Nikon 50mm 1.8

[melissa_v2]

<p>O.K. I just have to clear this up. I've heard time after time that the nikon 50mm lens is great and cheap lens for portrait photography. I bought mine 2 months ago and haven't been to impressed. I still think my 17-55 takes much clearer pics. I take a lot of pictures of kids and find that it takes long to focus in on the subject.<br>

I am an amateur photographer so it wouldn't surpirse me if I'm just not setting something correctly on my camera but really I'm not too impressed. Any input as to how I can make this lens work better for me?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mel</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What camera are you using, Melissa? What focus mode is it in? What sort of differences are you noticing between it and the 17-55, in terms of the results? <em>Which</em> 17-55 do you have - Nikon's f/2.8?<br /><br />It might help if you scaled down a sample shot (or took a helpful sample crop out of an image) to around 700 pixels wide, and posted it here so that we can see what's going on.</p>

[rene gm]

<p>The 50mm 1.8 is a special purpose lens. If you use it wide open, you get a very, very shallow DOF, and real sharpness only in the center. Obviously, it has only one focal length in not so useful range. And there is no reason, why it should focus fast. You want to use it for moving subjects in low light, or if the shallow DOF is what you need.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I've been very pleased with the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D. It's well worth the money new, even better if you can find a mint used one like I did.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hmm, that's interesting melissa. i've found that the 50/1.8 actually focuses quite fast due to the short throw--it doesnt really 'rack' like some of my zoom lenses, since the focusing mechanism doesnt have far to travel.but any lens can struggle in low-light conditions, depending on background contrast, lighting (or absence thereof), whether AF-assist is on, whether you are in AF-C or AF-S, etc.</p>

<p>while the 50 is quite sharp, the 17-55 may be a better overall lens (it better be considering it costs about 12x as much), though, particularly in terms of bokeh. wide open at f/1.8, the 50 will be a bit soft, but if you compare the two at 2.8, the prime should have a sharpness advantage. the biggest advantage to the 50 is probably its size and light weight--and the fact that on FX it becomes a "normal" lens.</p>

<p>as matt says, we need a bit more info about the conditions under which you shot to really be able to help here. a sample pic would be nice.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Hi Melissa,<br>

I got an older 50 mm AF 1.8 on my D700 and the sharpness is simply stunning! I do agree on the very shallow DOF, which does make a precise focus a bit of a pain, especially if you're used to AF-S speed AF. So perhaps you should reconsider your setup again.<br>

Good luck!</p>

 

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Hi Melissa,<br>

I got an older 50 mm AF 1.8 on my D700 and the sharpness is simply stunning! I do agree on the very shallow DOF, which does make a precise focus a bit of a pain, especially if you're used to AF-S speed AF. So perhaps you should reconsider your setup again.<br>

Good luck!</p>

 

[tobey_bilek]

<p>I have done indoor basketball with mine on a D200 without a focus problem.</p>

<p>At F 1.8 it will not be sharp in the corners and the center will not be as sharp as the center at 4.0. Unless you get into very expensive lenses, expect this to be the case. Even then it is true to some extent.<br>

By 4.0 it should be reasonably sharp in the corners.<br>

The zone of focus or debth of field will be small at 1.8. Eyes can be in focus, ears out. That is the nature of ALL lenses.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>You must be doing "something" wrong.</p>

<p>This lens is probably one of Nikon's best kept secrets for $100.</p>

<p>It is a staple in my arsenal of lenses. I love it.<br>

The darn thing is almost TOO sharp, so much so I have devoted a custom shoot mode to it where I turn off all in camera sharpening.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>You must be doing "something" wrong.</p>

<p>This lens is probably one of Nikon's best kept secrets for $100.</p>

<p>It is a staple in my arsenal of lenses. I love it.<br>

The darn thing is almost TOO sharp, so much so I have devoted a custom shoot mode to it where I turn off all in camera sharpening.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>My 17-55 2.8 was sharper at 2,8 50 mm as the 50 1.8 on a D200 and D300.</p>

[jorish]

<p>Since I don't own a 17-55 f/2.8 i can't compare the two, BUT I think most people that praise the 50mm f/1.8 do so not only because it's a very good lens, but also because it's one of the cheapest Nikon offers. I can't think of any lens that (IMHO) gives more bang for your buck.<br>

The 17-55 is more versatile, and reputably very sharp as well. Whether one or the other is sharper @50mm f/2.8 would probably be as much dependent on sample variation as on design.<br>

If you want to make sure you're comparing sharpness (and not focussing problems or problems with the very shallow DOF of the 50mm) I would suggest you try both on a tripod. Because handholding @f/1.8 can be difficult even in very well lit situations, and all the more so when taking pics of kids (since they probably won't sit very still ;-) ).</p>

[melissa_v2]

<p>I'm shooting with a nikon D90. I think now what may be throwing me off is the shallow DOF, I'm expecting sharpness all around and I guess when it is wide open I'm only getting real focus in the centre.<br>

I guess from all the positives I hear about this lens I really need to play around with it a bit more and maybe try it with a tripod and see if that helps. Thanks.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>when it is wide open I'm only getting real focus in the centre.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>bingo. here's a 50/1.8 pic which shows the effects of shallow DoF...</p><div></div>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>By carefully choosing the point of sharpest focus shallow depth of field can work for you sometimes. Eric's photo, while depth of field is shallow, is still very good because the part the eye is drawn to (at least to me) is the sharpest part of the picture.</p>

