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

[mrjallen]

So what's a poor fellow to do who also has hungry mouths to feed? I can't afford an autofocus f/1.4 lens of any focal length.

[chulster]

So what's a poor fellow to do who also has hungry mouths to feed? I can't afford an autofocus f/1.4 lens of any focal length.

What’s your spending limit for one lens of this type?

[mike_halliwell]

Sigma Art instead (possibly to be replaced with the 40mm soon)

I'd go with that too, infact I did....:cool:

 

It's huge with truly awesome IQ.

 

...and just for you Andrew, it's equally awesome in IR well up to 1000nm on my converted D600.

 

If I need small, i quite like my 45mm 2.8 GN. Admittedly it's quite slow, but OK wide open, but best @5.6.

[ben_hutcherson]

If I need small, i quite like my 45mm 2.8 GN. Admittedly it's quite slow, but OK wide open, but best @5.6.

 

Admittedly it sells for stupid money, but if you ever have a chance the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P is worth trying. Under most conditions, it looks very similar to the GN. The coatings are much better, though. Tessar-type lenses aren't exactly demanding and can work okay uncoated if used smartly, so modern multi-coating on a Tessar can give superb contrast.

[mike_halliwell]

The coatings are much better

Indeed they are!

 

Mine is the earliest F type, I occasionally us it for multi-spectral photography and the lack of modern multi-coatings helps with UV transmission.

[Andrew Garrard]

I get the Tessar argument for better bokeh than the 50mm f/1.8, but these days we can achieve reasonably nice bokeh with better sharpness - in a much more expensive and larger lens, admittedly. (The Voigtlander 40mm f/2 seems not to pass the bokeh test either.) Discovering the E-series 50mm stopped some of my "pancake normal" desire - and given how little I've used it, I don't think I'll be justifying the Tessar any time soon. I stand by the 50mm Sigma HSM (pre-Art) if you want acceptable bokeh and a sharp centre, but don't care too much about the frame edges and are on a budget.

[orsetto]

So what's a poor fellow to do who also has hungry mouths to feed? I can't afford an autofocus f/1.4 lens of any focal length.

 

Really the only f/1.4 option for "sparrow feed" money is the compact AI or AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. Lots of people ask ridiculous amounts for it, but its plentiful enough that if you shop patiently you can almost always find one in good cosmetic and optical condition for under $100. It isn't spectacular (esp at f/1.4) but it isn't atrocious: significantly better than the earlier larger Nikkor-S and -SC. I found two that are surprisingly good, even at f/1.4 (within reasonable expectations).

 

Thats if you intend to use a Nikon DSLR or film camera. If you're using a mirrorless, all bets are off and you aren't limited to fully-compatible F-mount lenses. For a mirrorless, look at the Contax RTS-mount 50mm f/1.7 Planar (not quite as fast as the f/1.4, but better in some respects and way less expensive). Others worth a look are the Canon 50mm f/1.4 SSC (breech lock mount), and a couple revisions of Minolta Rokkor f/1.4 (there were many, opinions vary). The 58mm f/2.0 Zeiss Biotar in Exakta mount is much cheaper than M42 mount, and can be very nice if you get one without stiff focus ring. The Biotar with 12 blade iris is fairly common, the multiblade aperture helps with bokeh at all settings.

 

If you have one of the more recent super-sensor hi-res bodies, few to none of the "bargain glass" options will deliver on the sensor performance potential. If you can't manage your expectations, but are on a restrictive budget, you probably own the wrong camera. Blowing your eyeballs off with 36 or 42 MP requires Sigma Art or current Zeiss options (or Canon R or Nikon Z glass, if you have those bodies). Even some modern zooms from Tamron can embarrass vintage 50mm primes. And unless you have the patience, skill, time for live view focusing: AF is a necessity.

Edited October 4, 2019 by orsetto

[chulster]

Really the only f/1.4 option for "sparrow feed" money is the compact AI or AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. Lots of people ask ridiculous amounts for it, but its plentiful enough that if you shop patiently you can almost always find one in good cosmetic and optical condition for under $100.

 

I scored an AF 50/1.4 (the first, non-D, thin-focus-ring version) for $106 in very good condition on ebay earlier this year.

[ben_hutcherson]

I scored an AF 50/1.4 (the first, non-D, thin-focus-ring version) for $106 in very good condition on ebay earlier this year.

