Nikon 50mm f1.4 AIS Lens image quality

After deciding the used price of the 35mm f1.4 AIS lens was just too high to

justify the amount of money most sellers wanted for near mint examples, I went

ahead and bought a 50mm f1.4 AIS Nikkor to use on my D300 for low light photos

at night or evening. I have read a number of times in different threads how the

f1.4 Nikkor 50mm is not a very good lens compared to the f1.8 or even f2.0

versions. Why would that be, I wonder? When the 35mm f1.4 is said to be the best

of all the 35mm lenses made by Nikon, I would think the 50mm f1.4 should be too?

Because the aberation control required for 1.4 compared to 2.0 is about a factor of 4x. That step is a mighty leap in lens design.

Dave, You should have considered the 50/1.2 AIS.

 

FWIW, My (very early) sample of 35/1.4 A is a lemon.

The 50/1.4 is a creditable performer -- all of these 50s are very good but some are better than others. Bokeh-istas like the 2.0, the 50/1.8 is the best $100 you can spend on a Nikkor, low-light users like the 1.2/1.4. The only problem mine has is a little looseness that comes with frequent use.

 

You can find several examples of photos taken with all of these lens by searching

 

I did notice that one of the British Nikon specialists is now asking 1500 pounds for a new-in-the-box 35/1.4, which seems a little excessive.

More information on Nikkor 50mm lenses is here:

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

I think in many situations the 1.5 50 is a great lens, stopped down its right in there with other 50's and at 1.4 is nice for lowlight. I have an older AIS 50 1.8 and I prefer the 1.4 over it.

I'm with Barry. I'm also bemused at the issue with 1.4's sharpness and corner performance. Since when did anyone wanting to shoot at f1.4 want well-resolved corners?? :-) I can tell you that I'm having a fantastic time learning with this lens and that though only worth ~8% of the kit I've just bought it's my favourite bit!

I like my 50/1.4 but I find my 45/2.8 has better color and contrast.

I do not own the 50mm 1.4 although I hear it is a great lens. I do however own the 50mm 1.8 and IT IS all that it is cracked up to be. It is the best $100 I have ever spent on a lens. No regrets what so ever. I am assuming the 1.4 is as good.

I have the 50mm 1.2 AIS, I got it right before I got my D3 for a good price. It is *stunning*

on the D3, even wide open.

It's more to with price, some people just can't justfy how much more expensive 1.4 is compared to 1.8. Sharpnesswise nothing to choose between them but 1.4 gives much more creative control.

Keep in mind that for tightly framed portrait shots (shoulders and up) you will be using your lens at f4 (which, by the way, appears to be the sweet spot of the lens). The depth of field is VERY shallow at f1.4. On the other hand full body shots will look great @ f1.4, with a beautiful bokeh.

 

If you'll be shooting in a lot of low light situations you will find yourself using 1.4 a lot. If you're prime work will be high quality, sharp portrait shots in controlled or semi-controlled environment, you will find your lens set at F4/5.6 all the time.

Thanks for all your responses. I paid $130 for the lens, and I paid about $15 for my 50mm

f1.8 E Nikon lens, so there is a considerable difference in price for that extra stop of light! I'll

do some testing and see if there is a difference at different apertures. I figured the extra

stop of light coming through the D300 viewfinder would make it easier to manually focus.

 

Vivek, I did look at the 50mm f1.2 AIS but the size and weight, and price as well, kept me

away from it. I think 1.2 is just a half stop faster anyway, whereas f1.4 is nearly a whole stop

brigher than f1.8.

I have a pre AI 50mm 1.4 and an AIS version, as well as a AF 1.8. I really like the 1.4's. Both are very solid and have a great feel to them, unlike the AF 1.8, which is plastic. I actually do many head and shoulder portraits at f2 or 2.8, and all these lenses work beautifully. All three lenses are fairly sharp wide open (not as much stopped down, of course), and the 1.4's show some of that spherical aberration, I believe, that makes the image a little hazy. Its a nice effect if you want it. Stopped to f2 both the 1.4s lose the haziness.

 

The lens tests on Photozone.de: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html show the samples of 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 they tested to be pretty similar in mtf tests.

 

I don't see any reason to believe the 1.4 is inferior to the 1.8 in IQ.

I'm sure it has been said a thousand times before, but it all depends on what you are trying to do and how much money you want to spend.

 

I'm stuck inside the house and since I have nothing else more sensible to do I did this shot below with the 50mm f1.8 AIS ($40) and a set of $10 extension tubes.

 

Is the 60mm macro better at about 6 times the cost of the above? Possibly, but like I said...<div></div>

Dave, For best results (even wide open) use a long hood on this lens. I prefer to use stacked K rings of appropriate length.

 

Without a hood, it will not be good.

My very first Nikkor lens was the 50mm. f1.4 that came with my old Nikon F, which my father purchased for me in Japan in 1968. I had it AI'd back in the seventies. I LOVE this old lens and now that I own a D200 I still use it often for portraiture or indoor photos. It's solid, fast, and sharp. I think that there are newer lenses, including newer versions of this lens that are a little better in terms of contrast and color saturation, but this lens is terrific enough as it approaches its fortieth birthday (!)

People who complain that the 50/1.4 is bad either compare it at f1.4 to a 50/1.8 at f5.6, they can't test or they have a very bad lemon. My 50/1.4 has taken a knock, but it is still easily one of the sharpest lens I've used. At f1.4, don't expect miracles, but at f2.8 IQ is already extremely high.

50mms as a class are the easiest film lenses to design. They can be made sharper, cheaper, faster and lighter then any other lens out there. The only ones that come close are the 35mm in the moderate wide angle class and the 85mm in the short tele class. And even there, it isn't even close (especially in terms of price).

 

Slow 50s like f1.7 and 2.0 are easy to make. F1.4s are a bit harder, but still doable with conventional technology. It's when they start to hit the f/1.2 class and faster that the limitations of regular technology set in. And all the exotic expensive stuff starts. The 50mm f/1.4 is a great balance between the speed and expense of a 1.2 and faster and the quality, compact size, sharpness and economy of a f1.7 and slower. And realistically, f/1.2 is only half a stop faster then 1.4.

 

That said, 50s are also hard to screw up. Compared to zooms and wide angles, they are much more consistent in quality.

 

The 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor, no matter what generation is an unsung classic.

It may be overshadowed by the infamous Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2, the 105mm f/2.5 and other legends, but millions of copies of this lens were made and

many are still in use. Use it, enjoy it and don't worry about it.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what are the main differences between the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm?

<p>I have the 6th version of this lens. Serial number 618XXX. I was looking for a high number because these are reported to have SIC on the glass. That coating is great. As for the lens performance, I have no complaints. Built like Nikkors should be and great on bokeh opened up. Used between F2.8-F8, you can't go wrong as well. I've got the 50mm F1.2/F1.8/F1.4. Honestly I like them all. Even have the 45mm F2.8GN (Don't use it much though). A someone said in this discussion, "just use it and don't worry about it". </p>

<p>Got no complaints about the F1.4 AIS. None. Have the F1.8 AIS as well. I believe both are very good lenses but I like the ability to shoot indoors with the F1.4 as well shooting outdoors with it. Simple as that... </p>