AF-S 50mm 1.4G

[shydroxide]

<p>Has anyone picked this new 50mm up yet? How does it compare with the old ones (the 1.8 or the 1.4)?</p>

<p>I'm interested in getting one for my D300, as I like the grab-and-go A/M autofocus rather than the old get-your-hands-off-me sort of operation.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p><a href="http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?board=6.0">http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?board=6.0</a></p>

<p>Copy and paste</p>

[peter_k4]

<p>I don't see any images there... do you have to be registered to view photos?</p>

[jfz]

<p>here is the recent thread on this subject.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RmQh</p>

<p>jf</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Peter</p>

<p>The first link in the thread from that forum has 2 sample images and some feedback from the author</p>

<p><a href="http://nikononly.blogspot.com/2008/12/first-shots-nikkor-50mm-af-s-g-f14.html">http://nikononly.blogspot.com/2008/12/first-shots-nikkor-50mm-af-s-g-f14.html</a></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You might want to also compare it - for the extra $50 - with Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM. As linked to from another somewhat related thread, I was just admiring <strong><a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Sigma%2050%2F1.4">the work that Andreas Manessinger has done with that Sigma</a></strong>. The big difference: bigger glass (which helps it overcome the corner issues and barrel distortion seen in the new Nikon G). It's a little more expenisve, and it's bigger and heavier. All depends what you like. But it does allow you to use AF and still do the grab-and-fine-tune maneuver that you mentioned. <br /><br />Just something else to consider. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Andreas was kind enough to chime in on a <strong><a href="00Rr1F">recent thread</a></strong> where the discussion turned in this direction.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Matt you really like the Sigma 50! :) Do you have it? I don't have anything against Sigma except comments of people having problems with back focusing and those things. I don't know much about lenses but somehow having a bigger lens makes me think it is supposed to be better. I also like the idea of 77 mm filters since all my lenses are 77 which means I don't have to pay extra for another smaller filter and more baggage to carry!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm hoping someone will do a no holds barred, take no prisoners comparison test of the new Nikkor and the Sigma equivalent to reveal three very specific things:</p>

<ol>

<li>Apparent sharpness wide open</li>

<li>Flare resistance wide open (preferable with direct light sources in frame)</li>

<li>Coma</li>

</ol>

<p>That's it. Nothing else is relevant to me. The only reason I'd get such a lens is for maximum performance wide open in adverse conditions. If it needs to be stopped down even to f/2 for optimal performance, heck, I've already got the 50/1.8D AF.</p>

<p>So far I haven't seen any sample photos that would reveal all three types of challenges.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Lex, I may just be able to do a comparison for you. I bought the Sigma 50 and have the Nikon 50 f1.4D. Then I got a noticed via email that I have a Nikon 50 f1.4G coming to be from Adorama. I had forgotten I put one on order long time ago. I would love to do a wide open sharpness test on all three lenses side by side with my D700.<br>

Should I do the test with a Jack Daniels bottle or a naked woman?;-)</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>IMHO, Nikkor lenses are the reason to buy into the Nikon system. I have had my forays into Tokina and Sigma, and these have always included a modicum of disappointment. </p>

<p>Lex, the 50/1.8 exhibits coma distortion, the Nikkor 50/1.4D-AF is much better in this regard. Take a picture of the night sky and you'll see this very clearly.</p>

<p>The Sigma 50 exhibits chromatic distortion in the out of focus regions, just like the Sigma 50-150/2.8 EX I sold. Here is a resized image from photozone.de, which shows the chromatic aberation in the new Sigma 50:</p>

<div></div>

[leicaglow]

<p>Matt, thanks for the Sigma link. Those examples are smoking good. They look like Leica Summilux images.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>Should I do the test with a Jack Daniels bottle or a naked woman?;-)</blockquote>

<p>Tough choice, Hansen. The bottle of Jack would be better for showing both resolution and coma (the latter especially after drinking all of it). Nekkid wimmins tend to emphasize my own aberrations, tho', chromatic and otherwise.</p>

