Nikon Introduces 50mm/f1.8 AF-S Lens

<p>Due to the leak from Nikon themselves, essentially the specifications for the new lens has been out for a couple of weeks: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00YYiv">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YYiv</a></p>

<ul>

<li>Price: in the US, the new 50mm/f1.8 AF-S has a suggested price of $219.95. That is close to the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S, which was introduced at $200 two years ago.</li>

<li>The new lens is scheduled to go on sale on 16th June, 2011. In other words, that is subject to change.</li>

</ul>

<p>This was the Nikon web link that was leaked. Subsequently Nikon took it down, and it is back up again with the same information:<br>

<a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_50mmf_18g/index.htm">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_50mmf_18g/index.htm</a><br>

</P>

<P>

You can find photo.net's preview and Nikon's press release here:<br>

<a href="../equipment/nikon/lenses/50-G/preview/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/50-G/preview/</a><br /></p>

<p>Finally it is a real lens, I was wondering if it was a "paper lens." Now we get to see how good the performance is! The price is right, I may buy one as I can imagine it beats the heck out of the old AF-D version. Let the 50mm f1.8 AF-D dumping begin!! ;-)</p>

<p>Forgive my ignorance: Why and how could this lens beat the 50mm 1.8 D. I'm very happy with the one I have, and it costs me half the price of that new one.</p>

<p>well, it has AF-S and reportedly a new optical formula. if you don't already have a 50, might be worth a shot, although for DX i prefer the 35mm focal length.</p>

<p>AF-S means it can auto focus with the likes of the D40, D40X, D60, D3000, D5000, D3100, and D5100. Plenty of people will use it as a portrait lens on DX bodies, although 50mm is a bit short for that purpose.</p>

<p>(Real) AF-S also means you can easily override AF without switching to manual focus first. I assume this lens has real AF-S.</p>

<p>Yann - the MTF curves suggest that this lens might be significantly sharper wide open than the old version. I'll be awaiting reviews with interest, including a close look at the bokeh (which put me off the f/1.4 AF-S). I doubt I'll upgrade my AF-D (I have no AF-S-only bodies) but I'm not ruling it out. But as Shun says, the main market will be for owners of the cheaper DSLRs.</p>

<p>The nice thing about the new primes Nikon has been releasing is that they don't have the Mechanical play in the barrel that I find so annoying as the elements move internally.<br>

<br />However, the high optical barrel distortion is another matter - which I why I have not purchased any of them.</p>

<p>Whether you are interested in the new 50mm/f1.8 AF-S per se or not, the apparent message is that after introducing four f1.4 AF-S lenses: 50mm, 24mm, 85mm, and 35mm, Nikon is moving onto more affordable AF-S fixed-focal-length lenses. The earlier 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX was popular. After the 50mm, hopefully there will gradually be affordable 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm ... AF-S lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But as Shun says, the main market will be for owners of the cheaper DSLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it is a full-frame FX format lens, so the market will be primarily people with full-frame cameras. Given that it is selling for the same price (actually $20 more) than the current Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX prime, wouldn't the people with "the cheaper DSLRs" want the 35mm more than the 50mm? Many wedding photographers use the 50mm 1.8 to take natural light portraits (full length or three-quarter) and I am sure that many will want to upgrade to this lens from the older 50mm 1.8. Especially if this new lens performs better wide open as some say it will. Given that used Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D lenses sell for $100-125, it is a no-brainer to upgrade to this new one. I have a 50mm 1.8 AF-D lens but I don't plan to upgrade to the new lens as I hardly use the 50mm 1.8 AF-D prime as it is, and if I do use a 50mm prime I use my 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor anyway, which performs superbly at f2.8 all the way to f22.</p>

<blockquote>But it is a full-frame FX format lens, so the market will be primarily people with full-frame cameras.</blockquote>

 

<p>There are a lot more DX DSLRs out there than FX ones, and many owners of full frame cameras already have an f/1.8 AF-D (which works fine on all the FX bodies) or spent the extra money on one of the f/1.4s. While I'm sure the new lens has some appeal to FX owners (I'm not ruling it out as an upgrade), I still think <i>most</i> sales will be to DX owners who are after a cheap short telephoto and who have bodies that won't autofocus with the AF-D. Making a 50mm lens with full frame coverage isn't tricky and doesn't require a lot of expense or weight (he says with absolutely no authority), so I suspect it's an FX lens by default. No point in alienating a few upgraders and people with film back-up bodies for the sake of a tighter lens hood.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>Given that it is selling for the same price (actually $20 more) than the current Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX prime, wouldn't the people with "the cheaper DSLRs" want the 35mm more than the 50mm?</blockquote>

