Best Nikkor 50

[dave_cheney]

Hi,

 

After 2 years of being a gear junkie I've decided that 24/50/105

suit my shooting style the best. I've gone for MF AI/s primes mainly

because of cost (and a great eB*y deal on a 105/1.8). But I'm having

trouble finding a 50mm to complete the kit.

 

I have had at times, 50/1.4 AFD, 50/1.4 AIs (currently owned),

50/2 currently.

 

I keep the 50/2 around because its small, but it flairs badly

under even simple lighting setups, which is a pit as its very sharp.

The 50/1.4 is a new addition and its working out well but its large

and I'm still not sure about its flair control, I use the rubber HR-1

hood which tends to make it a large lens to work with.

 

Everyone raves about the 50/1.8, but there are many versions, AF,

AI, E series. Which would you prefer.

 

Another option I thought of was the 50/2.8 macro, a great lens

aparently, and sharp as all get out, with great bokeh from the extra

apature blades.

 

What can you recommend.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[majid]

You should also consider the new 45mm f/2.8P, a Tessar type lens that seems a throwback to the old 45GN. It has excellent contrast and bokeh.

[jerry_lehrer]

Dave

 

I was going to say that I have Nikor lenses from 20mm to 500mm, but

no 50mm lenses at all, when I realized that I have an f2.8 Micro-

Nikor, but it is 55mm. Fantastic lens, but my normal lens is a 35mm

f1.4 Nikor, not a 50mm.

 

Jerry

[ed_alban]

For some reason, I ended up duplicating some of my most used lenses but no two are exactly the same model. 2 28's, 2 35's, 4 50's, 2 105's, 3 75-150's. I recently sold one of my 75-150/3.5E.

 

Anyway, back to the topic. I haven't done any objective analysis so my opinion is based mostly on normal usage. They're all basically sharp and contrasty. Of my four 50's (50/2 AI, 50/1.8 AF, 50/1.8 AFD and 50/1.4 AIS), I'd say the sharpest is my 50/1.8 AF non-D. The 50/2 AI comes in a very close second. The 50/1.4 flares widely wide-open but is also very sharp. My 50/1.8 AFD is so new I have yet to form an opinion on it but recent photos seem to show the same quality as the others although some shots were a little soft. Need to do more shooting to confirm that, so I've dismissed the shots as purely user error for now.

[holger]

I have come to the same decision regarding the selection of focal lengths, ending up with the 50/1.4 AIS. Reason is available light, no other lens that cheap with aperture 1.4 and such a solid feeling compared to its AF colleagues. It does not seem to be particularly prone to flare, but then I did not compare the lenses directly. Aperture was also the reason to rule out the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor. I prefer Micro on the longer end, or get the 60mm AF-D one day, since this one goes down to lifesize 1:1. I did also consider the 50/1.8 AF or AF-D, but ruled it out for the cheesier feeling compared to the AIS lenses.

[umd]

According to a test mentioned by Philip Greenspun in a rather old thread, Nikon 50mm 1.8AF (non D) is the best 50mm lens in the market. Mentioned test included almost all major brand 50mm lenses, not just Nikkors. The thread must be in the archives. I am pleased with mine, it is also very cheap and light, build quality was better than I had expected.

[dave_cheney]

Holger,

 

You say you decided to pass up on the Micro Nikkor 55/2.8? Was it too slow for you? I have heard many PJ's who swear by this lens, so I am particuarly interested myself. Its flat field and good bokeh charateristics are supposted to be very flattering. Teamed with an F3 its supposed to be a great combination. But thats another story.

 

Does the AF(d) 50/1.8 have a different optical construction to the AI(s) versions that preceeded it. I generally prefer the MF lenses as they have a higher apparent build quality over the Af versions

 

My primary desire is that I can find a small 50, I already have a large 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 but they are too bulky to be carried in my Domke stachel. Apart from the lack of multicoating, do E series 50/1.8 lack anything else, ie, some diagrams I have scene show them with one less element.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[david_h._hartman]

In my test the 105/2.5 AI and AIS edge out the 105/1.8 from f/2.5 to through f/5.6. By f/8.0 they are equal. The 105/1.8 suffers from internal flare and has low contrast from f/1.8 to f/2.8 but performs well from f/4.0 to f/8.0 or f/11. The 105/2.8 Micro also edged out the 105/1.8 but it�s a macro and defocused backgrounds can be harsh.

 

The 50/1.4 AIS late compact version and AF versions are said to be the best f/1.4(s). I would expect more flare from an f/1.4 than an f/2.0 or 1.8. I would keep the f/2.0 and if you feel a need for speed get an f/1.4 but I don�t think it�s worth the trouble to trade for an f/1.8 as you only get 1/3 stop and the design is very similar. I had a 50/1.4 AI and it was a dog wide open (bad sample?). The AF 50/1.8 is a fine performer but mine has a nasty feel as a manual focus lens. Protect the from element from direct light. Sometimes a lens hood is just not enough.

 

Here is my recordation for a basic outfit. 24/2.8 AI or AIS, 50/1.8 AI or AIS, AF 60/2.8(D) or 55/3.5 AI or 55/2.8 AIS, 105/2.5 AI or AIS, 180/2.8ED AI or AIS, PK-13 and PN-11 extension tubes.

