Nikon 50mm f1.4G AFS announced

[arthuryeo]

I thot you were kiddin.

[arthuryeo]

Hmm, I am not too impressed with the MTF for the 50mm AF-S ...

[arthuryeo]

Wide-opened, it seemed like it is still pretty soft beyond the 10mm mark. Even in the center, it is not achieving 0.9.

[sprouty]

<I>"The Sigma will undoubtedly be better wide open..."</I>

<p>

Samuel, I'm curious about this, can you elaborate?

[larry n.]

While this is "only" $150 more than the current AF 50mm 1.4, keep in mind that that optic is more than twice the AF 50mm 1.8. I am perfectly happy with my 1.8 and see no reason to upgrade.

 

Btw, clearly this is not an IF design. Why does Nikon make a distinction between IF and RF?

[bmm]

One observation and one question...

 

Observation - this seems to me to be the ideal lens to go in kit form with D700.

 

Question - do you guys think that the second hand market is about to be flooded with used 50/1.4 AF-Ds?

[zaborowski]

" Rene' Villela [subscriber] [Frequent poster] , Sep 22, 2008; 04:30 a.m.

 

Yeap! http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/jpn/whatsnew/2008/0922_afs50_01.htm

 

Now we need an AF-S 85 f1.4G"

 

Yes, and AF-S 35/1.4 ...

;-)

[sven keil]

I have a screwdriver 50mm/f1.4 made in Japan (what about the others?)...it makes a lot of noise (if while focussing it is not held horizontally), but delivers good images from f2 on. The old manual 50mm/f1.2, nevertheless, seems better at f2 (according to some resolution chart I found on the web in the past...I attach it for convenience but cannot remember the source)..so I was flirting with the 50mm/f1.2 for some time. For me the most important criterion to switch to the new 50mm/f14 would be its optical performance from 1.4 to 2.0. If it does not better than predecessors, then I go and get the old manual f1.2. However, the silent-wave motor of course is a convincing argument for D40/D60 owners. Why not the 1.8 1st? Well, for two reasons (mentioned above already): you do not want the D40/D60 owners to get the sigma, and, they are likely earning more when selling the new 50/1.4 in comparison to a hypothetically cheaper new 50/1.8.

<P>

<B>The 50mm/f1.4 Nikkor described in the chart below is the AF-D version, not the new AF-S.</B>-- S.C.<div></div>

[sven keil]

just recovered the source --> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/008ymx (sorry then for posting it again).

[waltflanagan]

You can mount and use Nikon G lenses on Canon bodies with this adapter.

 

http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

[peter_k4]

That chart just wants me to wait more for the 1.8, which reaches equal sharpness and surpasses the 1.4 by f2.2

[ShunCheung]

Please keep in mind that the chart shown above does not including the new 50mm/f1.4 AF-S G lens, which is the subject in this thread.

 

That chart was post several years ago (and probably originated from even before that). The 50mm/f1.4 described in the chart is the AF-D version, with screwdriver AF.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Walt,

 

I've seen that too but also read reports that he wasn't delivering. But it is a product I am interested in. Do you or anyone else know anyone who has this adapter?

[waltflanagan]

Ellis - I don't have it or a Canon body but a quick google shows that various people on dpreview have bought it and it's not fake or a scam. The catch? They ordered and received the adapter 7 months later... Based on what I have read the creator of the adapter is taking an existing Nikon->Canon adapter and has to modify each one by hand. I have no idea how it would stand up to professional use.

[gregf1]

I thought it would have been a 1.2 to compete with Canon. Rather disappointed at the Nikon news from Photokina.

[juan_su]

Looks like I'm late in jumping in on this threat, but I'm glad to hear that Nikon is releasing updates to these awesome lenses. I'm looking forward to seeing some real life test results when it comes out.

[arthuryeo]

Well, at least, there's one thing I like about this lens: it is the recessed front element (like the old 60mm

Micro). That would help to cut down a lot on the lateral flare on the image.

[sprouty]

All I know is if it's optically superior to the current one, then I'd replace that little meat-grinder in a

heartbeat.

