Worth moving from 50 1.8 AF-D to 50 1.8 AF-S ?

[arun_seetharam]

<p>I happened to see the detailed photozone tests on 50mm f1.8 AF-S. Looks good to me. But is not a huge improvement in the optical quality and performance. AF-S is slightly larger too.<br>

Would you sell away the AF-D and move to AF-S version at the cost of $100+?</p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>No, not unless you had a body that could not drive the auto focus screw on the D version.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Yes, if money is not an issue for you. You will get (it appears) better IQ, faster AF (probably) and 5 years of warranty.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I think the AF will be slower than the screw drive. The AF-S 50 f/1.4 is for instance no speed demon. I guess it might depend on which body you put it on as well.</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I plan to get it. Updating for AFS and full time manual focus is worth it to me. Will continue to use the older D lens with my F3.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>I would have to handle the lens and do my own tests before making the decision. Since I know of no one that currently has the AF-S version in stock to test yet, I can't give you my opinion.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>If you like to shoot between f1.8-f2.8 it is worthy. AF speed might be slower than screw drive but enough fast for most applications. I am considering to get one especially because I love to use primes. </p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>Wide open (1.8-2.8) the performance seems better than the AF-D version, doesnt it? </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think it looks like there is a notable improvement in image quality (see photozone.de FX test on the D3X), and in the new mechanical design (like the 35/1.8 DX and 50/1.4 AF-S) the barrel doesn't wobble freely, which was my main complaint on the 50/1.8D. On DX in particular it was very annoying when you'd touch the focus ring, or activate AF and the viewfinder image would shift and then jump back (with the 1.8D). That is the reason I got the 1.4G AF-S. However, the 1.4G has annoyingly strong barrel distortion (which bothers me in architectural shots, not so much in people photography). The 1.8G AF-S seems to have intermediate distortion between the 1.8D and the 1.4G. That's not a tradeoff I was hoping for, but I guess they had to make compromises elsewhere to improve corner sharpness. Looks like I will keep using the 60 AF-S and 50/1.8D for architectural shots until Nikon puts distortion correction into their FX cameras (so I can play back the shot on the LCD and confirm the final framing after correction, while still having the chance to re-shoot).</p>

<p>Anyway, the 1.8G other than the distortion looks like a significant improvement in bokeh, corner sharpness, and mechanical construction, with only a modest increase in price, and a drawback in some barrel distortion, so I think I'd get the new lens if I were in the market for a general purpose 50. And I am happy to see Nikon finally start putting AF-S into affordable FX primes. I've been waiting for this landmark event for 15 years... </p>

 

[andre_noble5]

<p>All of these (Nikon 35mm, 50mm, etc) lenses are COKE BOTTLE lenses with awful barrell distortion due to mandated retrofocus design.</p>

<p>Forget about all of them and get a range finder camera and a Zeiss Summicron 50 f2. Zero distortion. And I am a Nikon Man.<br>

<br /> Worthwhile 35mm SLR lenses don't start until 85mm on up.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Andre, since distortion is sooooooo easy to fix during PP, why would this even be an issue?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'm totally okay with the D version. Don't use it much anyway. I wouldn't.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Andre, Would it not be a Leica Summicron or a Zeiss Plannar?<br>

Just out of curiosity how is the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 Plannar in Nikon mount. Does it improve on the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and 1.4.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Andre: try the 50/1.4 HSM. Sure, it's a big and heavy hunk of glass, but that's one of the reasons it works so well. It's an entirely different beast, which I really like (and I'm also a Nikon man ... but Nikon hasn't won me with anything at 50mm, though I used the E and D for many years, really roughed them up, and they still work just like they always have). You don't have to wait until 85mm to have something you'll enjoy using, truly.</p>

[owen_omeara]

You might consider moving to the 50mm f/1.4-D AF. I made that move and I will never regret it. It is a bit more cash

but well worth it.

 

-Owen

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Stuart, the 50/1.4 ZF is not as sharp as the 50/1.4G AF-S at f/1.4 and f/2, especially in the corners. Also, the ZF has unusually harsh bokeh wide open which basically means that I never use it that way. Stopped down to f/2.8 it is excellent. I prefer the 1.4G AF-S Nikkor for wide aperture work while the ZF holds it own stopped down two stops or more (the typical Zeiss contrast is great in soft light).</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Barrel distortion - yeah right! Unless you take nothing but pictures of brick walls or tiled floors and then put a straightedge up against them you'll never, ever notice it with any of Nikon's 50mm lenses. And how do you judge distortion anyway? A rectilinear projection is totally unnatural, since it's definitely not the way the eye sees the world, and in fact is a contradiction of perspective. Even the horizon isn't completely straight; it follows the curvature of the Earth.</p>

<p>As someone (maybe Irving Penn) once said "If the picture is good enough, then who cares if the lens is good enough?".</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If the distortion is corrected in post, the framing is altered, and of course if the image was pixel sharp originally, the distortion correction will lose that. FX cameras have no means of verifying the final framing after distortion correction at the time of shooting since they don't have any such correction available.</p>

