Which one is the best 50 mm AI (or AIS)?

[ben_hutcherson]

I was under the impression, and may well be incorrect, that all F mount 50mm Nikon f/1.4s were slight retrofocus designs.

 

In fact, I thought that was the reason that the FL of the first F mount f/1.4 normal lens ended up at 5.8cm(58mm) rather than 50.

 

I'll freely admit that I could be very wrong on all of this, though.

[Andrew Garrard]

I was under the impression, and may well be incorrect, that all F mount 50mm Nikon f/1.4s were slight retrofocus designs.

 

In fact, I thought that was the reason that the FL of the first F mount f/1.4 normal lens ended up at 5.8cm(58mm) rather than 50.

 

I'll freely admit that I could be very wrong on all of this, though.

 

On the basis that anything I posted would probably also be wrong, here's straight from the horse's mouth:

 

5.8cm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4. All old designs, obviously.

[orsetto]

Or more cynically. Maybe Zeiss's suits just thought they'd trade on the reputation the 55mm Hasselblad Distagon had built for itself.

 

Loads of us did believe the Otus was in fact a tarted-up cleverly repurposed Hassy wide-angle when the hellaciously expensive thing was announced. But it turned out to be a completely new (and absolutely stellar) ground up design. Which for whatever reason employs some variation of the traditionally wide-angle Distagon retrofocus layout instead of the standard Planar or Sonnar we expected. Presumably the gigantic, no-holds-barred retrofucus update contributes to the flawless digita-sensor field coverage at f/1.4 and f/2.0, else why would Zeiss sacrifice the far more marketable Planar moniker?

 

Re which Zeiss twin has the Toni: while not always Contarex quality (or even close) the Jena stuff can be surprisingly good. I love the 58/2 Biometar from my Exakta, despite some flaws it does interesting things my other 50s can't. Nikon emulated some of its qualities with the original 50/2 Nikkor-S that debuted with the F: I bought a couple more of those when I noticed. The Biometars tend to seize up (mine can barely focus anymore) while Nikkors never do. Tthe Pancolars have a robust following, esp the f/1.4: never tried it myself as I'm unwilling to bet $800 on one.

 

Back to the manual-focus Nikkors: they've been controversial in some quarters since the mid-70s. As soon as the initial decade-long shock and awe effect of the F introduction wore off, people began quietly carping that the Emperor had no clothes: Rokkor and Canon were often better at the less exotic bread-and-butter designs like 50/1.7, 50/1.4, 35/2, 85/1.8. To some extent this was true: sometimes Nikon did display the arrogance of "if you want the versatility of the F body and dozens of lenses, don't expect all the glass to be perfect". Some designs got rapid updates, many didn't, with some obsolete optics sitting in the line essentially unchanged for 20 years or more.

 

So yeah: if you want knock-your-socks-off in a 50mm f/2 or 50/1.4, you won't necessarily get it from a random old Nikkor. They were decent enough on film, where the 50/2 genuinely was was considered as close as you could get to a Japanese Summicron for a long time. But that was 50 years ago: on today's high resolution utterly-flat-plane digital sensors with cover glass interference, they can lose whatever luster they once had. It helps to look for the cleanest, newest possible copies: dust will noticeably affect the 50/2 wide open, and all the 50/1.4 versions prior to the compact K/AI rubber focus ring have oddly fragile front elements.

 

The front coating on scallop-barrel pre-AI f/1.4 can be horribly worn by a soft breeze, never mind aggressive cleaning with 60s-era lens tissue. Its difficult now to find a 50/1.4 Nikkor-S without four dozen pecks in the front coating that look like it was sandblasted, or a front element that looks like a child rubbed all over it with a piece of white chalk. This cannot be cleaned, and it does negatively impact performance on digital. The pre-AI 55/1.2 Nikkor-S, popular with hipsters for its bokeh and wide-open aberrations, is surprisingly fragile mechanically and easily knocked out of alignment (along with the same front element issues as its sister f/1.4). Even the well-regarded 50/1.2 AIS has its detractors: a significant number of buyers complained theirs is technically excellent but make "ugly" images for them.

