New nikkor50 mm. 1.8-G/AFS lens

Yaflyyadie

I was testing the lens as received today and I'm beginning to like it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's cheap, it is feather-weight and user friendly.
Took this picture with no preparation at all, just a doily bent as stand and background (With square holes) and it didn't dissapoint me.
Kitchen reflected light from a window at my back.
Manual exposure (handheld for testing))..
S/Sp:1/30 seg.
A:2.8
Iso : 1400

What is your opinion?
Do I keep it or go for the 1.4 VR.?
Y

PhilD41

I would say if you are happy then keep it. I have the 50mm f/1.4 (non-vr) and love it. Why did I get the 1.4 vs. the 1.8. Because used (like new) @ $200 I couldn't pass it up. If you plan on doing a lot of shots at 1.8 then the 1.4 will be a little sharper. Even your test shot is at 2.8 though so you may never miss the few stops. For the VR, well I really haven't missed it on my 50mm. I may in time, but for now I have been fine without it. Like I said to start with, it really comes down to if you are happy. If, like me, you are newer to this art called photography, you can always perfect your game with the 1.8 then upgrade in the future if you find the need. Anyway.. just my thoughts.

jpc

Sorry, but this shot is VERY soft. A 1.8 should be sharper than this stopped down to 2.8. I bought that lens and returned it. I now have a Sigma 1.4 that is amazingly sharp. Quite a bit more money, but no regrets at all.

Not sure which body you're using, but is it possible that iso 1400 is too much for it? You said the camera was stationary and it really doesn't look like motion blur.

Yaflyyadie

jpc wrote: »

Sorry, but this shot is VERY soft. A 1.8 should be sharper than this stopped down to 2.8. I bought that lens and returned it. I now have a Sigma 1.4 that is amazingly sharp. Quite a bit more money, but no regrets at all.

Not sure which body you're using, but is it possible that iso 1400 is too much for it? You said the camera was stationary and it really doesn't look like motion blur.

The camera was handheld, the shot was taken with a Nikon D3100 instead of one of my D300's (Which is irrelevant to the lens performance).
I tried to bring all the cons to the table, that is why I said I was beginning to like it.
Sigma will not have auto focus with this specific Nikon camera (Spare) and that is a most to me because of my eye sight.
I am seriously thinking on buying the 1.4 50 mm AFS nikkor.
Yes, the shot is very soft, but I think it is caused by hand holding instead of stationary.

Thanks for helping.!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard

If you like it, keep it. Maybe you could rent a 1.4 for a couple of days and do a real comparison. But if you are trying to evaluate performance, you should try to eliminate other factors that can influence image quality. That means using a tripod and enough light that you can shoot at low ISO.

Yaflyyadie

Richard wrote: »

If you like it, keep it. Maybe you could rent a 1.4 for a couple of days and do a real comparison. But if you are trying to evaluate performance, you should try to eliminate other factors that can influence image quality. That means using a tripod and enough light that you can shoot at low ISO.

I hear you Richard.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will try again following your suggestions and post results.
Thanks for chipping in.
Y.

Yaflyyadie

This shot was taken today 10/5/2011, about 8:30 am.
Replaced the subject for something some more contrasting and easy to evaluate.
I haven't retouched of cropped, just inserted as it was taken, also didn't care about B/G
Focus point was: Area of wheel pant and front fuselage were Texaco 14 is showing.
I also realized that the figurine from original picture was not as defined as the airplane is.
Focus 1.8
S/SP: 1/320
ISO: 100
Available morning light.
Tripod.
Taken at the possible minimum distance from the subject.

Is it better, do I keep it...... ????????????
Thanks.
Y

Zerodog

I have the old 1.8 and I love it. Small, cheap, light. It gives a weird shimmery bokeh that can be quite pleasing in some shots. I am sure the 1.4 is a better lens, but it will be much bigger. My 3 go to primes for a light setup are the 50 1.8, 20 2.8 and the 10.5 fisheye. This is what I take backpacking or on a motorcycle trip instead of a zoom. Or as a walk around on vacation. It just all depends on what you are looking for and doing with a prime.

jpc

Looking at this again, I'm thinking that this figure might actually be just a few inches tall, in which case you were right on top of it. If that's the case, then it looks like your focus point was on his left chest and the DOF is just very shallow because you were so close. Take another test shot using a larger object and shoot from a greater distance, following Richard's suggestions.