Nikkor 50mm f1.8 ...absolutely the best buy for digital

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim Waggener" <jimw@nospam.visi.net> wrote in
news:421bcfd5$1_2@127.0.0.1:

> I can't say how great this lens is for copy work on a D100.
> It is by far the sharpest lens for cheap bucks that Nikon makes.
> Buy one. A great value.

I have that lens perpetually mounted on my inexpensive Nikon film body.
It is a great lens. Some reviewers have even rated it higher than the
more expensive and heavier 50mm/1.4.

--

Bill

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim Waggener" <jimw@nospam.visi.net> wrote in message
news:421bcfd5$1_2@127.0.0.1...
>I can't say how great this lens is for copy work on a D100.
> It is by far the sharpest lens for cheap bucks that Nikon makes. Buy one.
> A great value.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

If it is the same optical formula of the one I had in the 1980's, it has
virtually 0% geometric distostortion making it ideal as a copy lens. nearly
perfect!

I'd give a slight (very slight) advantage to the Pentax 50mm f/1.7 M series
in sharpness at wide apertures. It had slight barrel distortion typical of
most 50mm lenses.

Canon's current 50mm f/1.8 is a good performing lens, but it falls short of
the above two lenses. Barrel distortion, while considered mild by zoom
standards, is higher than the above two lenses. Corner abberations don't
clear up as much uppon stopping down as in the Nikon and Pentax. A bit
dissapointing for a 50mm lens. I currently use it on the Digital Rebel and
have used it on film in the past.

These lenses are great for low cost, fast aperture performance and tend to
be reasonably sharp at the widest apertures. The f/1.4 lenses from Canon,
Nikon and Pentax tend to have reduced contrast at wide aperture. I was never
really impressed with these given the extra expense for less than 1 stop
speed improvement.

John

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in
news:g1lgvc.fie.ln@192.168.11.2:

> Jim Waggener wrote:
>> I can't say how great this lens is for copy work on a D100.
>> It is by far the sharpest lens for cheap bucks that Nikon makes.
>> Buy one. A great value.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
>> Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup
>> Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and
>> West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> What do they cost ?
>

About $100 USD new. Buy a new one, as the build quality is not as great
as the more expensive lenses...but the optics kick butt.

--

Bill

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:yLQSd.263801$w62.114091@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Jim Waggener" <jimw@nospam.visi.net> wrote in message
> news:421bcfd5$1_2@127.0.0.1...
>>I can't say how great this lens is for copy work on a D100.
>> It is by far the sharpest lens for cheap bucks that Nikon makes. Buy one.
>> A great value.
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
>> News==----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
>> Newsgroups
>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
>> =----
>
> If it is the same optical formula of the one I had in the 1980's, it has
> virtually 0% geometric distostortion making it ideal as a copy lens.
> nearly perfect!
>
> I'd give a slight (very slight) advantage to the Pentax 50mm f/1.7 M
> series in sharpness at wide apertures. It had slight barrel distortion
> typical of most 50mm lenses.

Pentax also had a 55mm F1.8 that was amazingly sharp, you can pick them up
secondhand for $40-$100.

> Canon's current 50mm f/1.8 is a good performing lens, but it falls short
> of the above two lenses. Barrel distortion, while considered mild by zoom
> standards, is higher than the above two lenses. Corner abberations don't
> clear up as much uppon stopping down as in the Nikon and Pentax. A bit
> dissapointing for a 50mm lens. I currently use it on the Digital Rebel and
> have used it on film in the past.
>
> These lenses are great for low cost, fast aperture performance and tend to
> be reasonably sharp at the widest apertures. The f/1.4 lenses from Canon,
> Nikon and Pentax tend to have reduced contrast at wide aperture. I was
> never really impressed with these given the extra expense for less than 1
> stop speed improvement.
>
> John
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi John,

JohnR66 wrote:
> Canon's current 50mm f/1.8 is a good performing lens, but it falls
short of
> the above two lenses. Barrel distortion, while considered mild by
zoom
> standards, is higher than the above two lenses. Corner abberations
don't
> clear up as much uppon stopping down as in the Nikon and Pentax. A
bit
> dissapointing for a 50mm lens. I currently use it on the Digital
Rebel and
> have used it on film in the past.

