50mm 1.8 way too soft

[bill_pador]

<p>I use an older model 50mm f/1.8D on my D300 and it's one of the sharpest lenses in my bag. It takes some practice to use it properly depending on what your shooting but once mastered it's one of Nikon's best ever pieces of glass (especially for the price) or as some reviewers in the past have called it LEGENDARY. Sounds like you may have a bad copy or just don't have the proper technique down yet. Give it a chance and play with it some more, I think you'll learn to love it in the long run. Good luck !</p>

[jorge]

<p>The 50/1.8 is one of the world's best, in league with Leica's Summicron 50/2 and Zeiss Planar 50/2. If you can rule out defective technique, meaning proper focus and exposure (you did shoot some tests at infinity with the camera on tripod, right?), it probably means that the lens is defective. Send it back.</p>

[d_balzac]

<p>I run very quick test with my 50 f1.8 D (Made in China!). D200, ISO400, 2M, tripod mount, remote release. 100% bottom left corner 100% crop. As you can see, its OK by 2.8 and very find at 4,5.6 and image start to go down at 11 (due to absolute aperture diffraction of 11 on APS size sensor)</p><div></div>

[d_balzac]

<p>there at @2 (before was at 1.8)</p><div></div>

[d_balzac]

<p>at 2.8</p><div></div>

[d_balzac]

<p>@4</p><div></div>

[d_balzac]

<p>future stopping down to 5.6 and 8 did not improve IQ, however at 11 its start to go down again (as expected)</p><div></div>

[lorenzo_levrini]

<p>I risk repeating what has already been said as I do not have time to read all responses, and I apologize if this is the case, but I'd like to draw people's attention to the fact that the focusing screens on today's non-professional DSLRs are not designed to effectively and consistently focus wide-aperture lenses wide open.<br>

I own the old AIS versions of the nikkor 85/1.8 and 50/1.8 and focusing them on a D40x is almost trial and error. At focus settings very near to the correct one, the focusing error is easy to confuse with apparent lack of lens sharpness. Although I am very slightly short sighted, I have no problems consistently focusing the Canon FD 50/1.4 wide open to incredible sharpness on a serious screen like that in the T70, with and without the split-screen focusing aid. DSLRs like Nikon's DX series are made with f/5.6 zooms and autofocus in mind. What camera body is the thread-starter using?<br>

I'd also like to remind the user that the rule-of-thumb of using a shutter speed of 1/60th for a DX-cropped 50mm provides acceptable lack of camera shake blur, but not total absence. Small amounts of camera shake blur can confuse judgements on lens sharpness when zooming to 100%. Try shooting in full sunlight to obtain ISO 100 wide open @ 1/1000th or faster when testing sharpness. </p>

[bradfarlow]

<p>I don't usually take pictures of cereal boxes or brick walls, but for use in real life situations, I have been very happy with my 50mm AF (non D). Here are a few examples. It's a great lens for the price IMHO.</p><div></div>

[bradfarlow]

<p>Here's another</p><div></div>

[bradfarlow]

<p>Last one</p><div></div>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>Don't know whether this has been posted yet: I've owned two versions of 50/1.8, a D and a non-D. First I've had the D few years ago and it was quite crap. Stopping down to f/4.5 matched the sharpness of my Nikkor 18-70DX, but larger apertures were wery soft.<br /> Comparision of the 50/1.8D, 50/1.4 (some late version, not G) and 18-70DX on a Nikon D200: <a href="http://foto-alex.com/pics/d200/50mm_test_obj.jpg">http://foto-alex.com/pics/d200/50mm_test_obj.jpg</a> (4.6 MB) - Those are 100% crops, somewhere around the bottom center.<br /> I quickly got rid of the lens. After a few years of untrust, I've ebayed a 50/1.8 non-D and it is excellent, razor sharp at f/2.2.<br /> I don't know whether this is just sample variation, or the later D model has generally lower quality. Perhapas both, ie. the newer model is manufactured to a lesser standard and thus larger sample variation may occur.</p>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>BTW don't call me a pixel peeper. Back then, I was simply not satisfied with the lens performance (monitor, print, whatever), so I just made a quick check to see how it compares. As you can see, it sucked. Many bad opinions about the 50/1.8 are valid.</p>