 

The F and F2 bodies and accessory systems are what made Nikon a legend. Those of us who've used Nikon for decades understand that: while some of the vintage lenses are indeed stellar, it must be admitted that many are just "OK" and a few were dogs. Sometimes Nikon chose usability over the nth degree of optical quality: insisting some fairly exotic lenses keep their standard 52mm filter thread made for admirable consistency and some remarkably compact barrels, but constrained the optical engineers. This can still be made to work in your favor today, with careful selection according to what you need. The 35/1.4 remains the smallest production SLR lens of its type, is incredible at f/4-5.6 and produces a variety of beautiful effects from flaws at f/1.4-2.8. The 85/2 AI is the tiniest fast-*% SLR lens you can buy. The 20mm 3.5 and 4.0 are marvels for their size, if deployed correctly. The Micro Nikkors are legends for close work. Etc.

 

Many buy old Nikkors today for their compact size relative to modern bloated AF equivalents, their manual focus with infinity stop and mechanical aperture rings. Good versatility for video, handle nicely for street work on mirrorless. In exchange you get generally good optical quality, just don't expect Sigma Art performance on digital because you won't get it. On the film they were computed for, they can do better. A few very special manual-focus Nikkors can still amaze with their unique imaging properties, but most are simply standard-issue journeyman glass. If you want '70s-era Zeiss 3D pop or Leica glow, buy Zeiss or Leica instead.

Edited September 17, 2019 by orsetto

[Brian1664876441]

All of this leads me to believe that the best Nikon 50mm lens is the 50mm F1.4 Nikkor that came with the S3-2000. In my experience, it is the best Nikon 50mm lens ever made. But you can only use it on a Rangefinder.

[ben_hutcherson]

Well, on a somewhat related note, I've just taken advantage of a KEH sale and ordered my own Df.

 

Since I have probably a half dozen chrome nose 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-Ss, I'm going to be interested to see how they compare side-by-side on that camera, although I admit that my main motivation was a lightweight FF camera for an upcoming trip where I don't necessarily want to tote a even a D600+zoom with me(I'm probably going to pick up a 35mm f/2 AF-D, which I know isn't great but hopefully will be passable on the 16mp Df and serve as a good general purpose lens).

[rodeo_joe1]

All of this leads me to believe that the best Nikon 50mm lens is the 50mm F1.4 Nikkor that came with the S3-2000. In my experience, it is the best Nikon 50mm lens ever made. But you can only use it on a Rangefinder.

Expensive when you have to throw away the film-taking thingy that it comes attached to. And buy an adapter for your MILC!

[Brian1664876441]

Some people sell the lens by itself- I've seen them in the $800 range. I'll never sell mine.

Besides, the S3-2000 IS a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera.

I do have the adapter, an Amedeo Nikon S-Mount to LTM, RF coupled.

[chulster]

I'm probably going to pick up a 35mm f/2 AF-D, which I know isn't great but hopefully will be passable on the 16mp Df and serve as a good general purpose lens.

 

I'm going to put in an unsolicited and, no doubt, unwanted plug for the dark-horse Yongnuo 35mm f/2 as a superior and cheaper alternative. Seriously. It's certainly not up to 35mm f/1.8G ED standards, much less those of the Sigma and Tamron competition. But I dare say it bests the old 35/2D by a noticeable margin, at least in sharpness and bokeh. This opinion applies only to recently-manufactured samples: my recent copy outperforms expectations based on the initial reviews that came out a couple of years ago.

[rodeo_joe1]

my recent copy outperforms expectations based on the initial reviews that came out a couple of years ago.

Interesting.

Not sure I'd like to be stuck with any 35mm as the only lens on FF though.

 

If weight and size were critical, I'd personally grab the neat little 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron SP zoom that I 'made do' with for many years. Not much bigger or heavier than an AF 35mm f/2, but a heap more versatile.

[chulster]

Not sure I'd like to be stuck with any 35mm as the only lens on FF though.

 

How about if your only lens were required to be a prime? Which focal length would you choose?

 

For me, it would be a difficult choice between 35mm and 50mm. I just acquired a 45mm; maybe it would be a good compromise.

[Albins images]

How about if your only lens were required to be a prime? Which focal length would you choose?

..as written somewhere above I'd end up with a 60mm macro! Versatile from infinity to 1:1 and you can 'always' stitch to go wide..

[ben_hutcherson]

How about if your only lens were required to be a prime? Which focal length would you choose?

 

For me, it would be a difficult choice between 35mm and 50mm. I just acquired a 45mm; maybe it would be a good compromise.

 

I have a couple of 45mm lenses. I don't find the FOV appreciably different from 50mm.

 

If I'm going to only have a single prime, my tastes have changed over the last couple of years to preferring 35mm over 50mm. A 50mm is just too "tight" for me, especially indoors. Sometimes a 35mm is too wide, but the abundance of pixels on modern digital cameras makes that less of an issue, and 35mm is avoids exaggerated edges that tend to start showing up(in my experience) around 24mm.

