Disappointed by AF 50 1.8 wide open

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>About what I'd expect for the 50/1.8 wide open - in particular considering that at this ISO, the softening effect of the NR of the D3 makes things even worse. The fact that the image is a bit underexposed also works disfavor of the appearance of sharpness.</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Tweaked curves a little in photoshop:</p><div></div>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Thanks Dieter, but surely if the exposure was any higher you'd burn out the whites even more than they are already and perhaps worsen the problem as it seems most noticeable around bright edges (the "halo" effect). I know it's my picture so am a little defensive but the exposure looks about right to me!<br />Steve</p>

 

[steve_phillipps]

<p>In fact I just looked at my original and I did actually tweak the levels down a bit to ease the softness around the bright edges a bit. Your effort definitely has more liveliness to it though, it's actually close to how the original looks.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Steve<br>

By OE I meant operator error. But that was before you where able to post a photo. BTW nice shot. Great timing.<br>

If the shutter speed where not so I high would say just a touch of motion blur. In fact it could be. You are talking about at the end of her arm which is close to full extension. Must be going pretty fast.<br>

The players face looks better then the hand and racket. Not a lot but enough to suggest the speed of her hand is causing some of the problem. Look at the tip of the racket. It is even softer then her hand.<br>

I shoot equestrian events for a living. Sometimes we are in arenas that are so dark I have to rent a D700 or D3 and shoot at 12800. There are times that I end up at 12800 using a 105 f/1.8 at f/1.8. You do what you have to to get the shot.</p>

<p>I would say that if you really need to shoot with a 50 at 1.8 or faster look for a 50 f/1.2 it is sharper at 1.4 and 1.8 then any of the other 50's. Only problem is that it is a MF lens.</p>

 

[hus]

<p>I don't know if you do but if you focus and recompose the images come out soft because you get closer or further from the subject. Espeacially, if you are close to your subject. If you use flash the images might be sharper.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>It is just a fact of life that the Nikon 50mm f1.8 is not as sharp wide open as it is stopped down, even one stop. However, that does not mean that your particular sample is performing as it should. The best and easiest way of checking to see if your sample meets Nikon's specifications is to send it in to Nikon so they can check it out on an optical bench. That's what I would do. Don't waste your time taking images of brick walls or newspapers. Let Nikon sort it out. If you are still not satisfied with the lens after it returns from Nikon, you can sell it and explore other options.</p>

<p>Actually, though I have the latest version of the nikon 50mm f1.8, I found an older AF Nikkor, (non D), version of the 50mm lens in a thrift shop and could not resist the $20 price. The lens, with serial number 2117824, (1987?), has a metal body and was made in Japan. It's just an impression, mind you, but I believe the images I have taken with the older lens are notably sharper at f1.8 than the newer model. In fact, the image quality just looks better across the board, at any aperture, in my opinion. Again, this is just a <em><strong>very subjective observation</strong></em> derived from shooting snap shots with my Nikon D80.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Do you have a recent 50mm 1.8? I have the made in Japan version from about 10-15 years ago and it's tack sharp. I'll get flak for this, however the Nikon stuff made in places other than Japan simply does not have the same quality control. Older is better. IMHO.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>You could be right Russ. Mine is a newish one the AF1.8D, only bought it a few weeks back just for the extra speed.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[midan_smith]

<p>hmm at f/1.8 i wonder if the DOF should have the further player significantly more blurred than the near player, and this doesnt seem the case to me, they look fairly equal, so i wonder if the focus is actually about half way between the two. I also have an old 50mm f/1.8, and having just tested it at your shot's settings, mine is sharp at 1.8 on FX, i would expect the racket to be sharper.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>This is the lens I obtained at the thrift shop for US $20. It's heavier than its modern counterpart. Again, I must stress that my observation of it being sharper then the latest version is based strictly upon anecdotal observation. I would not make any conclusions about its performance based upon where the lens was made. However, I must say my perception is biased regarding the build quality of the older optic.</p><div></div>

[ken a.]

<p>What was your focus point? And, what were the focus settings on your camera body?</p>

<p>--Ken</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I varied it a bit. But in general I used continous AF, 51 point, generally focus priority but sometimes release+focus, generally using off-centre focus points. The AF had a lot of trouble keeping up and in focus priority it missed most shots because it couldn't get a good lock on.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[vineet.rajasekhar]

<p>Hi - yep, the 50/1.8 is definitely a softie at 1.8. But stopped down a little, even just to f/2 - f/2.8, it sharpens up nicely - and past that point the quality of your light, composition, colours, etc. begin to outweigh lens sharpness as determinants of image quality.. And stopped down to f/8 it can be a tack sharp lens, so for the price you pay, the 50/1.8 is really good...</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Hmm, I just took some shots with mine, and they are tack sharp wide open on my D200. If I'm shooting a very dark object against a very bright object, I will see a very small amount of purple fringe on my D200, but not on a D300 or D700.</p>

[ken a.]

