Which 50 for D800e, Zeiss or Nikon

[archivue]

distortion ?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

distortion ?

Difficult to say from the available samples, but I don't do much architecture, so I don't worry. I would be surprised if there is much though.

 

[rayyan]

I love the 50mm FL. I have more of these than all my other lens collection put together.

I have the Nikon D lenses. I have the Nikon 50/1.4 G. Sadly I have used it only a couple of times.

My pick would be this one..discarded, trashed, expensive for what it is..but..

And then again..

And once more...

All the above are of the ZF 50/1.4 V1 and the D700 in France.

The one below...

That is with the ZF 50/2 Macro, on a D700.

Corner?..I can't see that far.

p.s. On a D800/e? If it ain't good, sell the D800/E.

 

[jduncan]

Hi,

A new option is the Nikon 58mm f1.4G :Nikon | Imaging Products | AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G

We don't have the performance, but it better be good, as is more expensive that Canon's 50mm f1.2 (Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Lens 2210 B&H Photo Video)

From the formula: it does not use any exotic materials, but it has two aspherical elements.
We will have to wait and see, since Nikon believes that the best way to illustrate the performance of the lens is using a tinny jpg image.
Best regards,

J. Duncan

 

[Swissblad]

Some of the samples are really good looking. I want one!

Nikon | Imaging Products | AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G

I can't understand why Nikon does not have some decent high res pictures to be downloaded... these tiny low res images really defeat the object......

 

[Jack]

My .02...

50mm is already a skosh too long on FF35 for my preference, so moving to 58 is the wrong direction. I would have LOVED a killer sharp 45/1.4, but I know I'm an oddball on this one. I am going to stay with my 50/1.2 manual focus Nikkor and possibly keep my 50/1.4G for when I need an AF 50 -- which is almost never

On a side note, Nikon did make the 58mm f1.2 Noct which is an extraordinary lens -- one has to wonder how much of that design went into this lens? Agree with the above that had this been a 58/1.2AF -- even if it added $1000 to teh price -- it would be more compelling for me.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I don't think they'll have any difficulty selling the new AF-S 58. The 58/1.2 Noct is going for a little short of $4000 - for a user lens! It's not because it's f/1.2 either; it's because of its rendering and tonal reproduction, which is global and can easily be seen without any magnification. f/1.2, f/1.4 or f/1.8 or even f/2 really doesn't matter - a lens that renders this well will sell like hotcakes even if it's an f/2. I personally would have preferred a 75, or even 70, but the 58 can always be shot with a 1.2 crop in a pinch. Like Jack I don't really use 50mm lenses much, if ever. 18-35-75-135 is my 2x FL progression of choice, as opposed to the more popular 28-50-85-150, and I'd rather err on the wide side.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Being a person that likes a 35mm lens and the 50mm just a bit too close with the gap the 58mm would be kind of nice to have for me. Price does hurt a little at 1700.00 but if it is killer good and has a great look it maybe worth it

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Hopefully, there will be other high end primes to compliment this. 24, 35 and 85 are already rather good, and with new 105 and 135mm lenses, there will be enough to pick from. To me, all focal lengths are useful. They'll result in different crops, that's all. In addition, these days, one can always bring along a body with a smaller sensor as combined backup and TC. Suddenly, this is a 58 and an 87mm without any optical degrading whatsoever. The new D5300 should be a nice candidate for that and isn't much heavier than this lens anyway

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Got my pre-order in with B&H for the 58/1.4. Now I'm really excited, like a kid before Christmas. A really old, big kid with an American Express card...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Christmas is about sharing. Wanna get me one too. LOL

 

[Steen]

FWIW: the AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G at f/2.8 on a 12 Mp DX camera

Just posted this in the Nikon "Street" thread, but maybe it can serve as an illustration here in this 50mm thread as well, despite the lens being mounted on an old 12Mp cropped sensor D300.

©lick for actual pixels


© • Nikon D300 • AF-S Nikkor 1.4/50mm G • 1/5000 sec. at f/2.8 ISO 200 • Lightroom 4.4​

 

[Jack]

I'm with you Steen. I have a very good copy of the 50/1.4G as well. However, it does a lot better at 2 and up than it does at f1.4, and why I sprung for the 50/1.2. But I do like the Bokeh on the 50/1.4G at the wider apertures. If -- that's *IF* -- the new 58 delivers spectacularly at f1.4, I might -- that's *MIGHT* -- be tempted . Otherwise, I'll pass -- my 85/1.4G is spectacular wide open already and $1700 is a lot of coin for another 50...