 

I paid $150 for mine at a local B&M earlier this year, and that was with a nice Nikon brand L37c on the front of it.

 

For these simple screwdriver lenses without any kind of focus decoupler(i.e. the ring spins while focusing), I actually like the "thin ring" lenses a bit better than the later rubber ring "AFn" and AF-D versions. The reason for that is that it's easier to keep your hand out of the way while they are focusing. Lately, I've been using my Df with a 35mm f/2D a lot as a light grab and go FX package(it's actually going on vacation with me next week) and as another plastic-y, polarizing lens, that's one of the things that annoys me about it. Also, at least with the 50mm f/1.4, the thin ring feels a bit better built to me than the AFn/AF-D version of the same lens, but that could be my imagination-all of them are a step above the AF/AFn/AF-D 50mm f/1.8.

 

Of course, the thin ring lenses are not that great for manual focus, but they're also not unusable by any stretch. The 18-55 DSLR kit lenses I've had from Canon and Nikon are worse(although admittedly the current focus by wire AF-P version should be better).

[orsetto]

I scored an AF 50/1.4 (the first, non-D, thin-focus-ring version) for $106 in very good condition on ebay earlier this year.

 

The screw drive AF and AFD are allegedly the same optic design as the manual AI/AIS. But as we've learned over the years of unforgiving digital sensors Nikon tended to fudge this a bit with a number of early AF conversions (optically, mechanically or both). The consensus seems to be the AF and AFD are more variable than the AI/AIS (which are variable enough to begin with), but if you get a good sample the AF will equal the performance of a good MF sample. In a good copy, whatever is lost to the AF compromises is counterbalanced by the AF feature (if it can be fine tuned to your Nikon DSLR body). The AFD version is usually much more expensive than MF, but pre-D versions like the one you found run about the same as the MF. Even after thirty years, people really do still despise that thin plastic focus ring: you can save a tidy sum by choosing it.

Edited October 4, 2019 by orsetto

[mark_crown4]

Really the only f/1.4 option for "sparrow feed" money is the compact AI or AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. Lots of people ask ridiculous amounts for it, but its plentiful enough that if you shop patiently you can almost always find one in good cosmetic and optical condition for under $100. It isn't spectacular (esp at f/1.4) but it isn't atrocious: significantly better than the earlier larger Nikkor-S and -SC. I found two that are surprisingly good, even at f/1.4 (within reasonable expectations).

 

Thats if you intend to use a Nikon DSLR or film camera. If you're using a mirrorless, all bets are off and you aren't limited to fully-compatible F-mount lenses. For a mirrorless, look at the Contax RTS-mount 50mm f/1.7 Planar (not quite as fast as the f/1.4, but better in some respects and way less expensive). Others worth a look are the Canon 50mm f/1.4 SSC (breech lock mount), and a couple revisions of Minolta Rokkor f/1.4 (there were many, opinions vary). The 58mm f/2.0 Zeiss Biotar in Exakta mount is much cheaper than M42 mount, and can be very nice if you get one without stiff focus ring. The Biotar with 12 blade iris is fairly common, the multiblade aperture helps with bokeh at all settings.

 

If you have one of the more recent super-sensor hi-res bodies, few to none of the "bargain glass" options will deliver on the sensor performance potential. If you can't manage your expectations, but are on a restrictive budget, you probably own the wrong camera. Blowing your eyeballs off with 36 or 42 MP requires Sigma Art or current Zeiss options (or Canon R or Nikon Z glass, if you have those bodies). Even some modern zooms from Tamron can embarrass vintage 50mm primes. And unless you have the patience, skill, time for live view focusing: AF is a necessity.

 

If you are going to go 'off piste' with Nikon F lenses, then my recommendation for a 50mm 1.4 would be the Pentax SMC 'A' MF version. It has an 8 bladed diaphragm and is very well made. The 1.4 AF version was also nice but nowhere as well put together and my version seemed a bit soft. I regretted selling my 'A' that I used on a Pentax KX - it really was very good indeed (I used it with B&W Kodak Tri-X 400). I might pluck up the courage to get both again - the KX is a lovely machine. Nice examples of Pentax 1.4 A fetch good prices on line so re-sale values seem to hold up.

