50mm AF-S in stock and reserved, but doubts....

[Ian Rance]

<p>My fate is in your hands. I was told by my local shop that they have a new 50mm f1.4 lens in stock and they are holding it for me until I get over there tomorrow. They say that if I don't want it then somebody else will have it. I was going to rush and pick it up tomorrow, but then I thought about it and realised that I have my excellent series E 50mm f1.8 and I don't want to get the newer lens and see no improvement.</p>

<p>So, would you say that even though I own the esteemed series E 50, is it worth purchacing the newer lens? Is it just being greedy or a good move?</p>

<p>Thanks for any guidance on this matter.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ian, I don't mean to sound offensive, but the only person who can realistically answer this question is somehow asking it.<br />Incidentally, the new 50mm/f1.4 AF-S is a G lens and effectively useless on all MF bodies. Is that what you really want? Moreover, exactly what is wrong with your Series E 50mm/f1.8 such that you need an upgrade?<br />If you don't need the 50mm/f1.4 AF-S immediately, as usual, it pays to wait as prices tend to go down when the initial demand subsides.<br>

Take a look at the following thread: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Q5bj">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Q5bj</a> Merely 5 months ago, people paid the full $1699 for the 24-70mm/f2.8. If you must have it then, fine. If not, today it is $270 cheaper and the price is still dropping: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520637-GREY/Nikon_2164_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_24_70mm.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520637-GREY/Nikon_2164_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_24_70mm.html</a></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ian, if you have any doubts, you don't need it.</p>

<p>Seriously, there's only one reason to buy such a lens: You've missed crucial photos due to having a lens that was too slow, didn't autofocus quickly enough and wasn't that precise focal length.</p>

<p>Unless you're a photojournalist, dedicated street photographer, do a lot of wedding and event photography where flash isn't permitted or routinely shoot indoor school sports (other than at college level), you probably don't absolutely need that particular lens.</p>

<p>Once upon a time the fast normal lens was a standard issue item. Pretty much every photographer got whatever was the "normal" focal length for a given film format (for example, 80mm with 6x6cm medium format). But nowadays it's really a specialty tool, and not that many folks absolutely need that particular tool.</p>

<p>One way to determine inexpensively whether you really need and can use such a lens is to buy a good used 50/1.8D AF Nikkor, which should cost well under $100. Use it for a month or two. If you quickly tire of it and find it's just a novelty item given the context of your preferred style, skip the new 50/1.4 AF-S Nikkor. But if you find yourself in a position where you missed a great shot because even f/1.8 wasn't quite fast enough or the autofocus wasn't quite quick enough, there's your answer.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Lex, why are you so reasonable. I don't agree with the logic that the only reason to buy a lens is because some one miss a shot. If I think like that the camera manufacturers will be out of business. We have to keep the economy afloat by adding want and desire to the equation, we cannot live on need alone. <br>

OTOH Shun is correct about the G lens having no aperture ring. So it will be of no use in a manual focus body. However the G lens have autofocus in an autofocus body. Not to mention the G lens is f0.4 faster which may mean a faster shutter speed to steady that shot.<br>

OK, enough devil's advocating. Ian, the only person that can make that decision is you. I have not seen your camera inventory or your tax return to tell you if you can afford a new lens or not.;-)</p>

 

[c_o1]

<p>Ian,<br>

I looked through your portfolio. Congratulations, you take pictures with your gear. So first off I would suggest that any investment would not be a waste of money for you. It seems that you don't buy stuff just to have it. Many of your photographic subjects look like a fast autofocusing lens would have made no difference. But I think you should get it and a AF body if you don't have one because you may discover that you enjoy other genres of photography that do require a fast focusing lens. <br>

Will the price go down? Sure. But it can only drop so much because it is a relatively low priced lens(when compared to fast zooms or telephotos). You really can't get hurt bad if you don't like it.<br>

I am in a similar situation. I am going to buy the new 50 even though my 50 AF-D focuses pretty fast on my F100. Well, I think I am anyway. I'm going to wait until I can actually mount it on my camera and see if it wows me.<br>

Anyway, good luck with your decision and congratulations again for taking and sharing so many photographs. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Based on Ian's previous posts, he seems to have some manual-focus Nikon film SLRs. That was why I pointed out the G lens issues.</p>

