Whats the best Nikon 50mm lens (AF only) ?

[RalphLambrecht]

These questions need a budget.
I like cheap, that's what makes it best to me and the AF 50mm 1.8 is cheap and looks great.

Yes, my 50mmf/1.8 E series is one of the sharpest lenses I own.

 

[Odot]

I think moving up a format will bring much more quality improvements than replacing a, say, cheapo 50 1.8 (which is already excellent) by a Sigma Art.

I understand the market need for a lens like the Sigma in the digital world. Going MF is financially out of the reach of many. But with film? You can get an MF kit for that price. Even a cheap MF (say, a $200 Rolleicord or Yashica-Mat) will bring visible differences compared to the best 35mm.

Servus, i have been flirting with MF for a while and am a bit concerned on how to work it for shooting street, when i need to be spontaneous. I see the work of Vivian Maier and wonder how she pulled it off? Was it the times? people less running around back then?

 

[film_man]

The best one is the most expensive one you can afford. Because if you buy another one then you'll eventually buy that expensive one too. Regardless of what others will say at some point you will want to see with your own eyes whether it is any good or not. So, the best one is the most expensive you can buy. Done.

By the way, I don't get the fascination with the 50/1.8. I've had the D and G models and, yes they are good if you never used anything else. Cost/performance ratio? I don't know about that, this is relative to what you consider cost but the performance is not on par to the 50/1.4D (which I also owned). Low contrast wide open nothing particularly interesting stopped down. I've also owned the Zeiss 50/1.4 and I now have the 50/1.2AIS. The 1.2 and the Zeiss are amazing in their own respects, I'll probably buy the Zeiss again. The 1.2 is just amazing, has fast focusing and is actually easy to focus on a F3HP or any other camera with a proper focus screen.

 

[etn]

Servus, i have been flirting with MF for a while and am a bit concerned on how to work it for shooting street, when i need to be spontaneous. I see the work of Vivian Maier and wonder how she pulled it off? Was it the times? people less running around back then?

I think that relying on pre-focusing and depth of field is the way to go here. MF lenses are typically not as fast as 35mm lenses. Besides, due to the larger film surface, you can use faster film without fear of the grain.
The Rolleiflex and the Hasselblad SWC are very good street instruments in my opinion. The SWC, the "ultimate point-and-shoot", has a 38mm lens with an incredible DOF for medium format. It covers a wide field of view (around 90° in the diagonal), therefore you need to get very close to your subject.
If you happen to be in Munich some day, let me know and I will let you run a roll through mine.

 

[etn]

By the way, I don't get the fascination with the 50/1.8.

I've had the 50 1.8 AF-D as well as the 50 1.4 AF-D, as well as the 85 1.8 and 1.4 AF-D. To me, both deserve the same comment: the 1.8 are very good performers and excellent value for money. The 50 1.8 can be found for 100 $/€ or less used, and the 85 1.8 for maybe 300-400. At this price point, what's not to like? but as good as they are, I find them a bit flat and boring compared to their 1.4 siblings (which cost around double). First world problems. One way or another, the 1.8 will not let you down. Unless money is no object, go for the 1.8 and put the difference toward film, another lens, a photo trip, etc.

 

[Odot]

I think that relying on pre-focusing and depth of field is the way to go here. MF lenses are typically not as fast as 35mm lenses. Besides, due to the larger film surface, you can use faster film without fear of the grain.
The Rolleiflex and the Hasselblad SWC are very good street instruments in my opinion. The SWC, the "ultimate point-and-shoot", has a 38mm lens with an incredible DOF for medium format. It covers a wide field of view (around 90° in the diagonal), therefore you need to get very close to your subject.
If you happen to be in Munich some day, let me know and I will let you run a roll through mine.

That Hassy SWC exceeds the price of a Mamiya 7II, which also delivers great image quality and is possibly even more convenient to handle. I will havbe to reconsider the SWC but thanks

 

[etn]

You are right. On the one hand, an SWC cost over 1000€. On the other hand, it will not lose any value, so you can always try it and re-sell it later if you don't like it. The same is probably true for Mamiyas 7s. In those days of 0% interest on bank deposit accounts, I am starting to think that some film cameras (among others Leicas or Hasselblads) could be a financial investment - and provide some fun in the process.

I have no experience with Mamiya 7s, but they are said to have excellent lenses, in particular the wide-angle. One advantage over the SWC is rangefinder focusing. With the SWC you need to guesstimate the distance and dial it on the lens. Not a biggie, given the large DOF, unless you shoot wide open at close range. The other difference is 6x6 vs 6x7, no right or wrong here, it's a matter of personal preference. I decided to limit myself to 6x6, as my "infrastructure" is based on that format, including a pretty good slide projector (I am a slide addict). But the Mamiya is a valid option, no question about this. Here in Germany, I haven't seen as many on the used market as SWCs, which are already quite rare at decent prices. Beware of sellers who advertise at prices way above market value (particularly common on ebay).

