Nikon 50mm f/1.8 ...whats the drawback??

[mikepalo]

<p>OK...in the camera world the word "Cheap" rarely exists, and when it does, there is normally a reason. I have been looking at Prime Portrait lens and I am intrigued by one in particular</p>

<p>NIkon 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor Lens</p>

<p>This lens has apparently great reviews everywhere i look but...its $120 New from Amazon.com.....this doesnt make any sence to me..Im used to seeing $500 & $800 price tags.....$1400 and $2200...but $120 for a Fast Prime? .......Y so low?....what are the drawbacks?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mike</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>There have been many threads on this lens which you obviously haven't taken time to read. The 50mm AF f1.8D is simply a wonderful lens--especially for the price. Its only failing is it won't focus on the D40 or D60 because it isn't a silent wave lens.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>no drawback. oh.. perhaps, a "plasticy" manual focus ring (but that's pushing it).</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Ok for starters I really don't appreciate the attitude. I did look through the posts on this forum and I did not see anything referencing WHY this lens is so cheap. I did not read all the forums because they were mostly comparisons between the 1.4 and 1.8. I just want to know for what reason nikkor produces this lens for $100 companies don't randomly decide to sell a product cheap there is a reason for it......what? Is my Q</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's a great lens for the price. But one of the things that differentiates it from some others is the relatively harsh out-of-focus artifacts. That doesn't bother some people (and really shouldn't at $120!), but when you've used a lens that produces a more elegant bokeh (and IF that matters to you), it's hard to go back.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"what are the drawbacks?" It's a good deal for the money. Nikon probably has it because Canon has a similar "plastic fantastic" 50mm 1.8 for less than a $100. Buy one and see what you think. </p>

[alvin_lim5]

<p>Welcome to the world of 50mm Michael. The 50mm f1.8/2 has traditionally been the cheapest lens in most (if not all) the manufacturers' lenses; hence it is also sometimes known as the standard lens (standard being somewhat like a kit lens).</p>

<p>Hmmm... Let me see the drawback, for starters f1.8 is considered the "slowest" 50mm that Nikon is still manufacturing?</p>

<p>But more seriously, the 50mm f1.8 is probably the most value for money Nikon lens and if you want to push it, then I would agree with Joseph on it being "plasticy".</p>

[dan park]

<p>The main drawback is that it will make you want to get more expensive glass.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>hmmm it's the slowest focusing lens of the 1.8s? How many other 1.8s does Nikon make? I mean I know there is the AF-S I believe... But for portraiture does that fraction of an second matter?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>what the 50/1.8 lacks in bokeh it makes up for in sharpness. biggest drawback is it's too long to be a normal lens on DX but conversely, that makes it a good portrait lens</p><div></div>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>...this doesnt make any sence to me..Im used to seeing $500 & $800 price tags.....$1400 and $2200...but $120 for a Fast Prime?</blockquote><P>

<blockquote>hmmm it's the slowest focusing lens of the 1.8s?</blockquote><P>

By "slowest", Alvin meant slowest aperture, not focus speed.<P>

 

Slow 50mm primes are quite simple lenses. They feature simple optical formulas with (relatively) small elements, with simple focus by extension (at least all Nikon 50/1.8's). No floating elements, no complex internal focus or VR, no exotic ED glass, no complex aspherical lens elements. As such, they are very inexpensive to design, manufacture and sell.<P>

 

As soon as you design for faster apertures (f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.0), the optics get much more complicated, and hence more expensive.<P>

 

The drawback of the 50/1.8 is probably that there is a lot of plastic, the out of focus highlights can be quite harsh (other 50mm Nikkors suffer this "flaw" as well), and the mechanical tolerances are certainly not as tight nor the finish as fine as the earlier manual focus equivalents. But it has a metal mount (which on this model is often much tighter to mount than most), focuses fairly quickly, and is reasonably durable

[mikepalo]

<p>Ok I'm gonna ask this real quick not to divert the topic but can anyone explain to me quickly.. Bokeh... What exactly is it? I think I have the jist but</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>Bokeh... What exactly is it?<br /></em><br />Uh-oh, now you've done it!<br /><br />In short: bokeh is a Japanese word that we can use as a shorthand for "the out-of-focus areas in the image." With a fast lens like an f/1.8 used wide open, you'll have lots of out-of-focus areas to look at, because of the shallow depth of field. <br /><br />Why does this matter? Because not all lenses render those areas the same way. Some produce harsh artifacts, and some a more creamy blur. Do a little searching here, and you'll find copious information on the subject! <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00S2yV"><strong>Right here</strong></a> is a recent PN discussion on the subject (grab a cup of coffee before you get started... but do read it, if you're in the mood).</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>So basically more expensive lenses will have a more creamy blur then a lens such as this which has a heavy number of more "harsh artifacts"</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>It's cheap because the design has been around for decades and it has a relatively simple optical design so it is easy to make a good 50mm f1.8 lens for a low price. Look at al the other brands like Canon and you'll see that they also have cheap 50 f1.8 lenses.<br>