 

BTW - I have no reason not to like my copy of the AIS 50mm 1.4, but I honestly believe that the Pentax 50mm A is a better portrait/people lens - that extra diaphragm yields a smoothness to the texture of the central image and the out of focus areas seem harsher on the Nikkor.

[Matthew Currie]

If you're going mirrorless and looking for good cheap lenses, I'd count Minolta as one to keep an eye out for.

 

I've used the MC 50/1.4, and though not enough to make a final judgment, it looked pretty nice. I also have tried a variety of the 50/1.7 in MC and both new and old MD versions (the earlier one had 55 mm. filter size, lots of metal, the later 49 and more plastic). I thought the early MD 50/1.7 one of the nicest 50's I've ever tried.

[rodeo_joe1]

If you're going mirrorless and looking for good cheap lenses, I'd count Minolta as one to keep an eye out for.

 

I've used the MC 50/1.4, and though not enough to make a final judgment, it looked pretty nice. I also have tried a variety of the 50/1.7 in MC and both new and old MD versions (the earlier one had 55 mm. filter size, lots of metal, the later 49 and more plastic). I thought the early MD 50/1.7 one of the nicest 50's I've ever tried.

Darn! Now you tell me. I walked away from a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 at a 'boot fair' yesterday. The asking price was £10 (= about $15 US).

 

Having been bitten by the lousy AF-D Nikon lens, I was a bit wary of throwing even a small amount of money at yet another 50mm.

 

WRT the Chinese AF-D being a 'pancake' design; it's not. The mount is a tiny bit shorter than its non-D predecessor, but the glassware looks identical.

 

The non-D AF 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor is very close in performance to the manual focus Ai-S, and a good to excellent performer. OTOH, the plastic AF-D piece of garbage I just bought is dreadful wide open, and only reaches 'acceptable-if-you-lower-your-expectations' performance at about f/5.6.

 

I don't think I even dare sell it on. Unless it's to a pawn shop at a heavy loss. The comment "too light to even make a decent paperweight" just about sums up its worth.

[chulster]

I don't think I even dare sell it on. Unless it's to a pawn shop at a heavy loss. The comment "too light to even make a decent paperweight" just about sums up its worth.

 

You can always offload it on ebay with full disclosure of the IQ issues. Somebody probably will buy it if you do auction or best offer. Just don’t do free shipping.

 

The winner might be able to fix the issues as simply as unseating and reseating the lens elements!

[robert_bouknight1]

I have bashed the 50/1.8/AFD on PNet before, and can't miss another opportunity. I wondered what was wrong with my basketball photos for a season or two, shooting various early DX cameras over 10 years ago at ISO's too high for the sensor, using a 50/1.8D AF. I bought the lens when I did not have any AF nikkors, and read a review by KR that said that the 1.8 was as good as any other. Wrong, Tried a 1.4 AFD, which was much better in the f2-2.8 range than the 1.8AFD. my photos with the 1.4D were significantly better. I think I have had two of the 50/1.8D(ogs) one that has failed aperture blades. Both gone, good riddance!

 

I still have my first Nikkor lens, a 50/1.4AI bought new in about 1977. It is not the best 50 ever, but it is still a good performer with a nice balance of sharpness, contrast, and overall image appearance. Wish it had more rounded aperture blades, my only real complaint with the lens is stop sign out of focus highlights when used in the middle strop range. I always thought the manual focus 50/1/8 AI was too hard and edgy looking, before we had the bokeh term.

 

I also now have some earlier Nikon 50's. IMO, the early 58/1.4 renders people very well at about f/2.5. I also like the nice saturated look I get with my 50/1.4SC and like the 50/2 any vintage. The 50mm 1.8G and 1.4G (have not used one of these much but some) seem good, also. The 50/1.8g I have now beat the 1.4D I had when I compared the two.

 

What is the best Nikon 50? Many are good, one dog (1.8D) IMO, the best probably are new S mount offerings for mirrorless. Doubt I will get one of those, have too many Nikkor and other 50's already!

[rodeo_joe1]

The winner might be able to fix the issues as simply as unseating and reseating the lens elements!

Oh yes; a cheap and easy fix!

 

I can't even see any securing rings to unscrew around the elements, but I did notice that the aperture ring is 'pipped' in preparation for fitting a pre-AI coupling fork. Now who in the world would go to such trouble for a piece of junk like that?

