internal focus on 50mm nikon lens?

[roberto_leriquemo]

hello, do both the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 have internal focusing? i want

to attach a polarizer and obviously do not want to focus and then

twist polarizer.

[errol young]

I have the 1.8. filter does not rotate when focusing. It doese goe out and in though but that should not be an issue.

 

Errol

[ilkka_nissila]

Prime lenses almost never have rotating fronts. In fact, I can't think of a single example of a fixed-focal length lens which had this problem. It doesn't need to be internal focusing.

[roberto_leriquemo]

thanks for the answers.

errol, i need this lens for food photography. as such, do you think the 1.8 is sufficient or should i spring the extra $165 and opt for the 1.4?

[vivek iyer]

1.4, better for food photography as is commonly done everywhere with lots of out of focus regions in a frame. This is a fine lens.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 1.8 is the better lens. The 1.4 is soft and lacks contrast at close distances. And the 1.8 has plenty of blur available if you need it.

[walterh]

"......lots of out of focus regions in a frame"

that would be the only reason for me not to decide for the F1.8 lens because its a real gem.

[boulderjoe]

I have the 50mm f1.4 AI and it is an awesome lens. I could not be happier with it. If you want to use a lens in low light without flash this lens is it.

 

-Joe

[vivek iyer]

Ilkka, Under what lighting conditions do you find the 1.4 lens soft and lacking in contrast?

[frank granovski]

Roberta, see the Nikon/Nikkor lens evalutions on this site:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com

 

I've owned 1 50mm F1.5 and several 50mm F1.8. At the moment I only own 2 Nikon E 50mm F1.8 (metal ring versions). The 50mm F1.8 is the better lens.

[frank granovski]

Sorry, I meant that I owned one 50mm F1.4 (typo). It was either an AI or an early AIS, back in my Nikon FM days.

[akira_sasaki1]

If you're going to be using the 50mm for food photography, then 55/60mm f2.8 Micro Nikkors are great options as well. They'll let you get closer and are wikked sharp.

[ethan_melad]

no way. iv'e shot both, but got rid of the 1.8 a long time ago. the f1.4 always blows the 1.8

away.

[lex_jenkins]

If you have the budget the 85mm PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D would be ideal for food photography. Besides handling close ups while allowing more working space between the camera and subject, it offers tilt and shift which lets you choose selective focus along unusual planes.

 

Luxury item catalogs, such as Gevalia coffee, and some TV ads use (some say overuse) this selective focus technique to draw attention to their products in general and to specific areas in particular.

 

Most people who see this use of selective focus along an unusual plane don't know why it draws their attention. It simply works.

[frank granovski]

Re: "no way. iv'e shot both, but got rid of the 1.8 a long time ago. the f1.4 always blows the 1.8 away."

 

Sorry, but it's the other way around, especially when the apertures are wide open. See the lowdown here:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com

[bill_chiarchiaro]

When I look at http://www.naturfotograf.com, I see the following about the 50 mm f/1.4 SC [non-AI]:

 

"Wide open there is some softening in the corners"

 

and about the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D:

 

"It delivers crisp and sharp images even set wide open"

 

and about the 50 mm f/1.8 AIS/AF (and presumably AF-D):

 

"Wide open there is a trace of softness into the corners"

 

This sounds like the f/1.4 AF-D does well wide-open, compared to the other two.

 

--Bill

[frank granovski]

naturfotograf.com:

 

50mm F1.4

This AF lens is encased in a dreadful plastic barrel, but manages to focus quite smoothly with my preferred manual operation. It delivers crisp and sharp images even set wide open, and by f/4 the sharpness is all you could wish for. Image contrast and detail hold up well to f/11 and just begin to lose "bite" at f/16. Vignetting is minimal on the D1X and so is the geometric distortion, which is of the barrel type. Mounted on an F5, however, the barrel distortion may be a bit more visible. The lens focuses quite close, but when shooting up close the images loses some of its crispness. Not entirely unexpected for such a fast lens. Fast lenses tend to be susceptible to flare and the 50/1.4 AF is no exception, so you should shield the front element from being hit by direct sunlight if at all possible. Ugly ghosts are easily invocated if there are any dust specks left on the front element, so keeping the lens immaculately clean is mandatory. The rendition of the out-of-focus areas can be nice when aperture is large, but tends to be harsher when the lens is stopped far down.