<p>I imagine that depends whether they want a normal lens or a short telephoto. The existence of the 50mm lenses never stopped film users buying 85mm lenses as well.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>Many wedding photographers use the 50mm 1.8 to take natural light portraits (full length or three-quarter) and I am sure that many will want to upgrade to this lens from the older 50mm 1.8.</blockquote>

<p>Well, okay, I've used a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D at a wedding, but only because I didn't borrow the Sigma f/1.4 from a friend for more than one. The AF-D is a cheap piece of plastic that's not very good wide open; I'm very pleased to own one, but if I were a pro wedding photographer I'd have bought one of the f/1.4 lenses if only for the build quality - you don't want a clumsy guest snapping the lens off the camera, and you never know when the extra 2/3 of a stop will matter. I'd be surprised if the old f/1.8 was ever a popular pro choice, but I'm prepared to be corrected.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>Especially if this new lens performs better wide open as some say it will.</blockquote>

<p>The MTF curves are all I know. There's a direct comparison between new and old on Nikon Rumours. <i>(Ooh, that's another site I'm not allowed to link to; I thought Ken Rockwell's was the only one. In fact, it looks like I can't even concatenate the two words of its name in plain text. I know I've asked this before, but is there a page somewhere that has all the rules for the Nikon forum - am I just being thick by not being able to find it?)</i><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>I have a 50mm 1.8 AF-D lens but I don't plan to upgrade to the new lens as I hardly use the 50mm 1.8 AF-D prime as it is, and if I do use a 50mm prime I use my 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor anyway, which performs superbly at f2.8 all the way to f22.</blockquote>

<p>I own an f/1.8 AF-D partly because it's cheap enough that it's worth its occasional use, partly as a light weight walk-around lens, partly for rare low light occasions, and partly because I don't like the rendering of any of the f/1.4 lenses enough to want to pay their going rate. 50mm isn't my favourite length either, but I may be coloured by the lens choice; maybe this lens will change my mind, and maybe it'll be cheap enough that a small improvement is worthwhile - but I imagine a lot of people won't bother. The question is whether it's useful wide open - as you say, there are better options stopped down (just as the f/1.8 is arguably better than the f/1.4 lenses stopped down a bit).<br />

<br />

I hope we do see some cheaper f/1.8 alternatives, although I suspect a 24mm f/1.8 DX is next in the succession (now DX buyers have cheap fastish normal and medium telephotos), which won't help me much. I'll keep an eye out for an AF-S 85mm f/1.8, though, if only to decide whether to get the AF-D one in a hurry.<br />

<br />

It's a shame the 50mm f/1.8s extend so far past their front element - if they were more pancake-like, they'd be much easier to get in a large pocket. I'm looking forward to seeing how the LoCA turns out - having had another look at the sample images I'm tentatively hopeful that the bokeh might not be awful, but they're too small to be sure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a shame the 50mm f/1.8s extend so far past their front element - if they were more pancake-like, they'd be much easier to get in a large pocket.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> MM I wonder if it's even possible to create an AF-S G lens in pancake size, since it needs a place to hide the SWV Motor, and possibly the gearing to drive the AF ... On the other hand , a lot is possible with nowaday's technology...</p>

<p>I have the 45mm f2.8P pancake lens, and I don't care much for the ergonomics when using the lens. The current 50mm 1.8 AF-D is very small and lightweight, I bring it with me often in a pocket or in my bag, and frequently forget it's even there. I paid $82 for it used in mint condition in the box so I don't feel any need to upgrade. If I were to upgrade I'd probably want to get an f1.4 50mm anyway.</p>

<p>A 50mm lens even if if does cover the larger FX (24x36mm format) format is a 75mm f/1.4 on a Nikon DX (APS-C) format camera - however it will still have the deeper depth of field we expect fro ma 50mm focal length lens. </p>

<p>Portrait shooters who either use the DX format or who use FX cameras and crop down from the 1:1.5 ratio of the FX format are gonna love this lens. </p>

<p>I am on the fence about this one. On one hand, the AF-S maybe enough to want to upgrade from the AF-D - and the price is certainly not a big hindrance in that regard. On the other hand, I don't really use the 50mm on DX all that much - I always have the feel that it is either too wide or not wide enough. I have one, but for most tasks it has been replaced by the 35/1.8 DX (a lens I had very mixed feelings about before I purchased it and that has grown on me a lot).<br>