<p>Thanks, Dan. I'm not as worried about CA since it can easily be fixed in editing. Coma, flare and softness can't be fixed as easily.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Hi Rene-- I'm really not a Sigma fanboy, I just like what works for me, that's all. No, I don't yet have a 50/1.4, but it's calling to me. I was waiting for Nikon's new G to ship so that some kind early adopters could get to the bottom of whether or not it's the right way to go. I love Nikon gear - don't get me wrong. But I'm a little underwhelmed, so far, by what I'm seeing from their new AF-S 50/1.4. More barrel distortion than the older D version. No improvement to the bokehishness over the older version. Nothing to write home about in terms of flare behavior. A perfectly usable lens, but... since there's nothing about it that's completely unique, I'm glad I didn't reflexively pre-order the Nikon, when there are other options.<br /><br />The Sigma is still interesting to me for a number of reasons, and in the scheme of things, the $50 difference is nothing. So it just comes down to seeing some more shoot-outs from the people who have or have tried them both. The Sigma's been out a while longer, so of course there are more people who know what they're doing and who have had a chance to post some quality results. Guess I'll just let the new Nikon G version float around a while, too, and see what the talent out there is doing with it. I've got no particular sympathy or loyalty to Nikon on this subject if (as it appears) Sigma's lens is sharper to the corners wide open, and shows less distortion. We'll see!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>People say all kinds of things in these threads ... it makes me really wonder how long it takes before the reliable reviews get prominence or if they ever do, in people's perception. The 1.4G is superior in sharpness to the 1.4 ZF, the 50/1.8D, and the 1.4D (which I have not compared the 1.4G directly to, but it follows by default since the 1.4ZF is sharper than the 1.4D). At f/1.4 the difference is anything but small, but you need to get the focus correctly. The bokeh is also improved and softer than any of those 50mm lenses mentioned.</p>

<p>Now with regards to the 50mm Sigma, can anyone show side-by-side comparisons which illustrate that the Sigma is superior in the corners wide open? I haven't been able to locate evidence on this. When I tested the 1.4G I've found it to have really good corner sharpness, superior to that of the 50/1.4 ZF. Also, the 1.4G has noticeably smoother bokeh than my other 50mm lenses. And it has electronic compatibility with Nikon cameras and probably doesn't wear its skin out in normal use.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>People say all kinds of things in these threads ... it makes me really wonder how long it takes before the reliable reviews get prominence or if they ever do, in people's perception.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As soon as photozone.de or a comparable review of the 50/1.4 G AF-S appears, using standardized testing methodology, I'll be happy to stop speculating. As of this morning I don't see one on photozone.de. And while dpreview is usually on top of new camera reviews, they only got around to reviewing the decade-old 50/1.4D AF Nikkor a couple of months ago.</p>

<p>Absent such standardized testing reviews, it seems reasonable to rely on the perceptions of experienced photographers who have tried a particular bit of gear. The sample photos taken with the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM don't reveal the specific factors I'm interested in, and I haven't seen any comparable photos taken with the new Nikkor.</p>

[cmulcahy]

<p>I got a chance to play around w/ the new 50mm 1.4G and I was very impressed with the image quality wide open. </p>

<p>I've read mixed reviews here, so I was expecting to be dissapointed. After taking about 20 shots w/ that lens wide open I was pleaseantly surprised. I don't know about the lab tests, but in real world situations I think this lens is a very nice upgade to the 50mm 1.4D. It was clearly better wider then 2.0 vs the 1.4D. </p>

<p>I'll also add that the build quality is much improved. A week ago someone here said it had a plastic mount....that is false. The body construction is very good. Is it worth an extra $160? To me...NO.....to the guy who has the $ to spend and is really looking for good image quality wider then f/2 then yes. <br>

I asked my self how much would I pay for this lens? I paid $280 on my 50mm 1.4D and I love that lens...but I do like the newer version better. If it cost $350 or less I'd probably sell my 50mm 1.4 to get it. The only negative I could come up with is the price. It needs to drop well below $400 for me to even think about buying that lens. At $440 I think it's way over priced. The market says it should not cost more then $350 IMO. The differences between the new version and the old version just are not that great to justfiy a $160 increase in cost.</p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>"Now with regards to the 50mm Sigma, can anyone show side-by-side comparisons which illustrate that the Sigma is superior in the corners wide open?"<br>

<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5621/sigma-50mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm-af-lens-test.html">http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5621/sigma-50mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm-af-lens-test.html</a><br>

