Ian_A
Avocadopearaphobe
Reged: 02/09/2002
Posts: 7880
Loc: Horwich UK
|
|
... according to DP Review. Not the result I was expecting to hear, and it will be interesting to see how the much cheaper f1.8 lens fares when they test it.
--------------------
Ian A 
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6167
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Not my own personal experience either. My 50mm 1.4 is sharper than a sharp thing in an electric sharpening machine at 1.4.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
Ian_A
Avocadopearaphobe
Reged: 02/09/2002
Posts: 7880
Loc: Horwich UK
|
|
Not wishing to pay a premium for a fraction of a stop, I bought the f1.8, but it's seen little use since I got the 50-150 Sigma.
There's an f1.4 down the studio, must have a play ...
--------------------
Ian A
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6167
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
I too now have the 50-150 Sigma and don't think I've used the 1.4 since either but it's such a nice lens that it's always in my kit bag.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: London, UK
|
|
It's an old design, overdue for an aspherical and AF-S makeover. I have both it and Leica's equivalent for the M rangefinder, the 50mm Summilux-M ASPH; granted, a lot more expensive but so much better.
We really do need Nikon to come out with some decent fast primes. An f1.4 lens is only useful if it's fully usable at f1.4; otherwise, what is the point?
--------------------
Mark
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Well, pretty much all f/1.4 lenses of traditional type are soft at wide aperture - basically because of residual spherical aberration. About the only way of achieving a really crisp image with an aperture like that is to employ aspheric optics to correct the aberration more fully. The Leica 50mm Summilux for the M-series rangefinders evidently does a superb job of that, but at what a price! I imagine the new Sigma 50/1.4 would probably do reasonably well too, but it's also a lot more expensive than the traditional designs (albeit not quite in the league of the Summilux), and also huge and heavy compared to the norm for standard lenses for 35mm format.
TBH, I don't think it's worth worrying about unless you expect to use f/1.4 an awful lot - these lenses are still generally sharp enough to render good detail - it's just that they give everything a creamy glow until you get maybe one stop down from the maximum (it is actually quite striking how rapidly they improve on stopping down). Bearing in mind how shallow the DoF is at f/1.4, I'd argue that most of the time it scarcely matters - almost nothing will actually be in focus anyway, unless you're shooting at some distance.
[I suppose I should declare an interest, as a satisfied owner and user of an old AI-S 50mm f/1.4.]
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
We really do need Nikon to come out with some decent fast primes. An f1.4 lens is only useful if it's fully usable at f1.4; otherwise, what is the point?
Strange how so many people have found some point to them for nearly half a century, don't you think? I'm sorry, but if you just stop and think through what you wrote there it's obvious nonsense. Any usablity at f/1.4 is more than none, and so by definition there is some usefulness and some point.
Actually they're perfectly useable, even at full aperture - they simply aren't at their very best in terms of correction of spherical aberration. But then almost no lens is, and certainly no fast lens. And ironically generations of photographers have actively sought out lenses with under-corrected spherical aberration specifically for the creamy look they give - particularly for portraiture.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2334
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Yes it is. The noise/granularity of a d300 at full extended iso exacerbates the issue. Convert to monochrome and the atmospheric effect is wonderful. The softness gets better towards the edges.
Now is this criticism or is it praise?
|
Ian_A
Avocadopearaphobe
Reged: 02/09/2002
Posts: 7880
Loc: Horwich UK
|
|
The new Sigma does indeed outperform the Nikon lens at wide apertures - it gets a mention in the review.
Nikon users can take some comfort in the fact that the Canon 50mm lens DPReview tested was no better than the Nikon one.
--------------------
Ian A
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
Nikon users can take some comfort in the fact that the Canon 50mm lens DPReview tested was no better than the Nikon one.
Well, some will, I suppose - but for those whose interest is actually as photographers rather than gear-freaks and fanboys it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference what some other equipment that they don't have and which wouldn't fit their camers anyway does or does not achieve.
Sorry to 'break ranks', as it were, but really I'm just so sick and tired of gear-freakery. 