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I can't say I particularly like the 50/1.4G but it's so cheap I haven't seen any compelling reason to sell it. And now the market is flooded with them! It's outright poor wide open and doesn't shape up until f/2.8. I wouldn't shoot it past f/2. Although I rarely need an f/1.4 lens it's good to have one that performs well in the quiver, for more distant shooting where I still want some focus layering. (The current Leica M noct is the king for this.) It has okay bokeh although prone to veiling flare. There's really nothing compelling about it at all. It didn't take me too many seconds to see that the 58 is a huge step up in everything from tonal scale (the 50/1.4G is one of few lenses that gives me the impression of being both shrill and dull at the same time) to color, bokeh, definition, clarity - it's just a top notch optic with a very Leica-like look to it. Like the old 58/1.2 it's slightly lower contrast - again, Leica-like. To have this with AF (so AF-C can maintain critical focus to compensate for fractional subject-camera movement, allowing the photographer to react to expressions, juxtapositions, graphical elements, gestures, the moment) is IMO just absolutely tremendous.

BTW, the DoF of a 58/1.4 shouldn't be too different from a 50/1.2.

 

[Steen]

Let's illustrate it.
The AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 wide open.
Yet another loan from the Nikon "Street" thread and again with the lens mounted on a cropped sensor DX camera.
Still, it might give you an idea.

©lick for actual pixels


© • Nikon D300 • AF-S Nikkor 1.4/50mm G • at f/1.4 ISO 200 • Lightroom 4.4​

​

 

[Photojazz]

I can't believe no-one mentioned the Zeiss 50mm 2.0 makro-planer. When Zeiss first entered the Nikon market, and well maybe Canon too, they had 2 lenses that were really heralded as "best in class" type lenses, and that was the 50 and 100 mm 2.0 makro-planers. In fact, I started a thread on the 100mm at nikon cafe that became almost prolific in terms of helping Zeiss grow with this market. I should have gotten a Zeiss kickback! My thread at the Cafe has since been taken over by someone else. I didn't particularly take kindly to that, since I started it, they reposted a new version of the thread and closed the one I started... Oh well, I am the original.

I did some reading on the makro-planers early on, and I am not even sure what my source was, but it said flat out, this is much better glass than the MP series that preceded it. I am a believer. The 50 and 100 have the smoothest creamiest bokeh, and detail is awesome.

I have since added an original 58mm Noct in similar focal range, and in that same "light", I figure the coming 58mm 1.4 NOCT-off "G" lens that Nikon is coming out with, should be a real contender. But it's also going to be 1600-1700 clams. But I will bet it will be Nikon's best current lineup 50mm when released.

Zeiss 50mm 2.0 Makro-planer (version 1): First 2 are D700, and the next 2 are D3 images: images 1 and 2 @ f5.6 with flash fired

The next 2 are shot at f2, no flash

FYI, this is a wild Iris, the Tennessee state flower, shot in the GSMNP May 10, 09

The problem I have with a 50mm makro is how close you have to get to subject for detail closeup. The 100mm is a much better choice most of the time for makro work in flora anyway. The 50 is still a great 50, even not used in makro, but I doubt it will compete with my Noct for overall color saturation and that "noct quality" and bokeh. I may consider selling it. Hard though since it's probably only worth about 800 clams or so? I would have to check current market value if I did decide to sell it. One thing is for sure, it's a great value lens for $ spent on used market.

I love this shot just for the bokeh: I have a hard time selling it when I look at that shot. The next 2 shots are D700.

I did want to see exactly just how capable of the 50 was one day, and did this close up tri-pod mounted. So you have a point of reference, this is a adjustment knob on the lamp with top pictured above, well a similar one anyway... This is pretty much max closeup with 50 on FF:

 

[Jack]

Note: I'm duplicating this post over from the fun with nikon images thread so there's some reference images on the 50/1.2 performance here.

My wife found this great old trail by our cabin, so we went for a walk and I took my D800 with 50/1.2 lens. All of these shots are taken with that lens wide open, hand-held -- focusing is surprisingly easy for me with the stock Nikon screen. Also, these are processed pretty much as shot in C1 then sized and converted for web view in CS. There are a few slight levels tweaks on the very high contrast images, but no other after magic -- note that I did not add any vignetting, left it zeroed through all of these frames so you are seeing the actual lens character.

And of course there is nothing spectacular here, just some fun images showing the character of this lens -- and yes, I LOVE the way it renders! Perfect optical performance may be over-rated

First some closer views:

And a center crop from that one for reference:

And now a few from further out. On these, I am reminded of how an older classic lens renders on large format -- and I do like the look. Again, these are at f1.2:

Here's one to show the foreground bokeh a little better:

And a center crop from that one so you see how it renders at distance:

 

[JohnBrew]

I am quite happy with the Zeiss 50 Makro. I did try a 50 1.4G for comparison. I didn't think much of the Nikon lens but by f8 they had similar sharpness.