[tholte]

<p>Alex, you are a pixel peeper! "Many bad opinions about the 50/1.8 are valid." And I would bet, many good opinions about the 50/1.8 are valid as well. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I've used two non-D AF 50/1.8's and two D versions and they've all performed admirably. I guess technically it's possible to run into a bad lens but it's not common in the case of the 50's.</p>

[cmulcahy]

<p>Those who are critical of the 50 1.8 are not considering the price. <br>

Compare that lens to any kit lens costing 2 or even 3X as much and the 50mm 1.8 will out perform those lenses in terms of image quality.<br>

Compare that lens to a professional lens that cost 10X more and maybe it doesn't perform up to that. Not really a fair comparison. <br>

It's a good lens that performs very well. It out performs every 2.8 lens ever made at apertures wider then 2.8.... :) If you are asking for extreme sharpness wide open then you are asking too much. </p>

<p>As for bad samples...I tend to think the issue is AF. I think the 50mm 1.4D and the 1.8D do not AF very well opened up. The new 50mm 1.4G AFS has dramitically improved that issue. You just cannot consistently auto focus that lens wide open...at least I can't. I'm using a D300 and I find that I get better focus manually when wide open using the 50mm 1.4D. Both lenses produce VERY usable images wide open...so I frankly don't understand anyone being critical of it's performance. I can understand not liking the focal length or the bokeh....but for the price what do you want? It's a great lens for someone who can't afford pro glass but want something faster then the standard kit lenses that come w/ the cameras. I suggest any amature photographer who is entering the DSLR world to buy this lens. It's better then the kit lenses and it's inexpensive.</p>

[slagerman]

<p>i don't know what body you are using (just skimmed the post), but if you are shooting on a higher end body, many people have found that you need to set the AF Fine tune to +20 to correct for back focusing on the 50mm f1.8. It seems to be a pretty universal fix, at least on the D3.<br>

<br /> Look here: </p>

<p>http://www.slagermanphoto.com/blog/2009/01/08/nikon-autofocus-fine-tuning/</p>

<p> </p>

[david_carpenter_warren]

<p>I too have a real problem with the poor quality of image obtained wide open. <br />Before anyone is patronizing enough to explain it as user error or DOF, it is not related to either.<br>

I bought it for low light backup at weddings, but from 1.8 to 2.5 the image quality is appalling, with a white veiling flare over everything, almost as though I have used a white soft focus filter.<br>

I have just got onto Nikon and am sending the lens in, along with Alex's web example:<br>

<a href="http://foto-alex.com/pics/d200/50mm_test_obj.jpg">http://foto-alex.com/pics/d200/50mm_test_obj.jpg</a> <br>

and Dimitry's images from above as these best illustrate the effect, although I am seeing this lack of quality right across the frame.<br>

It would appear that there are great examples of this lens around, but that QC on the Chinese versions is obviously lacking in identifying the crap.<br>

I had the same problem with a mint 35 to 70 2.8, but all of my other glass:<br>

18-35, 18-70, 24-85, 70-200, 70-300 I can use wide open without issue<br>

Will post if I get a result from Nikon.</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>I'm amazed with the built of the 50mm/1.8 -- actually pretty good. Some had called it plastiky. Looks pretty good to me, not as industrial as my Leicas but for $100 I aint complaining. As far as the optical quality, it probably exceeds anything HCB used for his most famous captures.</p>

[david_carpenter_warren1]

<p>Nikon Have replaced the lens with a new one.<br>

On testing it is a little better wide open and has less of the white glare off everything.<br>

So whilst it is not great wide open, it is now at least useable and is fairly good by f/2.2</p>