<p>1.3% distortion in a 46 degree picture angle is extremely obvious when shooting a perpendicular view of a facade. The reference is the edge of the picture, of course, and any carefully perpendicularly aligned facade will have to be distortion corrected to be acceptable (when using a lens like the 50/1.4G AF-S). The human eye has no rectangular picture frame as a reference, so it doesn't matter much how much barrel distortion it has (besides since you can only look at the center of the view seen by the eye sharply using the human eye, the distorted edges aren't a very significant part of the perception of the scene).</p>

<p>A good subject is no excuse for sloppy execution.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, I'm still undecided. Going off photozone's review, the bokeh does look better (although something funny is happening in one of the cards) and supposedly so is the sharpness, but I'm not blown away by either (and, if anything, LoCA looks worse). My 50mm f/1.8 is my "carry in a pocket in case I run out of light with my zoom" lens - I rely on it being tiny, and tend to use it in low light, even though it's not very good wide open. I'd have to see the AF-S in person - I'll be more tempted when the price drops a little, since the not-very-sharp-but-only-a-bit-more-expensive f/1.4 AF-D is almost as appealing (I'm not paying f/1.4 AF-S or Sigma prices for the behaviour those lenses have).<br />

<br />

I really wish it was a bit shorter (i.e. it didn't stick out in front of its front element so much - just like the AF-D). Especially since it comes with a hood anyway (bonus).</p>

[mark_mitchell5]

<p>No, I agree with R. Joe. I see little distortion with the 50 1.8 AF-D I have, one of the best Nikon lenses I've owned, after owning 20-30 Nikon lenses. Can't really say you're going to see an optical advantage. It's probably the best/cheapest lens Nikon has ever made.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Look, the standard 50mm Nikon lenses have no rise or other perspective-control mechanism, therefore you're almost certainly going to have to tilt the camera to get a whole building in shot, or you'll have to include a huge amount of foreground to get absolutely vertical facades that can be compared against the edge of the frame. A slight upward, downward or sideways tilt and minor barrel or pincushion distortion becomes totally irrelevant and unnoticeable. But basically a standard 50mm lens isn't a lens for architectural work full stop. It is, as implied in the name, a general purpose walking around lens for pictorial use - not for technical subjects, critical copying work or other special purposes. There are lenses designed for that, but they cost 5 or 10 times the price of the little AF 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor.</p>

<p>Or you can give up AF and use an old MF AiS 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, in which case you need actually spend <em>less</em> to get <em>sharper </em>pictures, but at the expense of one stop of aperture.</p>

 

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I think it is time for a pic from the 50mm F1.8 AF. D1h by the way.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I see little distortion with the 50 1.8 AF-D I have</em></p>

<p>That lens indeed has negligible distortion from the practical point of view, and the 60mm AF-S Micro is even better. The 50mm G Nikkors are totally different animals in that respect.</p>

<p><em>minor barrel or pincushion distortion becomes totally irrelevant and unnoticeable</em></p>

<p>R. Joe, whoever you are (sometimes it would be nice if people used real names - I suspect it would dampen the thrill they seem to get when making generalized claims about lenses they've obviously never used), I didn't say anything about photographing a whole building, which I would not do with a 50 anyway. My examples in which the distortion of the 1.4G bothered me were photographs of storefronts, some posters etc.; typical street level city travel photography. No tilting of the camera needed since I am only including the street level floor. Anyway, it bothers me, perhaps not you, that's great for you! People with low quality standards live a happier life since caring about stuff increases stress. I guess low quality is the new standard in everything. Frankly it's quite disturbing to see a normal lens distort as much as a 24/1.4 (but in much smaller angle of view, quite an underachievement of optical design). Nonetheless the 50/1.4G is a good lens for indoor available light photography. I have other normal lenses so I can get my street shot, it's just that it's quite stupid to have to have to have separate people 50's and architecture 50's in the bag when traveling in cities. In fact this is one reason (the other is mechanical quality) why I nowadays tend to avoid the 50's, preferring instead to use lenses that Nikon makes well. It's too bad since the 50's are much smaller and lighter weight so in that respect they lend themselves well to travel. Just a bit more effort would be nice. A normal lens should be optically better than a wide angle, not the opposite.</p>

[yuri_sopko]

<p>I have the 50 AF-S preordered via Amazon. And, if I don't like I will sell it, probably for more as I easily see a rush for it, or I'll return it.<br>

I am really hoping for this lens to excel as it is actually a new lens design and not just the older AF-D in an AF-S wrapper. The AF-D, is basically the same 50mm lens that Nikon has made for decades. The AF-S will also have rounded aperture blades as well.<br>

I think, that if you already have a 50 you might as well keep it. But, if you are like me and don't have one then the new one is the way to go.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Or you can give up AF and use an old MF AiS 55mm</p>

<p>Now that is a sensible answer, and i fully agree with that !<br /> Another route is , if you want to spend some money, and feel a lot of NAS, AND want an interresting piece of glass, buy a 50mm 1.2 MF lens, , which Nikon still produces btw. ..</p>