New Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G

Nikon announced a new 50mm lens last night. Someone actually spilled the beans early so some of you might have heard about it already. And unless you know the Nikon lenses inside and out you might be confused about why they needed a 4th 50mm lens. I was. So I looked them all up and took a closer look. Read my Nikon 50mm f/1.8G announcement article for more:

Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G Lens Announced >>

Please share your thoughts on this lens, too. I'm kind of curious about what the Nikon shooters think. Was this a useful addition to the Nikon lens line? I'm not sure what I think. Maybe someone with more intimate knowledge of the Nikon system can tell us.

I've always wanted to buy a 50 mm

I was hesitant to order the AF version when I had the D40, as I'm not sure of my manual focus abilities, got the 35mm 1.8 instead

Now that I have the D300 and a couple of AF lenses, I find them a bit noisy, and difficult to quickly switch to manual focus compared to just grabbing the focus ring on the afs lenses.

I'm not sure how useful the 50mm will be, many times I find the 35mm being a bit long, with this doubts plus the higher price point I was holding to order the 50 mm 1.4 afs

With the 1.8 afs being a bit over $200 I have finally placed an order :)

I'm tempted to (which means at some point I probably will) consider one, but the only real benefit I see over my af is the silent wave. I suppose the improved construction is a plus too. I think I'd rather opt for a 1.4 though...I'm quite a fan of the gazillion year old one I snagged from my poppa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armando_m

With the 1.8 afs being a bit over $200 I have finally placed an order :)

---

Nice! Looking forward to finding out what you think of it. I have a couple of 50mm Canon lenses - f/1.4 and an f/2.5 macro. I don't use either of them much but there are times when the 50mm is perfect. If you're shooting with a crop sensor camera (DX) then it's best to think of it as an 80mm portrait lens since that's what it effectively becomes. And the 50mm focal length makes a *very* good portrait lens on a DX body :)

What I think about there being 4 50mm lenses in the lineup? Won't last..

Nikon must be getting to the end of the batch of 50mm f1.8 lenses they made a few years ago. Machines all gone, can't make them for the same price. Plus they already replaced this lens in a sense:

- the 50mm f1.8 was the "cheap standard" lens for 24x36 film cameras. Nowadays low-end users have APS-C DSLR's and the 50mm is now a short tele. Nikon filled the need for a "cheap standard" lens with the 35mm f1.8 two years ago
- everybody shooting a 24x36 DSLR is rich and will buy the 50mm f1.4

Despite that people kept on buying the 50mm f1.8 including many people with a low-end body that needed an AF-S motor. So finally Nikon got round to doing a new release of this lens. And as this is Nikon they did it properly - new optical formula to take advantage of the latest advances in manufacturing technology.

Thanks, Charles. That really puts things in perspective. Can you make a comment on the article page, too? I think this is a really good explanation.

There you go:

I have the 50mm f1.8D. It's fine but at apertures wider than f2.8 there is lower contrast and the definition drops especially in the corners. If the new optical formula makes the performance consistent even at the widest aperture (like most Nikon zoom lenses) then I'm interested.

I have the 35mm f1.8 AF-S and I like the ability to retouch the focus manually. With this sort of available-light lens I am usually working with limited depth of focus and it's a plus that I don't have with my current 50mm

I must say I don't use the 50mm much with my DX format cameras (I prefer the 35mm and 85mm f1.8) but if I went back to FX format then a 50mm is a must

The question would then be - 50mm AF-S f1.8 or f1.4 ? Probably the f1.8. I've always thought that the f1.4 lenses sacrificed some image quality at medium apertures to get just half a stop extra at full aperture.

Chasseurs d'Images test is just out. It's just what I was hoping - performance is almost constant (and excellent) from f1.8 onwards. Unlike the previous 50mm f1.8 which was a bit soft and lacking in contrast at f1.8.

ok! Getting anxious to get my hands on one

So, I guess this answers my thread about the primes. Now my question is, if the f1.8G gives you a better quality image than the f1.4G then why pay over double for the f1.4? I don't think anyone can say that the extra half a stop is worth both the money and the lower quality final product, especially when you get down to the 1.x range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armando_m

With the 1.8 afs being a bit over $200 I have finally placed an order :)

---

Lens is on it's way :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNRyan

So, I guess this answers my thread about the primes. Now my question is, if the f1.8G gives you a better quality image than the f1.4G then why pay over double for the f1.4? I don't think anyone can say that the extra half a stop is worth both the money and the lower quality final product, especially when you get down to the 1.x range.

---

There is only one small advantage with the f1.4 over the f1.8, a brighter view finder, save the bucks and buy the f1.8, I already have the f1.4 so I could not save money as the new f1.8 wasn't about when I got my Nikon 50mm f1.4 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eleanor Maw

There is only one small advantage with the f1.4 over the f1.8, a brighter view finder, save the bucks and buy the f1.8, I already have the f1.4 so I could not save money as the new f1.8 wasn't about when I got my Nikon 50mm f1.4 :D

---

I have been considering the f1.4 assuming that it is the more "professional" lens over the others. So, why is the f1.8 better . . . does it offer better quality optics, photographic results, what? Any other opinions on this?

All lenses are a compromise between features, performance and cost. To get the 50mm f1.4 to collect 50% more light than the f1.8 the manufacturer is obliged to make some sacrifices in terms of light fall-off and sharpness at some apertures, and double the cost.

About the "professional" bit - that extra half stop would be important to professionals working in really low light (you can use a faster shutter speed - could be the difference between a blurred image and an almost-sharp one). But a professional doing landscapes in good light would be more likely to go for the f1.8 IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mamoose124

I have been considering the f1.4 assuming that it is the more "professional" lens over the others. So, why is the f1.8 better . . . does it offer better quality optics, photographic results, what? Any other opinions on this?

---

I much doubt there is that much difference in the optic quality on both lens, just one is faster than the other, I tried a Nikon 35mm f1.4 against my Nikon 35mm f2, the later was just as good, but slower :D

Lens is almost here , courier web page says "out on delivery ", hopefully tonight I'll try it

Customs adds quite a while to the shipping time ...