You ever buy a lens before

[mharris]

you read up on them? I did the other day, got home and about 50% of the reviews I read were bad. Ken liked it

but he likes everything. It's the 50mm 1.4D. With my post upgrade crippled D300 I went to test the lens and see

if the camera continues working. Here's three I shot:

 

<img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/mharris660/50mmWEB.jpg">

 

 

<img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/mharris660/50mmWEB2.jpg">

 

 

<img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/mharris660/50mmWEB3.jpg">

 

 

What lenses surprised you?

[Palouse]

50 1.4D is the holy grail!

[lex_jenkins]

"...50% of the reviews I read were bad."

 

Then those weren't reviews. Those were opinion. Reviews are written by informed people with some expertise, using standard testing methodology, and offer a balance of fact and opinion.

 

What you see online are often unsubstantiated opinion, unfortunately sometimes written by people who have little or no experience with a lens and have no idea what standard testing methodology is. Also, people who are dissatisfied with a product, service or person tend to repeat the same complaints all over the web and every news group and mailing list they can access, sometimes even using assumed names, giving the impression that there are many complaints from many people rather than many complaints from a handful of people.

 

You'll see similarly unbalanced opinions offered about the 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX and 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR Nikkors. The 18-70 DX is generally well regarded, often receiving undeserved praise. The 24-120 VR seems to garner a lot of *reports* of complaints (I don't know how many of these are individual reports, or many people repeating a handful of anecdotes). I owned both lenses for about two years. They were virtually identical in performance, with a slight edge in optical performance to the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR. Both are very good values with better than average performance for this class of lens. I suspect the reason the 18-70 is praised is because it's an outstanding value while, for the photographer who doesn't really need the benefits of VR, the 24-120 VR is not quite as good a value in terms of pure optical performance.

 

Likewise, you'll see dismissive remarks about the FM2N not being a "pro" camera despite the inarguable fact that many thousands of pro photographers, including international photojournalists, put them through many years of hard use. And you'll see somewhat exaggerated praise for the F3 which, while rugged and versatile, also has some annoying quirks including a tiny, gray LCD display for the meter reading, an infuriating viewfinder illumination buttonette and greatly diminished utility without battery power. (I own both, enjoy both and have no strong preference between 'em.)

 

BTW, everything I just wrote about those lenses and cameras? Opinion. Not reviews.

[jwhite3.0]

I must say I've heard mostly good things about this lens but the source is as important as the written word. As the great reporters would say, "If your mom says she loves you check her sources". First shot is my favorite out of the bunch, it has that 3D effect.

[mharris]

Lex, you're 100% correct. I'm not sure any of those "reviews" did any testing. I don't either, I've only had one lens I hated, a Sigma 150. The damn thing just wouldn't focus. The very first thing I do before buying a lens is come here and do a search. I was on the road this time and did the whole impulse buy thing. Glad I did :)

 

Thanks John, I'm glad I bought it. I really want to get it out and shoot at night.

[jwhite3.0]

Ouch, Sigma EX 150mm DG macro is one of my favorite macros and short tele. If you're willing to wait, send it to Sigma for calibration. Actually, that's lens gets a great rap from most reviewers and deservedly so, it just happened you got one that needed calibration. With that said, I've only used it for Canon and not yet for Nikon so maybe there is a difference.

[mharris]

John the one I had was for the 4/3s bodies. I have one of those Panasonic DMC-L1s that I really like.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I've bought several lenses without checking up on them.

 

All tests are subject to conditions & the person executing them - - there are just too many potential variables. Be it a camera or a lens.

 

Ultimately I'm the one who has to live with my decision. The lens or camera has to work for me. I can't go by what another person says exclusively. I may do research - - especially on more expensive "toys", but ultimately it's if it works for me or not. Can I do & get what I want from it & expect from it. What's my frame of reference. What's my expectations......

 

The list goes on.

 

I may check what Bjorn Rorslett has to say about a lens. But there are many locations on the web where I can find tests done & many locations to where I can go & ask people who've used the lens or camera etc on a regular basis to see how they've liked it & some may even share a RAW file with me to check.

 

Ultimately there's only one person I need to satisfy - - me. Now, if I was a professional photographer things would be a bit different I'm sure.

 

What lenses may have surprised me...... How about my Tamron 200-500mm which really taught me a lot & I got some wonderful shots out of. Granted the 200-400VR would probably have done a lot better, but I wasn't ready to spend $ 5,000 on a lens....

 

JMHO

 

Lil :-)

[Rene11664880918]

Michael... reading reviews and especially looking on the net for previous written articles or discussions is a waste of time and finally you end up confused and afraid to make a decision. Since I am new to Nikon I just went to a camera store and pick up the camera that felt good in my hands, in my price range. Lucky it was a D80 with a kit lens 18-70 coz it was the fastest of the kit lenses. Then I found Photo Net when I was looking for a manual on the net. After that I bought like 7 or 8 lenses but I have never read reviews on the net. People like Thom, Ken and a few others just confused me. For me, the best way is just to think what lens I need (want) then when I have an idea I ask here in the forum coz people here are the ones using the lenses everyday, not testing but using them. So far, every single time I followed their advices and I haven't regretted any single purchase. Rene'

[jose_angel]

Looks like many opinions are related to whatever the 50/1.4 at any aperture at any distance on any camera. Some times, regardless version and aperture, compared to the latest 50/1.8 AFD at optimal apertures on a D200-D300.

