RalphLambrecht
Allowing Ads
Yes, my 50mmf/1.8 E series is one of the sharpest lenses I own.
Yes, my 50mmf/1.8 E series is one of the sharpest lenses I own.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.
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?
By the way, I don't get the fascination with the 50/1.8.
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.
I find the auto focus on newer Nikon bodies and lenses unbeatable,especially when compared to my manual focus.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.
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.
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.Whats the best Nikon 50mm lens (AF only) ?
"The best"? That's the Sigma Art. It's not really close.
Agreed,only the50f/1.8 is sharper but is MFThe 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.
The E-series50f/1.8 is truly fantasticThe 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 best"? That's the Sigma Art. It's not really close.
G lenses will work on the F4 in shutter priority mode, I suspect on the F90 as well.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
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.
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.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.
There are no boring lenses, only inappropriate ones for the task in hand.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?