[ben_hutcherson]

As a side note, I've had my Df in hand for about an hour now, and have been playing with my worst chrome nose 50mm f/1.4. This is actually my first experience with one of these lenses on digital, even though I have a bunch of them.

 

The vignetting is terrible, but I'm liking its bokeh wide open. Hopefully I can offer some images this evening.

[rodeo_joe1]

How about if your only lens were required to be a prime?

When they pass that law, I'll consider my options. Until then I'll stick whatever damn lens I choose on the front of my cameras! ;)

[Fiddlefye]

I have two 50-ish Nikkorslike and use both on film bodies (F2S, FE and F4) and digital (D750). The 50 f1.4 produces lovely images, but the 55 f2.8 Micro has a quality that never ceases to astound me. Depending upon the situation it is usually my go-to choice.

[mark_crown4]

I have a 50mm 1.4 AIS, a 55mm 2.8 AIS and one of those short nose, close focussing 0.45m 50mm 1.8's AIS for the Japanese market.

 

I have had the long nose 50mm AIS and an E 50mm 1.8 too. To be honest, they are all good - the Japanese market 50mm is petite - much better built I think than the awful 0.60m focussing 50mm which I have never liked.

 

I have even used the Japanese specific 50mm on a PK13 extender to photograph a shield beetle on my door step wide open and I got the bugs eye nice and sharp - it is a very versatile lens. I have found the 50 1.8's I have had to be sharp even wide open and I do think that the AIS are more contrasty than the E 50mm wide open.

 

The long nose AIS might be better for those with huge hands, but the Japanese market 50mm 1.8 makes for a very compact combo with an FM type camera. All the 50's in my view are very sharp. I had a 45mm P but the 2.8 aperture was very limiting so I went back to a 50mm 1.8 - the Japanese market version which is a jewel of a lens in my opinion.

[conrad_hoffman]

Not all differences are obvious. I've got two 50 f/1.8 Nikkors that, on the surface, should be the same optical design. One of them will produce a small circle on the center of the image if you shoot a bright sky/water scene on film. The other won't. You can see a slight difference in curvature on the rear surface of the rear elements. Or maybe it's the coating. Only noticed it after several years.

[scott_murphy5]

I have both the f/1.8 and f/1.4 AIS and I find the f/1.8 to be a little sharper than the f/1.4. It also has less flare. The difference between the two is only 2/3 of an f/ stop

[scott_murphy5]

<p>If you want a utility lens for the sharpest results, either a 50mm lens at f/1.4, or even better and cheaper, usually, an f/1.8 will serve. Even though I have an f/1.2 lens which I do use most of the time, I use it knowing that at anything wider than f/1.8 it has its drawbacks in a number of dimensions.<br /> f/1.2 lenses, as I and others have often said, are wonderful tools for their reasons for being -- low light photography and shallow depth of field. For day-in and day- out shooting, they are adequate for normal light situations when stopped down. Even then, I kept my old f/2 Nikkor for critical shooting.<br /> The f/1.4 lenses are a good compromise though. <br /> Here is a lens that I still use today, but for closeups, mostly. I admit I nowadays use it most often either on a film Nikon F or F2 or else with an adapter on my Canon 5Dii.</p>

<p> </p><div>[ATTACH=full]1169365[/ATTACH]</div>

My very first Nikon back in 1972 was a 1969 vintage FTN with the 50mm Nikkor H. I still have it and still use it. It is a superlative lens 2 stops down.

[mark_crown4]

Not all differences are obvious. I've got two 50 f/1.8 Nikkors that, on the surface, should be the same optical design. One of them will produce a small circle on the center of the image if you shoot a bright sky/water scene on film. The other won't. You can see a slight difference in curvature on the rear surface of the rear elements. Or maybe it's the coating. Only noticed it after several years.

 

I have read the phenomenon you speak of to be associated with the cheaper short nose 50mm 1.8 only beginning with serial number 4XXXXXX for the European and USA markets.

 

I have done contre-jour pictures with the Japanese market 50mm 1.8 (short nose, serial number 22XXXX) and not found that to happen but that is only on film - not digital.

 

My view is that Japanese market 50mm 1.8 is stellar and as much as I enjoyed my 45mm P, the older lens is far more flexible in the field.

[rodeo_joe1]

....And we have a definite loser!

I foolishly recently bought an as-new (totally mint-looking) plastic AF-D 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor.