Rather doubtful that Nikon will ever come out with a 60/1.8 DX or 70/1.8 DX; those would be focal lengths I consider perfect for head shots. Currently, I use the 85/1.8 for those - but it feels about as the same amount too long for the task as the 50 feels too short.<br>

A 24/1.8 DX and a 16/1.8 DX would be highly welcomed - I'd throw out the 24/2.8 and the 20/2.8 in a heart beat. A 85/1.8 may be on the horizon, and again, AF-S maybe sufficient cause to trade up from the AF lens - though I expect that a 85/1.8 AF-S wouldn't come in under $500.</p>

<p>Question......<br>

Is there a reason why the 50 mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 don't have any Nano glass on them???</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rene' - I suspect, without any internal knowledge:<br />

1) The nano-crystal coat is expensive to apply (it's only on one surface even of the high-end lenses), and the 50mm lenses are relatively cheap.<br />

2) I think the lenses with nano-crystal coats (I only checked the 14-24 and 24 f/1.4) are made in the Japan factory, whereas the 50mms are made in China. It's possible that the China factory just doesn't have the equipment. This could be bogus misinformation, and it's a guess anyway.<br />

3) I believe the nano-crystal coat is of most use on highly curved elements, as seen in the ultrawides - but I heard that argument before Nikon applied it to the 200 f/2. It may be that the 50mm designs just aren't sufficiently prone to flare for it to be an issue.<br />

<br />

I'm less concerned about the lack of NC than I am at the lack of ED (and possibly VR). Actually, at the price of the f/1.8, I'm not concerned - but they'd tip me over into paying the going rate for an f/1.4.<br />

<br />

I agree that the SWM might take up some space, although this doesn't really explain why the AF-D also sticks forward of its lens quite so much. (For that matter, so does my 90mm Tamron.) I'm not really suggesting something as small as the 45mm f/2.8P - whose ergonomics are definitely compromised - but it'd be nice to find a middle ground that meant the lens wasn't quite so far proud of the hand grip. Since we're talking about G lenses here anyway, there's no aperture ring to consider; I've not heard too many complaints about the ergonomics of the compact system camera pancakes - I'm sure a smaller focus ring (although perhaps not as small as Canon's) and distance indicator (I'd even live without, at a push) are possible. Just a thought; I wanted to speak up for the portion of the Nikon community who use a 50 f/1.8 because it's small and lightweight. But honestly, I'd have got a 45mm by now if they weren't so expensive.</p>

<p>The screwdriverless DX photographers have not had a 50mm f/1.8 lens that fully functions on their cameras before now. There will be huge demand and big sales of this lens to DX photographers. That will be the basic customer base in my opinion.</p>

<p>This does fill the gap for the non-screw drive DSLR DX bodies. Funny thing is that it is an FX lens and all the present Nikon FX DSLR bodies have the screw driver. Best of both worlds I guess.<br>

Stan</p>

<p>Stan, I believe all Nikon lenses have been AF-S for some time now. The G lens is the new standard for Nikon and I don't expect they will introduce any more lenses that are not AF-S.</p>

<p>I'd be very happy if this lens is as sharp or sharper than my 50/1.2 AIS at f/2, which is where I use it the most. The MTF seems to indicate that it is significantly sharper than the AF-D version, which is not as good as my 50/1.2 AIS.<br>

If it's as good as it looks to be my 50/1.8D and 50/1.2 AIS will be sold as soon as I get one.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>I suspect Nano coat has something to do with focal length. I notice the new 85mm f1.4 AF-S at B&H does not spec as Nano. That seems to be a flagship lens and not cheap.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I notice the new 85mm f1.4 AF-S at B&H does not spec as Nano.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon's own web page clearly specifies that the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S has nano coating:<br>

<a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_nikkor85mmf_14g/">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_nikkor85mmf_14g/</a></p>

<p>Owners of the AF-D-version will not have to upgrade, but I am very happy to see this lens appear. For some time I feared Nikon would launch new primes only on the high-end side of life (all those wonderful but expensive f/1.4 lenses), while all of the cheaper zooms and some older primes would feed the masses.</p>

<p>The only lens I still miss is a 16 mm f/2.8 DX prime to cover the wide angle side of DX life. With 3 light but perfect lenses (16, 35 and 50) and a small D5100 body, we would have a perfect travel and low light setup, plus eventually a 85 micro to cover both the portrait and macro side of photography. Perfect, just perfect.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wonder if we'll see a screwdriverless low-cost FX body in the near future?</p>

<p>That would be a winner for me :-)</p>

<p>Shun, thanks for the correction. I did not read further down at B&H just the basic page the mentions SIC coatings. Sorry for the wrong statement.</p>