 

[carstenw]

My .02...
On a side note, Nikon did make the 58mm f1.2 Noct which is an extraordinary lens -- one has to wonder how much of that design went into this lens? Agree with the above that had this been a 58/1.2AF -- even if it added $1000 to teh price -- it would be more compelling for me.

What is the diameter of the rear element on the 50/1.2 AI-S and the Noct-Nikkor? I suspect that the contacts required for an auto-focus lens wouldn't fit between a rear element of that size and the mount. I guess this is why Nikon doesn't make f/1.2 F-mount lenses any longer.

There have been several mentions of the Zeiss ZF.2 50/2 Makro-Planar as a perfect 50, but I do not personally share that opinion. My first ZF lens was the 100/2 Makro-Planar, which I love, apart from the CA it has. Lovely rendering, gorgeous boke and fall-off.

Naturally, the 50MP was my second lens, but from the first shot I made with it, something was different. The gorgeous boke and rendering and fall-off I loved from the 100MP was gone, replaced by a kind of tense, strained boke, and the depth of field was very fat, aperture for aperture, and the fall-off was unattractive. Furthermore, wide open the extreme corners are somewhat muddy and dark, and the field curvature there is very strong. Focusing at 5-8m with trees around, I could see branches pop into focus way back in the corners.

Note that close up the 50MP has nicer boke and less problems over all, but then, I can't recall having seen any lens with lousy boke at macro range.

I do find that the 50MP is a nice portrait lens. The fat DoF helps reduce the fuzzy nose and ears problem without bringing the background into focus wholesale. For this reason, I still own it.

The ZF 50/1.4 Planar is an odd lens. The first time I tried one (borrowed from a friend), I couldn't get along with it at all. Everything I tried was soft with purple fringing. I rejected it outright, until I got another chance a while later, and my experience couldn't have been more different. It turns out that the first time I had inadvertently used it close up, wide open, in high-contrast situations, where is pretty much sucks.

Change just one of those parameters, and things look very different. It is more like some Leicas in that it has resolution enough, but with a veil over it, and not as high-contrast as many other Zeiss lenses. Stop it down a little and it rapidly gets contrastier and sharper, and by f/5.6 it is one of the sharpest lenses I have used, and matches the 50MP. I cannot confirm or deny Jack's suggestion that the corners aren't sharp even at f/8, because I rarely shoot subject matter which needs to be that sharp, that far out. It is good out there, but maybe not perfect.

Unlike the 50MP, the rendering is beautiful, from wide open, at almost all distances. Using the 50MP up close and the 50P from maybe 2m and out would make a good set, and that is more or less what I do.

Disclaimer: I use a D800, not the D800E. I didn't need the extra sharpness, and don't particularly find that it even looks natural, but more like digital artifacts. The slightly better moire control and lower price are also fine with me, but weren't the real reason. The D800 has quite a light AA filter, and pixel-for-pixel, it is sharper than my D3 was.

I have also used the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-R E60, and although it has a lovely look, I find it much too expensive for what you get, and I also found it very hard to focus, due to its gentle sharpness transition. The 50 Lux-M ASPH was one of my favorite lenses ever, so I say this with a heavy heart.

I find the Otus intellectually interesting, but it doesn't touch my heart, just my gear gland. The new Noct is another matter, and I am another close watcher. The lack of outright sharpness wide open doesn't bother me. I think we have been focusing much too much on sharpness in recent times, and look forward to seeing what great portraits and other photos can be made with this lens.

I have the Sigma 50/1.4, and it has gorgeous if neutral boke, but I find myself not using it. The lack-lustre and unreliable autofocus has something to do with it, as does the fact that it doesn't pick up much sharpness on being stopped down.

I am probably also going to pick up a nice 50/1.2 AI-S at some point. Yes, I am a 50mm (and 35mm) junkie.

N.B. I picked up a Sony A7 two days ago, and find that I can focus any of my 35 and 50mm f/1.4 lenses wide open, without using focus magnification. That EVF is wonderful, and I find it hard not to think that the writing is on the wall for my beloved optical viewfinders, unless something changes dramatically in how Nikon makes and optimises them.

 

[ryc]

Unless you need af. I would get the zeiss 50 f2 macro. Superb lens. If your budget allows it then the otus. The 50 1.4 planar is OK but not at the top of my list.

Have a look at these http://zeissimages.com/standardgallery.php?lenstype=441&showall The lens is just amazing. Infact, I may get a used one for carrying around. Love th eotus but it is large and more of a studio lens.