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

[hughes]

<p>Michael<br>

the lens is cheap because it is of a simple design and made in China out of plastic. Nikon have probably made 2-300,000 of the latest version alone, they probably recouped their R&D costs a long time ago, also if it wasn't cheap no one would buy it. I have one and rarely use it, I never used with a 35mm camera either. <br>

The lens was originally a compromise for amateur photography, to sell along with the camera body. It is neither wide nor long it's a good compromise but a compromise nevertheless. for taking group pictures inside it is as good as useless, you do not say what kind of camera you use but a 28mm 2.8 lens can be bought used for a good price you will find it much more versatile for both full frame and DX formats. If you have a full frame camera a 35mm lens can be bought used at a good price. <br>

Steve </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Michael: A fast, 30mm auto-focus lens is going to be either the Nikon 35/2 (around $300), or the Sigma 30/1.4 (around $75 more, and meant for the APS-C format sensor cameras). <br /><br />I use and like the Sigma. It has their version of the Nikon AF-S mechanism (Sigma's is "HSM"), so no screw-driven focus like the 35/2. Very fast and quiet to focus... and looks great wide open. Very, very sharp across the entire frame when slightly stopped down. <br /><br />But unless you buy used, you're not going to find either of those for anything close to $120, that's for sure.</p>

[rossb]

<p>The 50mm f1.8 is a great lens at the price range. Very sharp. It is a lightweight lens and not of sturdy construction. As far as Bokeh goes I would say it's ordinary. Of course the whole Bokeh thing is very subjective. I use mine for a variety of indoor shooting but overall I would say it is the least used lens I own. A good value and certainly worth the cost of the lens. Typically the 50mm lens has always been the least expensive in the lineup for a particular brand..</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>" Is there a good lens in the 30mm SHARP prime area anyone would suggest that is anywhere near the same Price Bracket??"</p>

<p>for around $120? no.</p>

<p>the sigma 30/1.4 is $400; the nikon 35/2 around $300.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Sorry to not clarify this sooner. I shoot the Nikon D200 and I do not anticipate moving up to FX format any time in the near future, FX's just not practical for shooting most small skittish wildlife considering mainly I shoot Fish/Birds.</p>

<p>Matt:<br /> I just read a few reviews on the Sigma 30/1.4 and they were not to reassuring. The first one I read actually suggested the Nikon 35/2 as much better choice. Do you have personal experience with either of these lenses? Any Insights?<br /> Also $300 is still basically in the same "price bracket" as far as I'm concerned. Basically Im jsut not looking to spend $500+ on this lens, it will most likely be rarely used jsut due to my subject preference, but for family gatherings/the random Portraiture I am inclined to do I am looking towards a Good Lens worth its cost</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>What i actually ment to ask in that last post matt is do you have personal experience with "both" those lenses not "either" ... i was wondering if u had a personal comparison on em?</p>

[alvin_lim5]

<p>Michael, the Nikon 35mm f2 is a great lens; it is sharp, light and a delight to use. If you want a faster version at around the same price, you may want to have a look at the manual focus 35mm f1.4.</p>

<p>I use the 35mm mainly for gatherings and small scale events and feel that it is very worth its cost. Due to its focal length on the DX format, I find myself using it more on my DSLR.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> The 50/1.8 is not the first _or only_ Nikkor lens that outperforms its far more expensive counterparts, btw. It may not make sense, but who cares? It's nice and amazingly egalitarian that a photographer with lean resources can still nab some new, lo-buck, high image-quality glass.<br>

These lenses tend to be really light and small (Barnack-y, if you will), making them a joy to carry on long days, and they balance well on the camera, whereas most pricey lenses are big, nose-heavy and ill-balanced on many camera bodies.</p>

<p> Remember, on a Dx camera, 50mm gets you 75mm. This works well for torso-length portraits of singlets, or bust-length for doubles, but not quite for a single, let alone a head shot. Too unflattering a perspective for most subjects at bust-length or closer. A 30-35mm even less so, but better for getting in more background, and easier to handhold.</p>

<p>It, like all lenses, has its limitations, but within them, this one is a contender all out of proportion to its price.</p>

<p> </p>

[mikepalo]

<p>OK Im jumping this conversation to a new thread looking for a comparison between the 50mm vs 35mm to get more peoples input as well as to keep those who complain about off topic happy :P ....so feel free to follow me over.....</p>

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

[ram_prasad3]

<p>I have always loved the 50/1.8. I am happy with it.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The 50 f/1.8 lens' biggest problem has to do with its performance at apertures faster than f/2.8. The lens is soft wide open, yet its AF mechanism is not as accurate as SWM AF systems. With the shallow DOF, not of shots would come out not usable due to focus accuracy problems.<br>

On the other hand, it is extremely sharp when stepped down to f/4 to f/8; and its mechanical construction is really not bad. For a $100 lens, it already feature a metal mount, and a rubber MF ring with distance scale, which the slightly cheaper Canon lens lack.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 50/1.8 is a trap. If you buy one, chances are that you will be so excited with the image quality and possibilities that you'll end up spending tens of thousands of dollars to chase similar experiences in other focal lengths.</p>

<p>Needless to say, I fell into it big time ... ;-)</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<blockquote>

<p>$120 for a Fast Prime?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because prior to the AF "revolution" this wasn't considered a "fast prime" but the STANDARD lens that every SLR ever made came with from the factory. It's a hold-over from film days and even then it was regarded as one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. In fact, just about every manufacturer you encounter considers their 50mm f/1.8 to be the sharpest lens. There are technical and historical reasons for this, like say 100 years of perfecting normal focal length lens designs. All the big players have spent lots and lots of money propping up the "exotic is better" mentality so these "normal" lenses have been lost by the wayside. The only thing wrong with the lens is that it no longer comes as the kit lens on new cameras.... but then again, if you got the sharpest lens that Nikon makes for free, why would you spend thousands collecting all of the exotic ones?</p>