[cmulcahy]

<p>Unless I'm making a living off of my photography there is no way that lens is worth the extra cash they are asking for it. </p>

<p>As far as image quality goes the only real improvement is at f/2 and wider.(according to reports I've read) Sure that would be nice to have...but for that price? I'm not all that excited. If the price drops to $300 then I might actually consider selling my 50mm 1.4d and getting it. If not, I'm perfectly happwy with my 50mm 1.4D which is about $150 cheaper....or in relative terms about 40% less expensive.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>One nice thing about the introduction of a new and improved Nikkor is that the penultimate version hits the used market, and the price gets favorable, at least for a while. The AF-D 50/1.4 has always be a great lens, holding its own against the likes of Zeiss and Leica. My gut tells me you would be better off with the AF-D, especially with the economy being what it now is, and most likely will continue to be.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I second Lex's advice of going for the f/1.8 lens. It's absolutely superb and one of my favorite (sans the build quality). And it has an aperture ring as my D200 reminded me of tonight when I forgot to set it at f/22 in my studio (FEE).<br>

It's just a nicely balanced lens that will outperform your Series E. It's very sharp and colorful. Heres a shot I took tonight for an article.</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`d buy this lens if: 1. I were looking for a "normal" focal lenght prime to be used on a FX camera (to save weight or to have a 50mm with SWM) or 2. If price were not an isue and were looking for a short portrait lens on DX camera (if price is an issue no doubt that the 50/1.8AFD new or even a 50/1.4AFD second hand would be my choice). I know this is very subjective.<br />If you can I`d wait. Perhaps NAS and the availability issue is pushing you to the store. In a few weeks this lens will be in enough stock for everybody, thought. I think decisions must be taken in cold. I also agree that "if you don`t know if you need it, you don`t need it "althought it is also subjective... I`d never thought that I`d become a 50/1.8AFD enthusiast before buying the D700; I must recognize that the intention was to hold with this lens until the AFS arrive... now it`s here and things have changed: what calls me to buy the lens is the SWM and I wonder if a better AF accuracy on my camera, thought.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Ian,<br>

I really like 50mm lenses, I use them a lot and now I have three of them (the AFS, the AFD and the Zeiss f1.4 ZF). Anecdotally the AFS seems to me the best of them in terms of image quality and speed (build quality goes to CZ). If you don't use 50mm lenses very much as it is then you're likely not to derive much benefit from this lens. Then again on an F6 you will just love it.<br>

If you can buy it without sacrificing someone's Christmas present I reckon you owe yourself one :-) I am extremely happy with mine and I consider it a worthwhile upgrade on the other 50mm lenses I already own.<br>

James</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Thank you for the (as ususual) excellent advice.<br />Shun, yes, you are right - I am the only one, but I know once I hold and try the lens I will want it for sure (even if I don't REALLY need it) so I thought I would ask here and go better prepared for telling them 'yes please' or 'no thank you'.<br />After reading and re-reading I will hold off buying this lens for now. Although I do have a camera capable of driving AFS lenses, I realise that my current 50mm lens has not let me down, but I do know that like everyone else here, you cannot have 'too much quality'. Good to know about the quality - thanks James.<br>

I will give the lens a while to stabilise in price and meanwhile will work harder with my current 50mm to see if I need or warrant the increase in speed. I look forward to reading more about this interesting lens in the meantime.<br>

Thank you all again, Ian</p>

[c_o1]

<p>I may have talked myself out of it too. My MB-15 arrived this morning(which I paid $40 bucks for) and my 50mm A-FD was before and now is pretty darn fast on my F-100. I'm not sure if I will see big improvement with speed after all. I guess I'll buy the new 50 if I lose my AF-D.</p>

[eric_lund1]

<p>Here is the thing that I have heard. A guy I know claims the AF-S version of this lens raised his successful capture rate (on a D300) significantly. I'm not going to look it up, but from in the neighborhood of 30% to 70%, shooting AFC mode. Now, he chases his kids, so you have to consider fast moving objects.<br>

If this is a consideration in your photography, it may be worth getting the lens.</p>

[dennis_d._hardenburger]

<p>I don't know how the 50 afs could raise the the succes of captures, it focuses slower than the 50 afd</p>