Hope this helps!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Nikon 'G' lenses are a total no go for me personally, due to their lack of aperture ring. They may be slightly superior in some ways to the AF-D lenses.

If you want the ability to have AF and use older bodies, the only serious options are the AF-D 1.4 and AF-D 1.8. The AF-D 1.4 I've used was fine, but I think the AI manual lens is better- but I dislike autofocus.
I believe Nikon 50mm 1.8's have slightly superior chart performance to 1.4's. Build quality on the faster AF-D lenses is usually better than their slower counterparts. Neither are going to hold a candle to the technical performance level of the Sigma Art lenses. But unless you are using at tripod and slow, modern film, I doubt you'll see a meaningful difference.

My favorite 50ish lens for Nikon is the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4, but it is manual only. Great lens.

I find the auto focus on newer Nikon bodies and lenses unbeatable,especially when compared to my manual focus.

 

[destroya]

if you are going to be shooting at say F4 and above, all the lenses listed will be great performers. I love the 1.8d as its small, light, compact and performs great. makes for a very small system when paired with an N80 and also an F100. get a D lens so if you manage to find a good deal on an manual focus camera like an F3, then you can use it till you get an AI-s or AI lens. manual focus is sloppy but works fine. Also depending on how large you print, yo wont see much difference between the 1.8 and the 1.4 d lenses, at least I didnt.

 

[Erik D. Herrmann Sr.]

The 1.8D is an exceptional lens, and with the cost being $150.00 or less, it really can't be beat.

 

[RichardJack]

I'm sorry but I won't be caught dead with a Sigma lens on my Nikon camera. You have to be making a mural before your going to see a significant difference between any of the post AI 50mm lenses. I use a 50mm f1.8 AF-D, 50mm f1.2 AIs, and 50mm f2 AI ( old 50mm f2 HC optics).
It's easy for threads like these to get into a pissing contest, but in reality there are so many factors at work here, lighting, contrast, flair, steadiness, wind and weather, and so on. MTF values are good on paper but the best test is always a field test at different working distances and various types of subjects.
Use the lens you like.

 

[cooltouch]

if you are going to be shooting at say F4 and above, all the lenses listed will be great performers. I love the 1.8d as its small, light, compact and performs great. makes for a very small system when paired with an N80 and also an F100. get a D lens so if you manage to find a good deal on an manual focus camera like an F3, then you can use it till you get an AI-s or AI lens. manual focus is sloppy but works fine.

I agree with Eric. The 1.8D is an exceptional lens. In fact, my copy exhibits no slop at all. I have found D lenses to be very good when used in manual focus mode. Their focusing collars aren't as wide as the mf lenses, but they're wide enough. Plus they're well damped and have a long enough focusing throw such that they are comfortable to use.

 

[narsuitus]

Whats the best Nikon 50mm lens (AF only) ?

The 50mm focal length on a 35mm camera has never been a favorite of mine. I prefer 35mm, 40mm, or 45mm. The only time the 50mm is my focal length of preference is when I am shooting theatre.

I have only owned the following three Nikon 50mm lenses:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Series E (good performer in spite of its low price)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI (replaced by the auto focus version)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D

The Nikon 50mm AF-D is the best auto focus 50mm Nikon lens for my needs because I need...

• decent image quality
• reasonably fast auto focus
• manual focus has good feel/handling/ergonomics
• aperture ring for use by my Nikon F2
• 52mm filter size for compatibility with my lens inventory
• fast f/1.4 maximum aperture
• high quality material, construction, and workmanship
• size not too big or too small
• weight not too heavy or too light

50mm lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[carlostaiwan]

If on a budget the 50mmf1.8D, or if you plan to shoot f4 onwards. If not, I would go for a f1.4D, If you plan to use it on lowlight. They work perfectly on film and digital.
I use the f1.4AIS on my D800 and from f2 the quality is amazing.

 

[Two23]

"The best"? That's the Sigma Art. It's not really close.

+1

Kent in SD

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The 58mm 1.4G is amazing if you like a lens that favors rendering over absolute sharpness. It's got about the same DoF wide open as a Noctilux. It's also lighter and smaller than a Siggy.

Otherwise the Nikkor 50/1.4s are generally solid performers. The newest one has smoother bokeh, but about the same sharpness as the AF-D.

Agreed,only the50f/1.8 is sharper but is MF

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The best one is the most expensive one you can afford. Because if you buy another one then you'll eventually buy that expensive one too. Regardless of what others will say at some point you will want to see with your own eyes whether it is any good or not. So, the best one is the most expensive you can buy. Done.