 

An afterthought: Maybe I'll swap the AF-D chip into my old plain-vanilla AF version. At least I might salvage something from one of the worst deals I've ever had.

Edited October 8, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

[rodeo_joe1]

"Maybe I'll swap the AF-D chip into my old plain-vanilla AF version."

- 2 hours and some screwdriving later. I should have realised it wouldn't be that easy.

 

Of course the Gray-code strip and its little commutator need to be transplanted as well... with nowhere to mount them in the older lens design.

 

Ah well. Maybe I can convince myself that the bokeh is slightly better on the AF-D version.

[Andrew Garrard]

Wait... you tried to transplant the AF-D chip into a lens that didn't have D? I think I'm missing what you were hoping to achieve.

[rodeo_joe1]

Wait... you tried to transplant the AF-D chip into a lens that didn't have D? I think I'm missing what you were hoping to achieve.

To give an optically and mechanically superior 50mm f/1.8 lens the distance registering ability of its cheaply-built successor.

 

Externally the old AF and new plastic AF-D appear to have identical mounts and rear ends. However I didn't think further than a chip swap, but the 'D' chip obviously needs to be able to read the position of the focus throw. This is achieved by an extension of the flexible PCB being printed with a gray code strip and read by a series of contacts.

 

If I decide to go ahead with this project, the easiest option is to remove the focus helical complete with iris and lens elements and transplant the entire barrel into the cheesy D mechanism. Always assuming the two lenses have the same helical pitch and diameter.

 

Nah! It was a stupid idea in the first place. Who needs an imprecise and 'steppy' distance readout anyway?

Edited October 8, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

[Andrew Garrard]

Um. Interesting project. Although I was under the impression that "D" might make a small difference to flash metering but was generally not considered all that exciting a feature?

[rodeo_joe1]

Um. Interesting project. Although I was under the impression that "D" might make a small difference to flash metering but was generally not considered all that exciting a feature?

I thought having distance information in EXIF might be neat, but that return for quite a bit of work is hardly worthwhile on second thoughts.

[mike_halliwell]

distance information in EXIF

That's one of those variables that seems either very inaccurate or absent even in modern lenses.... and shouldn't be!

 

There was a thread about it some time ago... can't find it just now.

[rodeo_joe1]

That's one of those variables that seems either very inaccurate or absent even in modern lenses.... and shouldn't be!

 

There was a thread about it some time ago... can't find it just now.

I was a bit dismayed to find the segmented commutator as a distance indicator in the lens. Very crude.

 

I'd hoped that Nikon did something smarter, and cheaper to implement: Like end-stopping the focus and counting screwdriver revs to determine the distance; aided by a look-up-table in the lens chip.

 

The end-stopping would hopefully hold good for the duration of a power up session, and would only need to be repeated at power-on, or if the lens mis-focused and hit an end-stop again.

 

Perhaps beyond the capability of their programmers?

[chulster]

I was a bit dismayed to find the segmented commutator as a distance indicator in the lens. Very crude.

 

I'd hoped that Nikon did something smarter, and cheaper to implement: Like end-stopping the focus and counting screwdriver revs to determine the distance; aided by a look-up-table in the lens chip.

 

The end-stopping would hopefully hold good for the duration of a power up session, and would only need to be repeated at power-on, or if the lens mis-focused and hit an end-stop again.

 

Perhaps beyond the capability of their programmers?

 

That approach would require not only that the lens remember which “turn” of the screw it was “on”, but also that the lens use smaller, more-precise parts to measure how much rotation the screw was undergoing. Counting while turns would hardly give you enough precision, since one full turn can pull focus from infinity to, for example, five feet.

 

The approach they did use (and still use?) lets you have as much precision as you could reasonably wish for without needing many tiny parts, without having to remember anything, and without having to set a zero position.

[rodeo_joe1]

That approach would require not only that the lens remember which “turn” of the screw it was “on”, but also that the lens use smaller, more-precise parts to measure how much rotation the screw was undergoing. Counting while turns would hardly give you enough precision, since one full turn can pull focus from infinity to, for example, five feet.

I wasn't suggesting counting whole turns only, and the lens has to remember nothing except a turns-to-distance ratio that it can pass on to the camera. And if the focus mechanism isn't made precise enough for reporting distance to a better precision than a crude gray-scale 'ruler', then it has no business being part of the AF system.