 

Regards,

[ilkka_nissila]

There is no "one best 50". It depends on the shot and your preferences. Overall the 50/1.8 is excellent but it's a bit muddy at infinity (while the 50/1.4 is just fine there too). The f/1.8 is much better at close-up distances, while the f/1.4 is better at very large apertures (f/1.4-f/2). For general photography, the f/1.8 does give better contrast and is easier to use since the front lens is recessed to make a hood unnecessary. As far as the Micro-Nikkors go, at least the one I have (60/2.8) is superb at f/8 and smaller at long distances, but crappy at wide apertures and long distances, so it's not useful for shots in available light.

 

As far as the D/nonD ones go, the newest versions generally have the better manual focus feel of the AF lenses, and the optical designs have not changed other than for changes in the coatings I believe.

The f/1.8 AF does suffer from flimsy mechanical quality and I would take the D version ... it feels much better to me. The AF lenses are in general more contrasty than the AI-S ones.

[StefDevos]

Since you don't have close-up possibilities yet with the 24 and 105, I would recommend the 55 2.8 MicroNikkor if you prefer manual focus or the 60 2.8 MicroNikkor if you prefer autofocus: it would extend your top-quality set with close-up possibilities.

In the manual focus era, I had the 55 2.8 Micro-Nikkor (EXCELLENT!)and the Nikon 100 2.8 E-series (handy). In a moment of weakness, I sold them to buy AF 50 1.8 (faster normal lens) and AF 105 Micro 2.8 (better working distance for close-ups). They're both excellent too!

(By the way I do have the 105 1.8 and the 24 mm as well.)

[henk]

Dave,

 

The 50/1.8 Ai (large one) is the best allrounder IMO. The 50/2 is a little bit sharper but does not have the wonderfull bokeh the 1.8 has. I always found the 50/1.4 lacking contrast, allthough the Ais version is 'ok', didnt like the 1.4 bokeh either.

 

The 55 micro nikkors are extremely sharp, BUT have really horrible bokeh. If you use such a lens as a standard lens you have to stop it down quite a bit. BTW the number of aperture blades do not guarantee good bokeh, its a optical design characteristic which can be arguably improved by more aperture blades.

 

Greetings,

[Troll]

Over the last 50 years I've owned about a dozen or more 50mm Nikkors, and have never been really happy with any of them. It's a little overpriced, but the latest Multicoated 45mm might be a good choice; I always loved the original 45GN. Another thought might be the Noct-Nikkor. I've never owned one, but I think it's 58mm.

[plattro]

Bill Mitchell suggested a NOCT Nikkor (58mm). If you can find one, I understand they can be really really pricey. On the other hand, I was able to find a AI-s 50mm f/1.2 for a quite reasonable price. I believe the super fast lenses are perhaps not the sharpest, but I like the one I have for taking pictures in the forest. One stop faster than a 1.8 really isn't that much. Maybe the difference between 1/30 and 1/60 sec. Maybe. But it's a really pretty lens! The rear element absolutely fills the lens mount with no space left!

[ed_alban]

As far as build quality between 50/1.8 AF and AF-D, I can compare the AF-N version (non-D with wider rubber focus ring) versus the AF-D version, both of which I have. IMHO, the new AF-D version is "flimsier" and more "plasticky" both in look and feel than the AF-N. I don't have the original AF version from 1988 with the thin plastic focus ring so can't compare with that.

[gaspar]

I have the 50 1.8 AI and I am very happy with this lens. The last vacation I went on I shot 95 percent of my pics with this lens. The recessed front lens really helps to reduce flair w?o having to use a hood.

[patrick_davies1]

Why would there be a difference in optical quality between the 50mm AFD and the 50mm AF (non-D)?

[charles_miller]

Ninety-five percent of the time I shoot at f5.6 to f11, so please handicap these comments accordingly.

 

I've used the 50mm f1.8 AI, the 50mm f1.8 AF, the 50mm f1.4 AI, the 50mm f1.4 AF, and the 45mm AIP. In the aperture ranges mentioned, the difference between these lenses is subtle. Stopped down and on a tripod, the 50mm f1.8 AF gives spectacular results with fine grain films. But in my completely unscientific experience, the 50mm f1.8 AF also gave a higher percentage of shots with strange bokeh than the others. For general purpose shooting, I prefer the 50mm f1.4 AF over the f1.8 AF version. This is because I get more keepers per roll under a wide variety of shooting conditions. Stopped down, the 50mm f1.4 AF has no noticeable flare, but it does have a trace of geometric distortion. Stopped down, the 45 AIP is just as sharp as the others, and the famous Tessar design gives images a slightly less cluttered and more artsy appearance. But, unless you drum scan the images, or do you own enlarging, you may not notice the difference. In other words, at f5.6 and beyond, don't expect striking differences between the ordinary lenses mentioned above. I still have my 50mm f1.8 AI, because no way could I ever sell it for the going price of $50.

[brian_caldwell]

There are at least two distinct optical designs of the 50/1.8. The old type is the AI and original AIS (the one that focuses down to 0.45m). The newer type is the new AIS (focuses to 0.6m) and (I think)the AF versions. I use this lens primarily for shooting wide to ultra wide multi-row panoramas, and I tend to use it stopped down pretty far. Unfortunately, the newer versions have a very annoying central flare spot caused by reflections off of the two surfaces of the rear element, and this flare spot becomes more pronounced as you stop down more. At f/22 its just plain unacceptable for my work. For this reason I will only use the older version. (see attachment)

 

The 55/2.8 is better than any of the 50/1.8s IMHO, except that the coarse helicoid makes precision focusing difficult for distant objects. The 58 Noct is by far the best for low-light candid work, but I never use it for stopped down landscape work due to its field curvature.