In terms of resolution and distortion, both DPReview and PopPhoto make direct reference to the Sigma vs. Nikon and Canon variants, and it appears to them that in many ways, the Sigma is superior.<br>

DPReview says the lens, while not always superior in every aspect, "redefines the class".<br>

Added to this is Ken Rockwell's review of the New Nikon 50 1.4G... </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Bill, the current 50mm f/1.4G has only been in the market for weeks, whereas the Pop photo review of the Sigma was published in October. Therefore, when they refer to Nikon 50mm lenses, they're talking about earlier Nikkors, not the current AF-S G. The dpreview.com review of the Sigma was published in August, and they had seen even less of the new Nikkor.<br>

Ken Rockwell either doesn't have any idea of what he is saying, or deliberately writes to mislead people when he says the new 1.4G is not sharper than the 1.4D.</p>

 

[andreas_manessinger]

<p>A lens is a tool. You use it for a certain job, and if it does the job, then it is the right lens.</p>

<p>Some would say the Sigma 20/1.8 is unusable at f1.8, but exactly that's how I use it most often. With its minimum focusing distance of an inch from the front element, with its extremely smooth bokeh wide open, it is a perfect wide-angle macro, opening up a world of surreal effects. In that case I could not worry less about its factual weaknesses, i.e. vignetting and soft corners. Why should I, when I don't expect more than maybe 5% of the image area in focus?</p>

<p>The same applies here. I love the Sigma 50/1.4 for its smooth bokeh and for the rendering of out-of-focus highlights. Most of the shots that I take with it are at f1.4, and I never shoot test charts. Other than that, this lens is a very competent performer, critically sharp from maybe f2.8 all the way to f13, I am quite satisfied with its focus performance and there is nothing at all that I would complain of.</p>

<p>If it's ganerally better than the Nikkor AF-S 50/1.4G, I really don't know. For my work seemingly yes, considering the bokeh shots that I've seen so far from the Nikkor. But that's only I and my tastes and needs. Ymmv.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>How can you compare bokeh of images which are not taken of the same scene with both lenses? It seems to me that a lot of conclusions are made with little or no data.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Here is a shot taken with the Nikkor 50/1.4D-AF. I don't know the dimensions of Klaus' Sigma picture above, but in the Nikkor picture, the digits are inches from the "0" focus point. Picture was distance was about 1.3 meters. Strobe light, JPEG Fine, cropped and resized. Yes, it does show a bit of color cast.</p><div></div>

[bahrammonshat]

<p>I think the MTF charts tell us that the Sigma is clearly sharper at f/1.4. I am not sure why we should still be discusisng this.<br>

BUT, I went to the store last week, tried 2 Nikkor Gs and one Sigma at f/1.4, hanheld, 60cm distance to sunject and flash used.I bought ne of the Nikkors just because their AF was spot on. The Sigma was not. I have tested the Nikkor over and over since. Not a problem with AF yet. The bokeh? I like it. I think that is a subjective matter. I just cannot understand why so much discussion about the difference in bokeh between Sigma and Nikkor, they both are excellent, I think.</p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>Why does the Nikon image of the focus scale have a purplish fringe on the 0 and through the foreground 1?<br>

Also, Ilkka, Ken Rockwell is a big Nikon fan. I think it is also pretty obvious that he knows exactly what he is saying. Nikon Inc. would most likely agree... even though he has a track record of cutting through the hype, and giving most people pretty straight, and qualified, impressions.</p>

 

[bill_keane2]

<p>Let's make a few assumptions, then consider a question...<br>

Does Nikon generally have a better reputation than Sigma? Yes.<br>

Does Nikon usually make better lenses than Sigma? Yes.<br>

Must Nikon superiority always be the case with every lens design? No.<br>

The Sigma 10-20mm is a pretty unique product, and it would seem their 50mm 1.4 is as well.<br>

Let's ask this. If the labels were reversed, and the Sigma 50/1.4 was a Nikon, and the Nikon 50/1.4G was a Sigma, would the opinions on each remain the same?<br>

Certainly, the Nikon badge has a much deserved bias for quality. So, opinions might shift on that basis alone... But, every so often, third party providers produce a product that, frankly, Nikon would probably be happy to rebadge as their own...<br>

The Tamron 17-50/2.8; the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6; the Tokina 11-16/2.8 AND the Sigma 50/1.4 could easily fit this category.</p>