 af-s, 50/1.4 af-s and sigma 50/1.4?
Finally, a comparison of the distortion, showing just how noticeable the AF-S G's barrel distortion is over the D:
You'd be lying if you said you couldn't see it. (Click on PAGE 9)
Also, if you click on (PAGE 6) there is a sharpness test showing the old D sharper in the center at all mid range apertures (f2.8-f11), and arguable the same from wide open to f2.8.
JJump said:
Finally, a comparison of the distortion, showing just how noticeable the AF-S G's barrel distortion is over the D:You'd be lying if you said you couldn't see it. (Click on PAGE 9)
Also, if you click on (PAGE 6) there is a sharpness test showing the old D sharper in the center at all mid range apertures (f2.8-f11), and arguable the same from wide open to f2.8.
I couldn't disagree more with my copies. Wide open, the G is much sharper and has more contrast, less ghosting and less chromatic aberation until about f/2.8. Stopped down past f/2.8, they are virtually identical in center sharpness with the edge going to the G in corner sharpness at all apertures. You can even see this in real world shooting in this test you posted(from the main blog).
Based on my testing with my copies(virtually identical to other copies I've seen), the G version wins as the better lens overall.
The test site above is consistent with Photozone's test:
Best wide open: G
Highest center resolution: D
Highest edge resolution: G
Least distortion: D
Least CA at larger apertures: G
Least CA at smaller apertures: D
Best bokeh wide open: D
Best bokeh at other apertures: G
JJump said:
The test site above is consistent with Photozone's test:Best wide open: G
Highest center resolution: D
Highest edge resolution: G
Least distortion: D
Least CA at larger apertures: G
Least CA at smaller apertures: D
Best bokeh wide open: D
Best bokeh at other apertures: G
Bokeh is completely subjective. I prefer the more creamy bokeh (wide open) of the G, unless I want a stylistic "jittery/nervous" bokeh, then the D would be employed. I doubt anybody would disagree with this observation. The G is much less "jittery" due to it's rounded blades, a big improvement over the D. This is coming from somebody that happily owns both versions. I have zero plans of getting rid of my D version, even though I now use my G version more. They are both amazing tools.
You must log in to post.