 

F1.4 and 1.8 lenses are usually softer at wide apertures, it`s absolutely normal. Most of them have a very high sharpness fall-off towards the corners, that is dramatically improved closing the lens two or three stops. If somebody shot often an old manual focus 50/1.4 wide open or f2 on a film camera, it will be a very soft lens, with a very beatiful bokeh. If the lens is used at f5.6 or f8 on a D300, it will be a super-sharp lens with an ugly bokeh. All this issues has been usually simplified on a "good" "no good" concept. Your lens is the best sample of this issue.

[robert_hooper1]

People used to be more willing to put up with a little softness in their fast lenses shot wide open.

 

In the days of shooting transparency film, and/or film based photojournalism, every bit of speed you could get out of a lens was extremely important. In some situations, it was even more important than getting an absolutely sharp image. The Nikon 50mm f1.2, f1.4, or f1.8, are compromised somewhat wide open, but these fast lenses allowed you to stop action or get an image on film in dim light.

 

Digital technology allows us, with very little penalty, to just crank up the ISO while using a slow lens, or stopping down with a fast lens, to get great results. Film photographers had the limited option of using fast, grainy, film or "push processing", but with huge penalties in image quality.

[aether]

Always read as much as I can about a lens before buying. Take most of it with a pinch of salt, of course. Photo sharing web sites can be more informative by looking at actual results. Major factor in range of differing opinions on lenses may well be quality control (QC) -- many say that QC is getting worse even with major lens manufacturers. Sometimes it's just luck, I've had more "luck" with older Ai lenses than with newer lenses. They don't make 'em like they used to do ...

 

As for the 50/1.4, I love mine (even though it's made in China)!

[hugh_look]

People seem far too worried about technical quality, and not enough about photographic quality. A good lens is

one that produces the results you want in your own photography. When you look at the galleries of people who bang

on about lens quality, you often find their work is rather boring (flatly-lit but pin-sharp landscapes and motor

racing, for some reason). Your flower pictures are anything but boring: lovely, show style and imagination, a

great colour sense and a real feel for the intensity of the natural world (and I normally hate flower

photographs). I think you could probably take good photographs on a Lubitel if you set your mind to it.

 

And that's the other thing: no lens or camera is perfect: you find the one that most suits what you want to do,

learn what it does & doesn't do well and work within or around those limitations. It's all part of the challenge

& the learning.

 

Technically, at the size of reproduction you've shown here most lenses are going to look OK. Differences show up

when you start to print at 8x12 upwards. On the other hand, a touch of unsharp mask or high pass filter around

the edges can often produce a perfectly acceptable /photographic/ result at up to 13x19 (A3+), although it

wouldn't satisfy the Resolution Police. I use the 50/1.4 a lot, and it's a smashing little lens. Nothing like it

for low-light candids and street photography. It's in no sense a "forensic" lens, but it takes damn good

photographs (as opposed to damn good test shots).

 

Before I buy a lens, I read Bjorn Rorslett & Thom Hogan, & that's it. They give a much better idea of the

photographic qualities of a lens than most "review" posts, and are good photographers (I could never take

Rockwell seriously, whatever his technical merit or otherwise, because his pictures are so dull).. Then a couple

of test shots at full aperture & f8 at different distances in the shop, and if they look OK go back later to buy

/the one you tested/. Then go out & take photographs.

 

Lens that surprised me? The 85mm 1.8 Nikkor: couldn't afford the 1.4, but the 1.8 is great for low-light

telephoto work and suits what I do much better than the "reviews" would suggest. The very first evening I had it I

took what has become one of my own favourite photographs and which other people have liked too. Guess what? Don't

tell anyone but (whisper) it's rather soft in the corners.

[hugh_look]

Oh, yeah, forgot to mention: one of my other favourites of my own stuff was taken with a lens that turned out to be quite badly defective, having had a bad knock.

[jose_angel]

I found another dismissed lens on the 105VR. There are common tags about this lens that gives the idea of a

backwards step release. It can be read on tests and reviews and dozens of non-user opinions. I don`t remember any

of this testers considering it as a good all-purpose close-up tele lens, very good suited for e.g. dental offices,

phisically designed to hold heavy flash ring lights. I jump to it over all this reviews and found a very good lens that suit

my needs surpassing greatly my best older Micro-Nikkors that are now on the shelve. Times are changing, tilt&shift

lenses (PC-E Micro-Nikkors) could be the current replacement for the actual macro work, thought.

[steve_levine]

Experience has taught me that there are no two lenses that are exactly alike. Samples of the same lens can often run hot

to cold. Stopping down a stop or two can change the dynamics considerably too.I own and I'm pleased with many lenses

that many of the "experts" marginalize as substandard. But as Lex has

pointed out anyone with a computer is an expert now days.

