Nikon D60 - need 50mm lens advice

[Fariad]

I have the D60 and I'm looking for a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 lens. Can someone please explain and recommend which ones will fit? Thanks!

[Franglais]

I have the D60 and I'm looking for a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 lens. Can someone please explain and recommend which ones will fit? Thanks!

Any recent (last 15 years) 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 lens will fit, but the only one that will autofocus is the 50mm f1.4 AF-S introduced last year at about 450$

I have never understood why so many people want to put a 50mm on their APS-C DSLR - it comes out as a rather weak telephoto which I have little use for.

I'm waiting for the 35mm f1.8 AF-S which should be available mid-March for about 200$. This is a "normal" focal length for APS-C (the equivalent of a 50mm on film) and of course it fits on the D60 with full autofocus.

[Frog]

They will both fit but unless you get the new afs 50mm, you will have to use manual focus.
The problem is the 50mm f/1.4 afs costs about 500 while the non afs costs about 100 dollars.
The reason is that the D60 body does not have its own auto focus motor which helped keep the cost down so to get auto focus the lens has to have the motor..afs.

EDIT; Frnaglais hit submit while I was typing but you can see we both say pretty much the same thing except that I disagree on its usefulness as its the cheapest fast prime you can get......the non afs one.... and if you can't think of a use for it see the 50mm lens war forum and the window light forum in the viewfinder section.

[freygr]

The 50mm on the APS-C DSLR works out to a great portrait lens (75mm angle of view equivalent 35mm film camera). But make sure you purchase a lens which you can safely mount on your camera Link: http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html

[Franglais]

EDIT; Franglais hit submit while I was typing but you can see we both say pretty much the same thing except that I disagree on its usefulness as its the cheapest fast prime you can get......the non afs one.... and if you can't think of a use for it see the 50mm lens war forum and the window light forum in the viewfinder section.

I have the 50mm f1.8 (who doesn't) and I'm going to use it this weekend. For a short tele I prefer something a little longer - the 85mm f1.8 was one of my favourites on film. And for a discreet walk-around available light lens I prefer the "normal" view of the 35mm (on APS-C). With the 50mm you're either isolating the subject from its surroundings or else you're so far away you're not in contact.

Rendez-vous same time next year - see if the 50mm lens war has turned into a 35mm lens war

[another view]

They're all incredibly sharp and a bargain for what you get, so I'd say get the 1.8 unless you know you need that extra 2/3 stop of the 1.4 lens. The new one has a good advantage since it'll autofocus with your camera, but I'm not sure that I'd pay four times the money just for that. I originally bought my 1.4 for use with film, back before the days of high ISO with DSLR's (or more like the newer cameras where it's actually good ).

I use my 50 f1.4 fairly often, as my 85 was a lens I used quite a bit too with film. After I got out of film, I rarely used the 85 so I sold it - I used the 50 in it's place. It's not, however, the same thing. The angle of view is the same (peripheral vision, basically) but the perspective is different because the sensor is half the size of a frame of 35mm film. Between these two (or more accurately a 50 and a 75mm lens if it were available), this perspective isn't a huge difference to most people. But it is noticeable to me.

For the record, I didn't often use a 50 with film so chances are I'll still be saying the same thing next year.

[blazing fire]

Just a question, what is the difference between the 50mm "G" vs "D"? Please don't include the following:

1) AF-S (= silent, works on D40,60, switches to manual easily) on the G
2) Lack of aperture ring on the G
3) Dimensions and mass of the lens
4) Cost

But do include the following factors, as well as other differences!

1) Falloff... usually not a big problem right?
2) Distortion. The G has more distortion than the D right?
3) Sharpness at f/1.4 and subsequent apertures.

Another question. What happens if you change the aperture ring of the lens?

[Franglais]

The answer is:

2) Lack of aperture ring on the G

Which brings some small savings in:

3) Dimensions and mass of the lens
4) Cost

It has absolutely no influence on AF-S, falloff, distortion and sharpness.

The aperture ring is a legacy support feature that is being phased out. In other words - Nikon is committed to evolving their systems progressively and not make your investment obsolete overnight. All Nikon cameras produced for the last 10 years or so prefer to set the aperture from the camera and not directly on the lens. Users of older cameras which required the lens aperture ring to function could use the D lenses but with the G lenses it's finished

What happens if you change the aperture ring of the lens? Try it. If your camera is recent the LCD says EE and the camera refuses to function. You must lock the aperture ring at the smallest aperture for the exposure system to work.

[blazing fire]

So in terms of image quality, the G and D is identical?

What happens if you change the aperture ring of the lens? Try it. If your camera is recent the LCD says EE and the camera refuses to function. You must lock the aperture ring at the smallest aperture for the exposure system to work.

I see!

Thanks!

[Franglais]

The "G" or "D" designation has no impact on image quality. So in a way yes they are identical.

However bear in mind that all new lenses from Nikon will probably be "G" and that lens design and manufacturing keeps on improving.

If I had to choose between two otherwise identical lenses - like the 50mm f1.4 D and the 50mm f1.4 G AF-S - I would go for the G version every time. It would be a new design, optimised for high resolution digital sensors.

[blazing fire]

Wait... if the 2 lenses are of identical image quality, why would the 50mm G be "optimised for high resolution digital sensors"?

[another view]

The thing that seems to be confusing to a lot of people is that "G" has no bearing on the optical quality of the lens. Inexpensive kit zoom lenses and top of the line pro lenses can both be "G" style lenses. And all "G" lenses are "D" as well, which only means that the lens communicates the focus distance to the camera (which originally came out for determining flash exposure in film cameras).