By the way, I don't get the fascination with the 50/1.8. I've had the D and G models and, yes they are good if you never used anything else. Cost/performance ratio? I don't know about that, this is relative to what you consider cost but the performance is not on par to the 50/1.4D (which I also owned). Low contrast wide open nothing particularly interesting stopped down. I've also owned the Zeiss 50/1.4 and I now have the 50/1.2AIS. The 1.2 and the Zeiss are amazing in their own respects, I'll probably buy the Zeiss again. The 1.2 is just amazing, has fast focusing and is actually easy to focus on a F3HP or any other camera with a proper focus screen.

The E-series50f/1.8 is truly fantastic

 

[George Mann]

"The best"? That's the Sigma Art. It's not really close.

An opinion that some of us do not share. But a valid one nonetheless.

 

[elcabezagrande]

Odot, if you use one of the "older" AF film bodies (F90x, F4 etc), G lenses will not work on those.
As far as I know they only work on the F100, F6, and possibly F80 and F5 (not sure about those two).

My tip would go towards 50 1.8 or 1.4 AF-D which are fantastic and available at very reasonable prices used.

Grüße aus München

G lenses will work on the F4 in shutter priority mode, I suspect on the F90 as well.

 

[shutterlight]

I'm sorry but I won't be caught dead with a Sigma lens on my Nikon camera. You have to be making a mural before your going to see a significant difference between any of the post AI 50mm lenses. I use a 50mm f1.8 AF-D, 50mm f1.2 AIs, and 50mm f2 AI ( old 50mm f2 HC optics).
It's easy for threads like these to get into a pissing contest, but in reality there are so many factors at work here, lighting, contrast, flair, steadiness, wind and weather, and so on. MTF values are good on paper but the best test is always a field test at different working distances and various types of subjects.
Use the lens you like.

I didn't see this at the time it was posted, but I hope you're not confusing their art series with Sigma's old lenses, few of which were worth much. I assure you that you will in fact see a difference between the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and all the lenses you mentioned.

 

[blockend]

Hard to tell if you want a bokeh monster or a workhorse 50mm. If it's the first, modern lenses tweaked to give marshmallow highlights will give you what you desire. If you want a high quality Nikon fit 50 for general shooting at moderate apertures, the world is your oyster. Pick up an AF Nikkor back to the pre-D series and it'll be great. Or a manual Nikon 50 AIS.

If you decide on a modern lens remember to match it with the best enlarger lenses. Putting a Sigma Art negative or one from any of the better Nikkors through a domestic flatbed scanner won't tell you much about its capabilities. I'm not a Sigma fan for my own reasons and I certainly wouldn't buy their products for film exclusively. For studio stuff on digital, maybe.

 

[film_man]

You don't need to enlarge at all to see the difference between a, say, 50/1.2 at f/2 vs a 50/1.8 at f/2. Colour, contrast and rendering are there even on a 13'' screen or a 7x5 print.

 

[blockend]

You don't need to enlarge at all to see the difference between a, say, 50/1.2 at f/2 vs a 50/1.8 at f/2. Colour, contrast and rendering are there even on a 13'' screen or a 7x5 print.

Yes, at wide apertures there's an IQ difference between a lens with a stop or two in hand over one at maximum aperture. That's why a portraitist has different requirement to say, a street photographer. Most 50mm users don't habitually shoot wide open unless they're using it on an APS-C digital as a portrait lens. For film you're better off with an 85mm or 105mm lens if that's you're requirement. An f2 or 2.8 lens will typically be sharper wide open than a 1.2 or 1.4 wide open, and more compact. The OP didn't say what his normal use is, and without knowing that there's no "best" lens.

 

[film_man]

Yes, at wide apertures there's an IQ difference between a lens with a stop or two in hand over one at maximum aperture. That's why a portraitist has different requirement to say, a street photographer. Most 50mm users don't habitually shoot wide open unless they're using it on an APS-C digital as a portrait lens. For film you're better off with an 85mm or 105mm lens if that's you're requirement. An f2 or 2.8 lens will typically be sharper wide open than a 1.2 or 1.4 wide open, and more compact. The OP didn't say what his normal use is, and without knowing that there's no "best" lens.

Well the OP can decide what apertures they want to shoot. Personally I find 85-105mm boring and much prefer the look of a standard lens (regardless of format) when photographing people.

 

[blockend]

Well the OP can decide what apertures they want to shoot. Personally I find 85-105mm boring and much prefer the look of a standard lens (regardless of format) when photographing people.

There are no boring lenses, only inappropriate ones for the task in hand.