[paradoxbox]

<p>The drawbacks of the 50mm prime?</p>

<p>Well it's almost useless indoors because you have to move around to the farthest wall all the time to take pictures with it on crop cameras. It's a telephoto lens on a crop camera. Good lens wide open for portraits, just make sure to nail the focus and make sure you have a good copy.</p>

<p>The other drawback? It's useless up close unless you reverse it. Minimum focusing distance is kind of far. The 18-55 kit zoom lens focuses super close.</p>

<p>That being said I still recommend having one if you want to buy only new lenses. However, if you are OK with buying used lenses I'd recommend a 24, 28, or 35mm lens for crop bodies. If you have a full frame camera then the 50 F1.8D is a fantastic lens and should be in your kit as a walkaround lens.</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>The only complaint I see often is that when the lens is new - it's a tight fit. I was almost afraid to twist it enough to lock in place the first time I mounted it. But after being on and off the camera a bunch of times, it's a lot better (but still tighter than my other lenses).</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>I don't know why its so cheap, and you shouldn't take advice from strangers, ;-) but you SHOULD buy one. Oh, and it won't auto focus on a D40.</p>

[joseph_isip]

<p>The 50mm f/1.8d is inexpensive because it's very easy to make as there aren't a lot of elements inside. It is, however ultra-sharp (esp. at f/4 and above). The lens is also made in China and is basically plastic and that is why the lens is so cheap.</p>

 

[tri-x1]

<p>You might also want to consider the 24mm f2.8 Nikkor --the same coverage as a 35 mm lens on a film body. With the performance of today's DSLRs at high ISI an f2.8 lens will produce images in light that would require an f1.4 or 1.2 in a film camera. The area of coverage of the 24mm is just about perfect if you want a compact primes lens that can handle a variety of situations.<br>

Bokeh is, IMO, a five-letter word and highly overrated and overdiscussed.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The 5cmF2; 50mm F2; 50mm F1.8 is low in cost not because its easy to make; its just made in high volumes. One has a lens that has roots back 70 years; ie the Nikkor 5cm F2 for a Canon RF 35mm camera. Afters 70 years they probably have the design and production issues sorted out. In Nikon F mount they only have a 50 years of production experience; thus they are probably quaking in their boots since it is a new design. With 1/2 century of production; the bean counters have had time to analyze costs; ie figure where the costs are at with labor and materials. After 1/2 century of production; there has been time to make the design easier to build and test. With 7 decades worth of sales; the marketing team probably has a decent trend on how many lenses to build; and thus there is less risk. With 7 decades worth of normal lens production; issues with optics; vendors; coatings; materials are understood.</p>

[lookitsanthony87]

<p>its a great lens that ive seen professionals and amateurs use alike. of course youll get better quality from a similar sigma for $200 more but for the price of the lens the quality is superb. i own one and strongy recomend it, even if you just purchase it without high expectations, i guaruntee youll be pleased.</p>

[psul_aul]

<p>here is a link to some questions i asked about the 50 f1.8. <br>

Mine is very sharp. i like the 1.8 speed (compared to slower zooms)...<br>

<a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00R7AX">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00R7AX</a></p>

[bo_kral]

<p>I believe the main drawback of this lens is the fact that the cheap quality of parts makes focusing unreliable and this degrades sharpness at and only at 1.8 and 2.0. I just tried it on d700, I let it focus repeatedly on a subject defocusing between the shots. Out of about 10 pictures I picked the sharpest one - very very sharp at 1.8. The rest were from acceptable to garbage. I repeated with 60 mm afs and it focuses every shot correctly - but it is f2.8. BTW, 35 mm f2.0 can miss focus at 2.0 as well. So as was mentioned many times - use it above f4. This post is fascinating for anybody trying to get sharp pictures at low f numbers: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/critical.html</p>

[paradoxbox]

<p>I find the best shooting technique with the F1.8D is to put your camera on continuous focus mode and turn the high speed motor drive on and just slam on the shutter for a series of pictures. One of them is bound to be in focus.<br>

Either that or stick to manual focus.</p>

[arash_asli]

<p>Hi...I am hoping some body could help me with a concept that i am having trouble grasping:<br>

From what I have read, most of the time it is recommended to stop down by two or more stops...so it seems to me that if you have a say 2.8 lens you will have to stop down to F4, F6 range to get a really sharp picture because of the depth of the field...so what confuses me is that if you have a really fast lens like the one we are talking about here (Nikon 50 1.8), and if you have to stop down to F4, then what would be the point of this fast lens for low light??????!!!</p>

<p>What would happen if your lens was F3.5 max to begin with...wouldn't that be shaper? I am having this issue with My Tokina 11-16 2.8 lens...in order for me to get really sharp pictures I have got to get to F4.5. </p>

<p>I would appreciate if someone could explain this to me...thank u</p>

[psul_aul]

<p>Arash,<br>

Inexpensive lens tend to be a bit soft wide open ... whatever that aperture is. So, if 1.8 is the maximum aperture, stopping down a couple of stops for increased sharpness puts you at f2 or f2.8. If your max aperture is f3.5, stopping down a stop or two puts you at f5.6-f8. It is a relative thing and makes the f1.8 lens more usable in low light.<br>

Expensive, fast lenses, like the 85mm f1.4, are touted to be sharp at all fstops, even if wide open, whatever that aperture may be. It is one of the reasons why they cost so much.<br>

Common wisdom will also say there is a great variation among individual lens samples.</p>