Wide and telephoto lenses require more glass elements to correct distortions or large elementts to maintain a large aperture at long focal lengths. The 50mm lens is right in the sweet spot where it is possible to make a sharp wide aperture lens for low cost.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Michael - if only it were that simple. Each lens has its own character and each person has their own taste. As you can no doubt understand, one can easily rate and compare the in-focus parts of any test image - for sharpness, contrast, aberrations, distortion, etc. But how can one bring that objectivity to an aspect of a lens' character that is deliberately fuzzy?.... not to mention a characteristic that changes within each lens according to specific circumstances (focal length, aperture used, characteristics of the background, etc) as well as between lenses... hence the endless, timeless, unresolvable discussions.</p>

<p>More expensive lenses are generally priced highly primarily for other aspects than bokeh (eg. large apertures, complex elements and coatings, build quality, measurably excellent optical quality). That is to say, bokeh is probably not a primary driver of price especially on new lenses. But on the other hand bokeh the kind of subtle characteristic that differentiates a great lens from one that is - or will become - truly classic.</p>

[steve_king5]

<p>I picked up a 50mm AF 1.8D when I bought my D90, and certainly have older lenses with creamier bokeh, but I don't find it intolerable. It's worse when there are highlights in the background. Here's a quick grab shot at iso1000 and the 50mm wide open at 1.8 of our new kitten playing:</p>

<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>There's more to it than simply cost, Michael. But very generally, yes. Higher-end lenses <em>tend</em> to produce more pleasing results in that regard. That's a very subjective and much-debated (and, at the law-of-physics/optics level, very complex) topic.<br /><br />At 50mm, for example, the reigning King 'O Bokeh in an AF-S-style 50mm lens for Nikon's bodies would appear to be Sigma's new 50/1.4 HSM. Nikon's own new 50/1.4G is no slouch, but the differences are noticeable. The difference between Sigma's 50/1.4 and Nikon's 50/1.8 would be quite noticeable. But that only matters if your style of shooting (and budget) make it matter.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Getting back to your original question........ why is it so inexpensive?</p>

<p>You can trace it back to the 35mm film days when the 50mm prime was a 'normal' focal length. Virtually everyone had one, some even bought it as a kit lens. Because of its relatively minimal cost, people were encouraged to enter the 35mm camera market relatively inexpensively. Optically, it is not a very complex lens and production costs are minimal. </p>

<p>Of course, the hope was that once people fell in love with 35mm, they would want the more expensive lenses. Obviously the hope worked. BTW, this is not a Nikon thing. The others offer very inexpensive 50mm lenses, too.</p>

<p>Moving forward to the digital age, I suppose it is still popular because it is an excellent lens for the money even though it really is a short telephoto lens for most digital cameras. Bottom line, there is no other f/1.8 lens (meaning a pretty fast lens) that you can get for that little money. That's why many purchase the lens even if they use it infrequently.</p>

<p>Why are other lenses so much more money? Lots of reasons here, including more complex optics, better lens coatings, less plastic, zooms, VR, even faster aperture, higher production costs, and strong demand.</p>

 

[azn137]

<p>Here one drawback: it's not f1.4! (or f1.2 for that matter)</p>

[adam zyto]

<p>I purchased this lens for low light situations but often found it to not be wide enough for informal, indoor available light shooting. So it doesn't get much use. If I had to do it over again, I'd probably get a non-Nikon fast 30mm. </p>

[adam zyto]

<p>I purchased this lens for low light situations but often found it to not be wide enough for informal, indoor available light shooting. So it doesn't get much use. If I had to do it over again, I'd probably get a non-Nikon fast 30mm. </p>

[devin_toner1]

<p>well the reason why it is so cheap is because; simple optics (simple is often better), easy to manufacture, and there is a high demand for them.</p>

[galileo42]

<p>It's a great sharp lens, cheaply built now in China in an horrible plasticky stuff, and it's wobbly like hell. But it's a great lens. Go figure. Simple and proven optic design, as others have mentioned. Apparently the 50 mm/1.8 is the easiest lens to produce at low cost. No fancy glass, no internal focus...</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Thank you all I understand a bit better why this lens is SOO much cheaper then many others...but to off shoot for a moment...... To look at Adam's Argument:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I purchased this lens for low light situations but often found it to not be wide enough for informal, indoor available light shooting. So it doesn't get much use. If I had to do it over again, I'd probably get a non-Nikon fast 30mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is almost exactly what Im interested in the lens for the indoor available lowlight. Is there a good lens in the 30mm SHARP prime area anyone would suggest that is anywhere near the same Price Bracket??</p>