And the EF 50/1.8 has considerably series deviation. Given your
findings you're lucky, there as much worse EF 50/1.8
>
> These lenses are great for low cost, fast aperture performance and
tend to
> be reasonably sharp at the widest apertures. The f/1.4 lenses from
Canon,
> Nikon and Pentax tend to have reduced contrast at wide aperture. I
was never
> really impressed with these given the extra expense for less than 1
stop
> speed improvement.

For the spped improvement I totally agree. There are two resons for
f/1.4:
- Bokeh (the EF 50/1.8 has a really ugly Bokeh, the Nikkor 50/1.8 is
kind of OK, the Nikkor 50/1.4 is MUCH nicer)
- Ego. Bigger leses are better

Benedikt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com wrote:
>
>>speed improvement.
>
>
> For the spped improvement I totally agree. There are two resons for
> f/1.4:
> - Bokeh (the EF 50/1.8 has a really ugly Bokeh, the Nikkor 50/1.8 is
> kind of OK, the Nikkor 50/1.4 is MUCH nicer)
> - Ego. Bigger leses are better


How much does that 0.4 stop cost? My wide-range zoom nikkor looks OK in
middle lengths but yeah, the bokeh is a mess so I guess it'd be worth
playing with one of these for that alone.


What about 35mm lenses? That'd be more 'normal' on a 1.5 crop. Are there
any deals in that size?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>> For the spped improvement I totally agree. There are two resons for
>> f/1.4:
>> - Bokeh (the EF 50/1.8 has a really ugly Bokeh, the Nikkor 50/1.8 is
>> kind of OK, the Nikkor 50/1.4 is MUCH nicer)
>> - Ego. Bigger leses are better

>How much does that 0.4 stop cost? My wide-range zoom nikkor looks OK in
>middle lengths but yeah, the bokeh is a mess so I guess it'd be worth
>playing with one of these for that alone.

The thing about sharpness wide-open is probably not that great
an issue either. The DOF is very shallow at f1.8, so unless
you're shooting from a large distance or a flat subject, the
focus will get you before the sharpness.

--
Ken Tough

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert Scott wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:a4CdnQ_FLqNYg4DfRVn-uQ@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com wrote:
>>
>>What about 35mm lenses? That'd be more 'normal' on a 1.5 crop. Are there
>>any deals in that size?
>
>
> I'm very happy with my Nikkor 35mm f/2 AFD as a "normal" lens on my D70, but
> it's not quite the bargain the 50mm f/1.8 is....


Hmmm $200 used, $260 new with $40 rebate. Is that a sturdier build that
it'd be OK to get used?
http://www.adorama.com/NK352AFDU.html

Closest Focusing Distance 0.85 feet
Filter Size 52mm

I see also that:
50 1.8 is $100
http://www.adorama.com/NK5018AFDU.html
50 1.4 is $260
http://www.adorama.com/NK5018AFDU.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:K9-dnUIGX7XcmoPfRVn-2A@speakeasy.net...
>
>
> Apparently it sometimes has a problem needing warranty repair:
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35af.htm

According to him, anyway.

I follow a couple of Nikon forums and have never heard of an incident like
he mentions. He is not my choice of lens reviewers, by the way. I like
(and trust the opinions of ) David Reuther (#1 in my book), Grover Larkin
amd Bjorn Rorslett.

> I like that it's sort of a macro lens too, well sort of, it goes to .85'
> versus 1.5' for the 50mm. I guess that ends up being about the same
> actually.

I am very pleased with mine and consider it a "best buy" Nikkor lens.

Good shooting,
Bob Scott