[samuel_dilworth]

To answer your earlier question Sp, I think the Sigma will beat the new Nikon wide open because it's already proved vastly better than

existing Nikon fifties at f/1.4, and this new Nikon doesn't seem like a radical improvement (though probably a substantial improvement

nevertheless).

 

Granted, the Sigma has its problems, not least the massive size and weight, and Sigma's usual focus problems. But optically it's better

at f/1.4 than anything in its price range.

 

I like the sound of this new Nikkor. It's sized right, priced right, and an entirely new optical design. I suspect somewhere deep in the

bowels of Nikon photographers and lens designers agitated for the full resources necessary to give this all-new fast fifty the design

priority it deserves. It's not for nothing that Nikon made the 50 mm f/1.4 its first AF-S general-purpose prime, and announced it on the

75th anniversary of the Nikkor brand. Optically it will probably be about as good as a lens of its specifications can be.

 

But an aspherical element makes a massive difference to the wide-open performance of a 50 mm f/1.4 design, and if you give a lens

designer a huge volume to work with, an optically better lens will result (especially in terms of vignetting and geometric distortion, but

also wide-open contrast). Sigma gave its lens designers both those advantages, and I find it inconceivable that Nikon's lens designers

could have overcome the strict limitations imposed upon them for this new lens.

 

I place a high value on small size and am not fussy about vignetting wide open on a 50 mm f/1.4. I also like traditional double-Gauss

designs. The conceptual elegance of honing a spherical design to the limit of what's possible against the monumental challenges of f/1.4

is appealing too. In fact, I've always appreciated economy in design. What Zeiss achieved with the spherical designs for the Contax G

system is a beautiful thing even today. For all these reasons and more I'll likely end up buying the new AF-S Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4G. But I

don't think it will perform as well as the Sigma at full aperture.

[sprouty]

Thanks Samuel, I almost exclusively shoot with a 50mm so I can directly compare the current Nikon 1.4 to 3 other other lenses that I've liked over the years: An old Pentax SMC, a last generation Summicron (f 2.0), and the Sigma 30 (used on a D200 and loved). All three lenses delivered in their own way.

 

I shoot a lot of the time wide open and don't think the current Nikon lens is bad but it sure grinds away like a truck compared to the Sigma. I also like a small lens so I'll have to checkout the Sigma to see how big it really is on the D700.

 

I don't suppose you (or anyone, I suppose) have any thoughts on the 28mm F 2.8? That's next up on the list.

[samuel_dilworth]

The Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 is staggeringly big when you see it in person. Seems like you could fit about five Summicrons in

there! A lot bigger than the 30 mm Sigma, which I've used a bit and also like, though it's also on the bulky side. Then

again, the D200 and D700 aren't exactly petite.

 

This list you talk about: is it your purchasing list or Nikon's design list (an AF-S 28 mm)? The current AF-D 28 mm is sharp

in the centre but rapidly degrades off-axis, which isn't ideal for a wide-angle lens. Worse, it doesn't sharpen up across the

frame even at f/8. The older f/2.8 AIS design was actually much better optically (and mechanically of course). It's still a

fine lens by today's standards, though not quite up to the best Leicas or what have you.

[jose_angel]

Samuel, I expect from Nikon the same work on its new 50 AFS than Zeiss did with their 35/2 ZM. No aspherical

surfaces and a more interesting lens (at least for Erwin Putts) than the 35/2 asph from Leica. It is true that the Zeiss

is a 9 element lens and the Leica use "only" 7 pieces of glass...

 

Out of curiosity, the very best 50 (Summilux M 50/1.4 asph) use 8 elements, a floating group and one aspherical

surface. Looks like the new Nikon need at least one element more or an aspherical one to be on par.

 

We will see if the new Nikkor is a money-maker design (cheap construction+high selling price) or the state of the art

in optical design.

[sprouty]

Samuel, I currently have the Pentax, the Summicron, and the Nikon 1.4. The Sigma is in the capable hands of some

local thief who, with the assistance of a crowbar, helped himself to all of my digital gear a few months ago. No

matter though as it wouldn't have been what I wanted for the D700. So now the only other lens I'm looking for is

a fast 28mm.

[alastair_anderson]

Samuel Dilworth said: "Optically it will probably be about as good as a lens of its specifications can be."

 

This is a tautology isn't it?