As Charles says, the aperture ring is really a legacy thing - good word to describe that. Nothing wrong with older cameras and lenses, but Nikon went away from this a decade ago.

[Frog]

Probably because they didn't have "high resolution digital sensors" when the 50mm D came out.

[Franglais]

Wait... if the 2 lenses are of identical image quality, why would the 50mm G be "optimised for high resolution digital sensors"?

Film and digital have different requirements. The 50mm f1.4D was designed for film. I believe that the 50mm f1.4G design was revised for digital. I don't KNOW what was changed, but here are some things that might have been done:

Firstly things the lens designer seeks to improve:

1. Greater definition across the whole field from maximum aperture onwards. Digital cameras and postprocessing can do wonders to eliminate some lens defects but they can't invent detail that's not recorded
2. Reduce chomatic aberration. This is purple fringing particularly around highlights. On digital sensors this is a disaster because the four light-sensitive elements that make up a single pixel are arranged side-by-side on the sensor. If a thin white line is splurged out into a wide rainbow-couloured one it is not going to be rendered correctly. In film the light-sensitive elements are arranged in a layers and will tend to see the line as white
3. Reduce the reflection of the rear lens element. The sensor is shiny (unlike film). A bright spot on the image will be reflected off the sensor back at the rear of the lens. If this reflects it back at the sensor it will produce ghosting
4. Increase the size of the lens element so that light comes out and hits the sensor head-on, particularly at the edges. On some sensors the light-sensitive element is like a little pit and light hitting it at an agle might not reach the bottom (seems to have been improved with the latest generation of sensors)

Some of the things that the lens designer might let slip because it can be corrected in the camera or by software:

- distortion
- light falloff at the edges of the field
- low contrast

The "D" and "G" lenses are both 50mm f1.4 but there are almost 14 years and a major change in camera technology between the two

[blazing fire]

Thanks all! Now I get the differences between the two.

Edit- I read a review on the f/1.4 G and how it compares against the D. This is what it said.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html

An update of the older "screwdriver" 50/1.4 Nikkor was long overdue. The new model, largely finished in lightweight material of an organic nature, sports an improved 8/7 optical design and at last, AFS operation. But unlike other recent new Nikkors, there is no nano-coating and no ED glass inside. While the lens barrel does not extend during focusing, there is no internal focusing (IF) to work its magic (and sometimes, adding colour aberrations) - the inner unit moves back and forth as an entity. Thus, the autofocus operational speed won't set a world record, but for most purposes it suffices well enough. A side effect is that the outer casing needs to be pretty big, thus a 58 mm filter thread is used. This breaks the earlier pattern of normal lenses (by Nikon) being served by 52 mm filters. However, in a predominantly digital era in which filters see much less use than before, this disruption of old habits might be easier to accept. One gets a better fitting lens hood and since it flares just a little, the front element is deeply shaded. Towards the rear there is a rubber gasket to provide weather sealing.

Corner fall-off is visible when the lens is set to the widest apertures, but less annoying than seen with the earlier AF-D model. Fall-off will of course be most visible on the FX cameras. From f/2.8 onwards vignetting is negligible on DX and FX alike. The barrel distortion, typical for this class of lens, is kept under good control. Field flatness also is better than shown by most fast lenses. Image quality is quite good in fact at f/1.4 although some blue fringing can occur at high-contrast transitions, increases to f/2.8 accompanied by a rise in contrast and reduction of fringing, and really gets into its stride in the range f/4 to f/9 or so. The smallest apertures see more softening of the image and a reduction in contrast, so only stop down to f/16 if you desperately need the increased depth of field, or like to shoot into the sun. The aperture opening is nicely rounded and the out-of-focus rendition (bokeh) is softer and less harsh than seen with the older 50/1.4 AFD model (probably due to rounded vs straight, and 7 vs 9 blades). However, the 50 mm lenses are too short to really throw the background way out of focus unless you shoot fairly close and have the lens nearly wide open. So don't expect the image to "pop" like it often does with a telephoto lens.

Colours are rendered vividly saturated and come across crisp and clear. On some subjects, however, one can detect a slight longitudinal colour aberration leading to reddish fringes to the foreground and greenish fringes towards the background. Even in this respect the new lens does better than the predecessor so this behaviour should be interpreted in its proper context, and many shots will not show this problem at all.

Although nano-coating is missing, the new lens handles awkward backlighting and point light sources better than the model it replaces. Ghosting is usually minimal, but when shooting straight into the sun, you tend to be rewarded by a big blur rather weak blue ghost spot. Flare is well controlled, though, and I did not encounter situations in which flare was an issue for my shooting with the AFS 50 G.

The new model is an evolution of the older lens, so you don't need to rush out to purchase it unless you can only work with AFS. Anyone looking for an excellently performing normal lens should consider the "G" carefully. It complements the high resolving power of the D3X in a nice fashion too.

I believe Franglais has mentioned some of these points but can any user who have both 50mm G and D support this statement?

[jetrim]

I don't have both, but I think you're getting hung up on some VERY minor differences. If you can find a deal on the G, it's probably worth picking up. I own the D and it's a fine lens. I think it's going to be quite some time before I'm able, as a photographer, to push it beyond it's limits. I went w/ the 1.4 rather than the 1.8 because it's built a little more solidly, not because I planned to shoot it "wide open" on a regular basis. Of course, I also didn't have the AFS considerations to factor into it.

[blazing fire]

VERY minor differences

It is? Then let's drop this matter. Thanks all!