[williamchuttonjr]

<p>The 50/1.8 is much much sharper than the 17-55 f/2.8 at f 1.8.<br>

The 50/1.8 is not the best F mount f 1.8 50 mm lens on the the planet. But it may very well have the best performance for the money in 50 mm F mount lenses... period.</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>that's why it is over-rated horribly...</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Melissa,</p>

<p>Eric Arnold brings up a good point and and example to go along with it.</p>

<p>However, if that's not your problem, I had a 50/1.8 and found it to be very poor.</p>

<p>I can only assume, given the overall excellent reviews of that lens, that mine was anomalous. However, I've heard the same from others from time to time, and it's possible yours is just another mediocre example.</p>

<p>One thing that I'd consider separate from optical quality is focus quality. If you're used to the AF-S of the 17-55, the 50 is definitely a step backwards. Not necessarily in speed, but the AF-S lenses are just a lot better at finding and holding focus effortlessly - the older lenses are much more likely to hunt or to flutter back and forth without locking securely.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>Melissa--</p>

<p>I found the same thing you did. Plus, look at all the CA on the 50mm f1.8 images. For a hundred bucks it's a decent lens, especially if you need something faster than f2.8. Otherwise, I just use my Nikon 17-50mm f2.8. IMO the 50mm is overhyped. The newer 50mm f1.4 lenses from Nikon, Sigma, and Zeiss are better. They are just as sharp as the Nikon pro f2.8 zooms, with the added bonus of f1.4 if you need that.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>We still don't know what camera melissa uses. Yes the 50/1.8 will work nicely on DX, but its really designed for FX. I also disagree with whoever said the 50 was a good portrait lens. Its not. Its an above average and inexpensive normal lens for FX.<br>

To have a good portrait lens you need one that has a nice bokeh in the background. A nine blade shutter helps too. The 85/1.8 is good on DX and FX. But the 105 DC is the one to get if you can afford it, but its a 150 on dx.<br>

To get the whole face in focus in a portrait from the tip of the nose to the ears, you need about 10cm of DOF. Do the math on your target lens stopped down to about f3.5. All the above lenses will be excelling at that f stop.</p>

[chris_keyworth]

<p>Stephen, we do know what camera Melissa uses, it is a Nikon D90 as she mentioned in an earlier reply. She also feels that after reading other replies to her post that the shallow DOP is a the cause of her concern and has said she needs to play around with the lens more and possibly use a tripod.</p>

<p> </p>

[ofey_kalakar]

<p>Melissa, if your concern is the low DOF with the 50f1.8, then an easy remedy is to either turn the control dial on your D90 and adjust the aperture's f stop to f2.8 and above or use the aperture ring on the lens and adjust the aperture that way. If you only want to take high DOF snap shots then the 50 f1.8 and any other 50 mm lens, for that matter, should be more than sufficient in providing desired results. For my personal preference I prefer isolating a subject with low DOF in order to eliminate distracting backgrounds. Obviously that would depend on the type of photo that is intended.<br>

Good luck!</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Personally, I find the 50mm f/1.8 very overrated as a portrait lens. It's a bit too short and the out of focus parts do not look as smooth as desirable for portraits. That said, the 50 can be extremely sharp, and is fast to AF for sure (also on a D80, which has same AF as the D90).</p>

<p>But my copy only really starts to show it's muscle from f/3.2 and up. Between f/2.5 and f/3.2 it is sharp, but not tack sharp. Below that, it is not an impressive lens.<br>

If you find AF really slow, you might want to get it checked. It's a featherweight lens with short focus throw, it should easily rival AF-S lenses for AF speed.</p>

[melissa_v2]

<blockquote>

<p>However, if that's not your problem, I had a 50/1.8 and found it to be very poor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think I'm going to side with what Glenn has said. I find it to take poor quality pictures. I've messed around with the aperture and although my pics aren't "garbage", they're nothing to brag about. Again I may just have a dud. Maybe that's why it was for sale on Kijiji! Who knows. There are so many rave reviews surrounding this lens, mine just may have something wrong with it.<br>

I've never posted pics before and have no idea how to size them down, otherwise I'd post some. I'm quite sure that this particular lens is somehow not working properly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One thing that I'd consider separate from optical quality is focus quality. If you're used to the AF-S of the 17-55, the 50 is definitely a step backwards. Not necessarily in speed, but the AF-S lenses are just a lot better at finding and holding focus effortlessly - the older lenses are much more likely to hunt or to flutter back and forth without locking securely.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again I think Glenn has pin pointed my dislike with the slower focus, I'm used to a the AF-S lens which hold focus more effortlessly and it does bother me that the 50mm does "hunt" and flutter back and forth without locking in my subject. This just may not be the lens for me, or maybe I need to buy a new one!</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I bet your right, it has such a shallow depth of field wide open it can easily be confused for lack of sharpness. Try shooting it at 2.8 and see if that makes a difference. A really shallow DOF on a moving target can make it difficult to get your target in focus at close range. I have the 1.4 version and it spends more time on my camera then any other lens. Once you get used to the shallow DOF you will find new ways to use it to improve your portrait photography. I shoot my 50 at about 2.0-2.2 on most of the shots of my son. I find 1.4 is just too shallow in most cases, but it's nice to have it available. If nothing else shooting yours at 2.8 is stopped down quite a bit from wide open so the images should turn out really nice.</p>