<p>Have you tried the lens with a more static subject? IMHO, the 50mm is not the fastest focusing lens, and that may possibly be contributing to your issue.</p>

<p>--Ken</p>

[vikas_kohli]

<p>Robert - I think you are lucky to get it for $20. For a new starter like me it will be a blessing to be able to get it at that price. </p>

[tsypkin]

<p>I made this shot with my AF-D 50 f1.8 at f2.2, 1/100 sec, ISO 200, on a D 50, SB 600 plus quite a bit of help from the lights of a nearby TV crew:) It seems reasonably sharp. But my experience with this lens suggested not to shoot at f 1.8 because it would look soft -- probably because of a shallow DOF. But I am no expert in such things...</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>Steve, I have been checking some of my pics taken with my 50/1.8AFD... all pics, wide open show that "haloing" in bright edges. I`m not an expert but I`d say it`s somekind of flare issue. Close the diaphragm just one stop and the image quality improves considerably. It calls my attention that many of my "wide open" shots were taken at f2, instead of f1.8 (I stopped using this lens when I bought the 50AFS). Also, it seems to me that it`s performs far better at closer distances.<br>

The pic below has been taken under good light, medium focus distance, 200ISO, wide open and faster than 1/1000sec:</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>The histogram is simply <em>perfect</em>. Focus is dead on. No overexposure. Above and below are 100% crops.<br /> This lens is very good for the money, very sharp at f4-f5.6, but not a magic lens. Magic are the "N" pro zooms... <em>:)</em></p><div></div>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Jose, good to see those shots, that's exactly what I've been seeing. It is very difficult with moving subjects as there are so many variable and people can (quite rightly) question focus, exposure etc.<br>

Been trying to upload a few more shots but server error still appearing.<br>

Thanks for all the responses, not used the forum for ages and it's as good as I remember it.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>Forget to mention; no sharpening applied in PP, "Neutral" camera settings (D300).</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Steve, as others have noted, your shot looks pretty typical for those conditions. After all, you have the very shallow dof when shooting wide open, subject movement, and if you used some noise reduction that would soften the image somewhat too. Most fast lenses shot wide open suffer from some spherical aberration too, which softens the images when used wide open, and disappears when stopped down even a little. I have three 50mm lenses, two 1.4 and one 1.8 and they are all slightly softer wide open. I think you have a great shot there given the lighting and the equipment you were using. I tend to avoid any in camera noise reduction, and prefer to go from raw to tiff for post production and sizing. After final image sizing maybe some selective noise reduction and sharpening is done using Neat Image for noise reduction. I recommend using a tripod and do some test shots with a target at all your f-stops to see the difference under ideal conditions. </p>

[robert_hooper1]

<blockquote>

<p>Robert - I think you are lucky to get it for $20. For a new starter like me it will be a blessing to be able to get it at that price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Vikas,</p>

<p>I have to thank my wife for all my thrift shop finds. She is addicted to searching for thrift shop treasures and I drive her around to the various shops on Oahu about once a week. While she looks for Ferragamo, Hermes or Bally, I do a quick search for photography related things. I usually sell my finds at a used camera gear store here in Honolulu, but sometimes I find something I want to keep, like the Nikon 50mm f1.8. I've actually found nice Leica lenses for less than $10, but mostly it's camera bags, tripods or odd accessories. It's all a matter of being in the right place at the right time.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=442384">steve phillipps</a>: if i undestand correctly, you use a 90 $ lens on a 4000 $ camera ? Seriously, what were your expectations when shooting a lens like that wide open ?. I previously owned a 1.8. It was fine a f/2.5-f/2.8. It was fine wide open, at 40 cm. from the subject. Other than that, coma and spherical aberation, plus chromatic aberation are really things you should consider when shooting wide open. Basic understanding of price related optics is neccesary.<br />I sold it after a while and got a 1.4, al least i can safely shoot at f/2, and happily shoot at f/2.8 and up.<br />I never used a sigma 50 1.4, but it seems it is even better than the nikkor 50 1.4D i own (and is soft and has coma, CA, etc. at f/1.4), so that is what i would recomend instead.</p>