 

50 mm f/1.8 Nikkor.

A small, cheap and unobtrusive lens with an outstanding optical performance - can anyone wish for more? This petite Nikkor delivers the goods with a snap and clarity many lenses could - or better - should, envy. Wide open there is a trace of softness into the corners that disappears by stopping down to f/2.8. From f/4 to f/8 its performance hardly can be improved. I have obtained decent results even at f/22. The multi-coating layers on this lens gives it much better contrast and colour saturation than the E-series derivative. According to my sources the AF and AF-D versions of the 50 mm f/1.8 are virtually identical to the MF lens, so can be safely recommended as well (if you stand the plasticky feeling of the newer versions, that is). However as more and more Nikon cameras become crippled when an older lens is mounted on them, we should at least be thankful that some of the best optical designs survive into the brave new world. A final note: when used for IR photography on some DSLR bodies, the newer AF versions can show an occasional "hot-spot" in the image centre. The MF lens, or at least my sample, isn't troubled with this at all.

[vivek iyer]

When I look at these posts I have to smile. Luis Triguez was correct in a way in his one of his posts about these review posts.

 

Few things to note here:

 

1. The original poster's stated application (which does not involve any IR photography that I can think of).

 

2. Forget the ratings given by anyone. If a lens is "lacking in contrast", please think if that holds good under all lighting conditions. Many rated as "dogs"do extremely well under different lighting conditions.

 

3. Even a lens with very harsh contrast variation like a typical micronikkor can render pleasing images under suitable soft lights.

 

4. If higher contrast is required with a 50mm f/1.4 (or for that matter 50mm f/1.2), I would use harsh directional lighting. A mixture of al such are generally used for product photography (food photography).

 

Also, please note the preamble to the "SUBJECTIVE lens evaluations" by Bjorn Rorslett before looking at the numbers or "ratings".

[dan_fromm1]

First off, Roberto, from your name I suspect you might not be a native speaker of english. If so, thank you for taking the trouble to communicate with us in our language.

 

Now, about "internal focusing." Lenses that have internal focusing don't change length as focused distance changes. They change focused distance by moving lens groups around inside the barrel, thereby changing focal length. The quintessential IF lens is the 200/4 AI/AIS MicroNikkor. When it came out, some reviews characterized it as a fixed-focal length zoom lens. The fronts of lenses with IF usually don't rotate as the lens is focused.

 

Lenses that aren't IF may have unit focusing, in which the entire lens moves away from the film plane as a unit as focused distance decreases. Most unit focus lenses are in proper focusing helicals; they don't rotate as focused distance changes. Others are not in proper focusing helicals; then the whole lense rotates as it is focused.

 

Lenses that aren't IF may have front cell focusing, in which case the front element or group moves as the lens is focused closer. Many, not all, zoom lenses have front cell focusing. Lenses on many, not all, old folding cameras have front element focusing. With these lenses, focusing closer rotates the front of the lens.

 

Non-rotating front, which is what you want, is consistent with IF and unit focusing. IF and unit focusing are not the same. I think its better to preserve the distinction between them than to redefine unit focus -- that's what the lenses you asked about are -- as internal focus.

 

Saludos,

 

Dan

[vivek iyer]

Hi Dan, Thanks for typing the original poster's name correctly and did not call him "Roberta" as Frank did.

 

Now, if I could decipher what you were saying.. yes, I can as I am familiar with this language :-)

[frank granovski]

Oops, sorry, Roberto. I'm running a 14" monitor at 800 x 600.

[twmeyer]

I am generally happy with the 50mm 1.8 AF-D, except when using it in the studio into a light background. It frequently yields a large red-ish flare dead center in the image, and I have to switch to either an entirely different focal length, or use my 35-70 f2.8 zoom if I really want the same perspective as the 50 on my digital SLR (which is like a 75mm lens on 35mm). <p>Has any one of you experienced (Nikon) normal lens users had this problem with the 50mm 1.4 AF-D? I am about to spend the bucks, because I really like having an (effective) 75mm f1.8 (or 1.4) lens for product <i>and </i>portrait and to take out at night for fun... t