Disappointed by AF 50 1.8 wide open

<p>I shot some badminton yesterday with the AF 50 f1.8 and because of the terrible lighting typical of indoor sports events used it wide open. When I looked at the shots I was really surprised at how soft they were, with a sort of halo effect around edges. I know no lens is optimal wide open but this really was poor and I'd always thought of 50s as being among the sharpest of lenses.<br>

Shots with my 80-200 f2.8 wide open were night and day different, super sharp, but I was needing iso6400 rather than 3200 then.<br>

I'm sure this is normal behaviour for the 50 1.8 and not a fault, and presumably the advice would be close down to 2.8 - defeating the object of a fast aperture of course!<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Here's the pic</p>

<p>Try again!</p>

<p>I agree, my 50 F1.8 AF Nikkor turned out to be a dog wide open on my small sensor Nikons. And, the 75 mm equiv. focal length doesn't do much for me. I now think of it as an expensive body cap that can take pictures. F2.8 ain't bad, but, as you said, what is the point. I'd rather use my old 28-50 mm AIS zoom Nikkor that is a lot sharper, focuses much closer, and looks and feels like a real lens.</p>

 

<p>Couldn't attach a pic, server error.<br>

Thanks for the reply Sanford, mine was on a D3 which presumably would show up problems even more.<br /> Steve</p>

<p>Interesting.<br>

I wonder if you have a bad copy.<br>

The 50mm 1.8 is IMO one of Nikon's best kept secrets, esp considering the price.<br>

I have absolutely nothing but praise for this lens.<br>

While not tack sharp wide open (not many lenses are) even at 1.8 I am pleased after a little high pass sharpening. Shooting at longer distances is not the way to see this lens strut its stuff. Shooting a portrait when extreme limited DOF is required; is the way to see this gem rock & roll.</p>

<p>On a D3, you could have gone 'B+W' with a ISO way, way past 6400, but if you needed color, f2.8 and ISO 6400 should have been fairly decent with the AF 50mm 1.8D Nikkor lens. [You had a lens hood on the 50mm lens, right?]</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I did have a hood Jerry yes. If I'd wanted to use f2.8 I'd have stuck with the 80-200 though.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Why can't I upload an image?<br /> Steve</p>

<p>I use the 50 f/1.8D on my Kodak Pro 14NX. 13.5MP and no AA filter. It really puts a lens to the test. I find it to be a more demanding camera then the D700 I have rented.<br>

On my camera in my hands the 50 works very well wide open. Tack sharp no but there are no "halo" effects around the edges.<br>

I am not sure what kind of shooting you where trying to do but it really sounds like more of the wrong place wrong time for that lens then a bad lens. But then it could also be OE</p>

<p>Right, uploaded to my gallery folder here http://www.photo.net/photo/10653012<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>How much of the problem of any lens being "not tack smart" wide open is the razor-thin depth-of-field inherent in shooting at such a large aperture, though?</p>

<p>Michael, by OE I assume you mean operator error? Not sure what sort of error could be made, or do you mean out of focus? I don't think it was that as they look in focus to me and it's consistent on all images.<br /> Tack sharp is a difficult thing to quantify and everyone's definition is different - certainly this was not good enough for my taste.<br>

Peter, this is not a DoF thing though, you'll see that if you look at the image.<br>

<br /> Steve</p>

<p><em>Why can't I upload an image?</em><br /> Probably because it`s outside the limits. Check <em><a href="../info/frequent-questions#upload_forum_images">14.</a></em><a href="../info/frequent-questions#upload_forum_images"> </a><em><a href="../info/frequent-questions#upload_forum_images">How do I include an image in a forum post?</a></em><br>

___<br>

I think your pic is fine. Actually this lens is softer wide open. </p>

<p>Thanks Jose, I tried lots of times, with files as small as 256k, could it be that it was created through Aperture and so has a different kind of jpeg?<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>The link asks for a max. of 511 pixels in width, but I don`t know if this limit is active.<br /> BTW, after a second look to your big size image, I think it is very good. I don`t believe you can get more from this lens wide open.</p>

<p>Thanks for the compliment! The problem doesn't show up so much on the smallish jpeg, but if you look in particular around the white handle of the racket you see this "haloing".<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I have recently performed a series of test shots through wide open aperture to F8 on 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 105 2.8 and 80-200 2.8. What I found with my lens samples was that at wide open aperture, the 85 and 105 produced excellent sharpness, the 50 was a little softer while my 80-200 was soft at both 80 and 200. The zoom is now at Nikon for an examination even it has always produced excellent sharp prints on film body. Please see the MTF chart on the 50 1.8 lens review:<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report</a></p>

<p> The "halo" you're seeing is probably chromatic aberation. I shot some pics of the new snow that fell this morning and noticed quite a bit of CA when shooting with my 50mm wide open. CA is usually easily fixed with most post processing programs.</p><div></div>

<p>Cory, what sort of CA would that be? Lateral CA is chracterised by colour fringing in high contrast areas, what other CA could it be? Again, I thought the 50 1.8 was supposed to good all round including re aberrations.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Just looked at your pic Cory, I see what you're saying. The thing is though there is colouring around edges on my shots, it's just softness.<br>

Michael, Photozone is an excellent website, didn't realise you were here! Thanks.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Sorry Steve. I guess i was mistaken based on your descrpition alone. I couldn't see what you're talking about on the jpeg and I didn't want to download it so i could zoom in because I don't like downloading other people's images. </p>

<p>I'm sure you've already thought of this, but just to be sure, were you using any filters?</p>

<p>Look at the hands and feet of the women for the answer. The back woman is in far better focus than the main subject.</p>

<p>Not to my eyes! And as I said it's consistent on all the images, and immediately different on all the 80-200 shots.<br>

No filters used.<br>

Steve</p>