 

The printed-on lettering, 'Made in China' label and lack of any weight or quality feel did little to inspire confidence. It didn't disappoint in this respect.

 

It's probably definitely the worst piece of crap bearing the Nikon name ever to have passed through my hands. The wide-open IQ is worse than any kit zoom, and even stopped down to f/4 it's pretty poor. Decidedly a bottom-of-the-list candidate.

 

I'm wondering if I've possibly got a fake? But who'd bother to fake an already cheap lens?

[orsetto]

....And we have a definite loser!

 

Interesting.

 

Either you acquired the single worst example of this lens ever made, or the hyperventilating amount of praise its received over the years is BS cut-and-pasted from one blog to another to another. Personally, I've always thought the fawning over it (and its Canon equivalent) as "plastic fantastic bargains in premium glass" was a little suspect: the manual focus versions are OK if not stunning, swapping the same optics into a featherweight barrel with zero focus damping or rigidity wasn't likely to improve things. Add the unfortunate "Made In China" provenance (the cruddier printing indicates very recent mfr) and the result is indeed uninspiring. China builds nice things for Nikon when the profit margin is high, but disposables like this lens? Forget it.

 

Then again, most of the praise seems to come from DX users employing it as a fast portrait lens, where only the center of the image circle makes the photo. I've noticed a counter-intuitive trend over the years where some really excellent film-era Nikon glass often performs mediocre when cropped to DX digital, but some mediocre film-era Nikkors improved noticeably when cropped to DX. Perhaps that odd phenomenon is what inflates the rep of the 50mm f/1.8 AFD: it likes the DX crop and added sensor cover glass?

Edited October 2, 2019 by orsetto

[Andrew Garrard]

The 50 f/1.8 AF-D largely sucks wide open (I tried to use mine to test for the D800 autofocus alignment issue and couldn't because it was so soft off-centre), but if you care about sharpness rather than, say, bokeh, it's pretty respectable at f/5.6 - more so than most kit zooms, and possibly more so than the AF-S version (which is much better wide open and has nicer bokeh). Used as a small lens that'll usually be at f/5.6 but which can shoot a blurry f/1.8 image in an emergency, I don't call it a paperweight - partly because it's so light.

 

On my D700, my walk-around kit was the 28-200G (kept on-camera), 135 f/2.8 AI (sitting in the front pocket of a toploader in case I needed to take a portrait) and 50mm f/1.8 AF-D (in a pouch that came with a teleconverter, tied to the strap); the AF-S version is appreciably bigger and can't do the same trick. These days it doesn't get much outing, but I have it just in case. One of my bigger complaints with both the autofocus 50mm f/1.8s is the needlessly inset front element making them bigger (a problem the E-series with the same optics doesn't have, which is why I have one of those too). Mostly I'm too insensitive to weight (other than my own) to go this route and have taken the Sigma Art instead (possibly to be replaced with the 40mm soon) - but it's nice to have options that can be squeezed in the corner of a bag for emergencies. Also they're not really worth anything in resale.

 

I have the Canon nifty fifty too. It's bigger, probably due to the integrated (non-USM) motor, and has an even less ergonomic focus ring. I believe it's considered to be slightly worse optically than the Nikkor, but I've not compared them.

 

For someone who owns five 50mm lenses, it's not really a focal length I like much. The main argument I had for the f/1.8 lenses is that they're much cheaper than Nikon's f/1.4 offerings, and I never liked the look of those enough to justify the money.

[ben_hutcherson]

I have a pre-D "made in China" 50mm f/1.8 that I admit to never having looked at THAT critically, but a less than critical looks shows it to be thoroughly uninspiring.

 

The thin ring non-D 50mm f/1.4 I have runs circles around it, and it wasn't THAT much more expensive(I paid I think $150 for it).

[chulster]

....And we have a definite loser!

I foolishly recently bought an as-new (totally mint-looking) plastic AF-D 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor.

 

It's probably definitely the worst piece of crap bearing the Nikon name ever to have passed through my hands. The wide-open IQ is worse than any kit zoom, and even stopped down to f/4 it's pretty poor. Decidedly a bottom-of-the-list candidate.

 

I can’t remember, is this your first lens based on the 50/1.8 AI-S “pancake” design?

 

Optically, this iteration is no worse than the others, though manufacturing tolerances may very well have been worse than those of the MF variants, and thus you may have by luck acquired an epically (epochally?) bad copy.

 

At f/4, it should be sharp across the frame, with minimal coma and spherical aberration. I never loved the colors though—the G version is better in that regard.