The New AF-S Nikkor 50/1.4 G - some examples

<p>I picked my new 50/1,4 up this evening, and here are some rough and ready examples. Taken on a D700 with auto ISO on, shot in RAW converted in Lightroom, no other post processing. The point of focus in each shot is the centre of the nearest flower.<br>

<br /> At 1.4 (ISO 500)<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3012/3102705115_27c250709d_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>At 2.0 (ISO 900)<br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/3102705191_e7d7cbd4a8_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /></p>

<p>At 2.8 (ISO 1800)<br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/3103536252_2a87133592_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /></p>

<p>At 4.0 (ISO 3600)<br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/3103536358_fff2cdacef_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /></p>

<p>At 5.6 (6400 ISO)<br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/3103536546_5ff7f2017a_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /></p>

<p>Thanks for posting these. I've gotta say that I'm really surprised by the bokeh of this lens. It's just funky. In the non-specular areas its pretty creamy, but throw in a highlight and it goes crazy. What do you think?</p>

<p>Wow, looks pretty nice to me.</p>

<p>Yes, nice bokeh...now I'm tempted to sell my 50mm f/1.8 and get the AF-S f/1.4 for my D60 - at least it will AF with my camera.</p>

<p>I think the bokeh is excellent for portrait. Don't understand why some complain.</p>

<p>Victor,</p>

<p>Look at what's in the background, it's shiny, metal stuff, so its not the best background.</p>

<p>hmm, 1.4 looks pretty good but i'm more impressed by the d700's high-ISO performance</p>

<p>I'm impressed with this lens too. Apart from a small amount of barrel distortion I think it performs brilliantly. Even wide open you can see the in-focus parts of the image are very sharp and the bokeh, to my eye (but not that I care too much), looks just fine. Focussing is fast and build quality is a big improvement over its predecessor.<br>

Here's a shot at f1.4.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a 100% crop</p><div></div>

<p>Gosh, that looks great, even at ISO 6400. That combination is just so dreamy, especially compared to what we had a few years ago with film. I remembers shooting a ton of Fuji 800 pushed a stop, and that can't hold a candle to what you just posted.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>I hope that this just the beginning of new AF-S primes. I often use my 85/1.8 to shoot indoor basketball. Faster AF would be nice!</p>

<p>I think it looks nice. Is the lens made in Japan, China or ??? I might even consider picking one up myself.... Though I'm not sure why.... :-D</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

<p>The lens is made in China.</p>

<p>Very nice. The toughest test of bokeh is never the iris shaped specular highlights, tho' some would like to limit the entire definition of the term to that. Specular highlights are more useful for evaluating coma and other aberrations.</p>

<p>The toughest test is the rendering of linear objects, especially long, thin objects commonly found in foliage. This new 50/1.4 AF-S Nikkor appears to handle OOF linear objects with relative smoothness, not too much doubling or tripling. Generally speaking when lenses handle such OOF linear objects very smoothly, they also tend to be lacking in critical apparent sharpness. This lens appears to have reached a reasonable compromise.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to see it evaluated for flat field results too, especially in close ups. While a fast normal lens isn't usually a good substitute for a macro lens, there are times when critical flat field and low barrel distortion performance is helpful.</p>

<p>Here you are Lex</p><div></div>

<p>And now a crop of the upper left - apologies for the evident bird shit.</p><div></div>

<p>Ah, well done, thanks, James. Very tough test. I'm sure some will pick some nits anyway, but despite the busy look that's really not bad at all. Good compromise between apparent sharpness and rendering of out of focus areas. Looks like a keeper.</p>

<p>My pleasure. I think this is an outstanding lens and well worth the long wait for it. As the weather in London today is truly horrific I might even see if I can do a comparison between the AFD and the CZ 50mm ZF too.</p>

<p>As Lex says, from what I`m seeing I find on this lens a reasonable compromise. For better bokeh perhaps we must go for other lenses, but they will not be as sharp. The AFS and being a modern Nikkor makes me inclined for this one. It seems to me an improved lens with almost the same image type than previous ones. What do you think?</p>

<p>I share the general consensus that this is a well built lens with extremely good image quality. I don't think the fears about OOF areas that were generated by a previous post are borne out. I deliberately included a difficult background - a glass-surfaced gas hob with high intensity lights above it - and was pleased by the very circular specular highlights at all apertures.<br /> Here are some crops from the original photos (which, BTW, were hand-held), taken from the point of optimum focus. A slight dreamy quality at 1.4, but rapidly increasing in sharpness and contrast by 2.0 and bitingly sharp at 5.6.<br>

They are in sequence 1.4 - 2.0 - 2.8 - 4.0 - 5.6<br>

<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/3103858177_52b043c154_o.jpg" alt="Crop at 1.4" width="1055" height="702" /><br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/3104690700_a6939e6c14_o.jpg" alt="Crop at 2.0" width="726" height="484" /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/3103858651_f5acee5db2_o.jpg" alt="Crop at 2.8" width="736" height="490" /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/3104691132_ffce2ed763_o.jpg" alt="Crop at 4.0" width="736" height="490" /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/3103859161_0162d3e9e8_o.jpg" alt="Crop at 5.6" width="732" height="487" /></p>

<p>Perhaps you will lynch me or calling me a liar, and I do not mean to contemn the new 50mm/14, but the results look pretty much like what I am used to get from my AF-50mm, pre-D-Made-In-Japan-14 which rattles a lot while focussing...perhaps I was lucky with my exemplar...</p>

<p>Sven brings up an interesting point. Does anyone have a comparison of the same subject shot with the new 50mm f/1.4 AF-s and the older 50mm f/1.4D? Is the considerable price difference of the two lenses reflected in the image quality?</p>

<p>I will get around to making a comparison when I can. I don't think anyone was expecting a huge difference in image quality over the AFD but we'll see once some comparisons are made. However the AFS lens is a quality piece of equipment whereas the dear old AFD is a creaking relic of antiquity - albeit that it's results were very good.</p>

<p>Hi James,</p>

<p>I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the AFD as "creaking relic of antiquity". I use mine on an F100; it does not creak. It focuses fast enough to capture VERY active children. As you wrote, "the results were very good", and results are I look for in any piece of equipment - lens, camera, flash, automobile, etc.</p>

<p>I would not even characterize my much older 105mm f/2.5 manual focus lens as "creaking relic of antiquity". On the other hand, me, I do creak from time to time. <GRIN></p>

<p>I look forward to seeing your comparison. Thank you for all the work you have put into making them.</p>

<p>Brroks,<br>

With all due repect, I must say that I dislike the wobbly lens barrel of the 50mm f1.4 AFD.</p>