 

 

Then of course there are the paid shills i.e.K. Rockwell, "Moose" Petersen et al. These guys are paid to tell amateurs what

to buy. Their advice is best taken with a large chunk of sodium chloride.

 

 

 

I'm also not a "wide open" aperture shooter per se. Unless of course it's getting dark and Elvis walks past, I'm usually in

the F8 neighborhood. And what lens isn't doing it's best at F8?

 

 

Best advice is to buy used glass from a reputable dealer that has a good return policy. And then shoot away with all the

lens' different settings(f stops and distances), then examine the results carefully. Your's is the only review that matters.

[walterh]

"... got home and about 50% of the reviews I read were bad. "

 

Some people try to raise a point by claiming something strange and then disprove it. I hope this is not your way.

Try reading the reliable sources.

 

BTW: It may come as a surprise but there is more to a verdict about a lens than good or bad^^.

 

Have fun with your lens.

[tri-x1]

Given the difference in price, the 50mm f1.8 D Nikkor or a much better buy (I my opinion)

[ncowger]

I love my 50 1.4D it's one of my favorites. I don't use it as much as I would really like to, not a good walk around lens

simply because on my D300 it's not wide. But whenever I do portraiture I ALWAYS use it. Not that that's all it's good for.

[scott_warn]

Actually, many of my lenses were purchased before there was an internet available for researching a choice. Oddly enough, I seem to have had bad luck in regards to 50mm f1.4 lenses. Way back in 1973 I purchased a Demo of hte Canon F-1 with a 50mm f1.4 FD that featured an air bubble of at least 3/16 inches in diameter in the front element. Needless to say the lens flared terribly. Currently I have an Af 50mm 1.4 Nikkor that would best be described as a semi soft focus lens, it doesn't exhibit any real sharpness until stopped down to f8. Fortunately, I also have an AI converted 50mm f2 Nikkor-H that's fantastic at f2.8 and smaller.

 

Recently I have been moving from Prime to Zooms. Blame that on the 18-70 that came with my D70. I really wanted to buy just the D70 body only but the only thing avalable was the Kit. That was a revelation, that 18-70 still amazes me at times with it's sharpness and contrast. This year I decided to do some supplementing and upgrading. So last fall I purchased the 70-300 VR which I did research. Then a D300 and a 12-24mm Sigma DG specifically for it's extraordinarily low distortion results (which are completely true). Anyhow, everything that I had read concerning the 70-300 VR indicated that it's just so-so at 300mm. Which is true when it's used at an aperture of f8 or larger. However, July 4 was a splendid sunny day and I decided to try the 70-300 at smaller apertures. Set the ISO to 800, the shutter speed to 1/750 and the apertures were ranging between f11 and f16, the following was shot at f13. Turns out the 70-300 VR is quite good at f13 at 300mm.

 

The pic that will go to the Mother and Daddy.

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7515354-lg.jpg

 

and a 100% peep of the image before curve tweaking and light noise reduction.

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7515364-lg.jpg

[wpahnelas]

confession is good for the soul, so i'll just come out and say it: yes, i've bought lenses without doing much research -- at least at the beginning. fortunately, as my technique has improved, i'm really starting to appreciate what a lens like the 80-200mm f/2.8 ED can do. that was just dumb luck. nowadays, i have a pretty good idea which lenses i'm interested in, so that when i find them and am in a position to buy, i have a reasonably good idea what i'm getting. when i found a nikkor 105mm f/2.5 in the used bin of a local camera store this past weekend, i consulted bjorn roslett's site and a couple of others to make sure it was what i though it was. at a certain point, i don't think a conscientious photographer can just go around buying lenses on a whim, and only afterwards check to see what they've bought.

[SCL]

I've always tried to do my research first, but sometimes I've got my hands on a lens and everything feels so right and seems so good that I proceed to buy. About half the time, I end up selling the lens within 1-2 years. Usually I keep a running list of lenses on my palmtop which might offer promise at the right price.

[oskar_ojala]

Reading "reviews" is like reading anything else; you need to read between the lines and understand the motivations of the author.

 

With regards to the 50/1.4, I've seen two trends as long as I've been following photo sites: 1) the quite correct notion that the 50/1.8 is better bang for the buck (which however doesn't imply the 50/1.4 to be a bad purchase per se) and 2) the disappointment from the fact that the 50/1.4 isn't ultra-sharp at f1.4. Surely a 50 mm lens could be made that is extremely sharp at f1.4, but would the average reader of the photo sites be able to afford it? Incidentally, my own experience and numerous credible tests I've seen rate the 50/1.4 as an excellent performer at relatively large apertures.

 

Or to put it simply: every lens is a compromise and one needs to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a lens.

[sngreen]

Michael, very nice images. Congrats on new lens!

 

- Sergey

[leicaglow]

Very nice indeed. If I had a buck for every time I've read how my 24mm f/2 or 45 GN sucked... well, I could buy a 50mm f/1.4<g>. One thing you read a lot about this lens is how bad the bokeh is. That's obviously not the case with your lens. I also wonder if samples vary dramatically. I had three 60mm Micros that were just terrible before I bought another one for a project that was very sharp. Can't say why.