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2334
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
I was not being flippant. I have and still sometimes use my 50 f1.4 and 8f f1.8 AF (from before the D versions were available). At modest apertures they are very sharp. Wide open the 1.4 50 is soft, and increasingly so towards the edges. The effect was more noticeable on the F100 and FMn2 but is still apparent on the C size sensor of the D300. In the right circumstances this can be an advantage. Low light 'atmospheric' portraits benefit. Unfortunately we no longer get the added effect of tobacco smoke to complete the nostalgia. I use, in a limited sort of way CS2( although most processing is done in NX), and I know that I could not reproduce the effect of these old lenses starting from a uniformly sharp image.
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: London, UK
|
|
I understand the image benefits uncorrected SA can bring and I use it myself with distinctly soft 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.4 manual focus Nikkors as well as the Leica 50mm f1 Noctilux.
However, in my experience, uncorrected SA tends to go hand in hand with focus shift as you stop down - the 85mm f1/4 AF-D is a devil, for example. Since you focus wide open, you're relying on the focus point not moving when you do stop down to shoot; stop down far enough and the increasing DoF will save you but those first couple of half stops are on the margin.
That's why I think any new fast primes from Nikon - which would be niche products - should be highly corrected.
--------------------
Mark
|
Gold1
No Glass
Reged: 26/05/2008
Posts: 89
|
|
Well I use the 50mm 1.4 wide open all the time and have to say that it gives fantastic results! I shoot 40 weddings a year and work in dark churches without flash almost every week. As the evening goes on I use it for low light portraits, speeches without flash, detail shots of flowers you name it. I love the effect it gives wide open and the opportunities it offers and have never had an issue with loss of sharpness (It's much sharper than any zoom I've ever owned).
Using a lens like this can make things happen. You've got to ask yourself if you're trying to achieve artistic excellence or scientific perfection?
Edited by Gold1 (13/09/2008 13:00)
|
hech54
addict
Reged: 20/05/2006
Posts: 441
Loc: Germany and U.S.A.
|
|
Everybody raves about the Nikon 50mm 1.8 ....not me. I owned one and sold it to buy an SB-600 flash. I'd probably really hate the 50mm 1.4 version.
Granted 50mm just didn't fit in with my style of photography....that is the main reason I didn't like it. But I must say I did get some seriously crappy shots at wide apertures.
--------------------
Does the picture turn out differently than what you see in the viewfinder?
|
Gold1
No Glass
Reged: 26/05/2008
Posts: 89
|
|
Quote:
I owned one and sold it to buy an SB-600 flash.
Well there you have it, some of us like using natural light and some prefer flash.
A matter of personal taste I suppose...?
|
hech54
addict
Reged: 20/05/2006
Posts: 441
Loc: Germany and U.S.A.
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I owned one and sold it to buy an SB-600 flash.
Well there you have it, some of us like using natural light and some prefer flash.
A matter of personal taste I suppose...?
I'll take natural light ANY day of the week....but for me the 50mm 1.8 did not impress me at all in low light situations. Maybe I expected too much of it. At f1.8 I expected to be able to shoot a candle in a lightless room without seeing the flicker of the flame....I was wrong. I then attempted to take pics of my son in a dimly lit room...still was not at all impressed.
I'd be interested to see what others have been able to do with it in low light situations. I've got some pretty good examples but certainly nothing to "write home" about...and none of my good shots from the 1.8 were in LOW light situations.
--------------------
Does the picture turn out differently than what you see in the viewfinder?
|
Gold1
No Glass
Reged: 26/05/2008
Posts: 89
|
|
Ok here are three shots that I took of the speeches at a wedding a couple of weeks ago, using the 50mm 1.4 wide open at about 1/60 on a D3 at around 2000 iso.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29739494@N06/2854200042/in/set-72157607267893318/
The room had no electricity supply and the only light source was the candles on the tables.
So what Nikon lens would you say is better in a low light situation?
Edited by Gold1 (13/09/2008 21:02)
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2334
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
You make the point perfectly. Flash would have spoilt the photographs and also the ambiance of the occasion for those present. Of course at the size of image posted we don't see the softness, but if we were to see a large print I am sure that we would only see it if we were looking for it. Focus shift is not an issue when the lens is used wide open. Due to depth of focus issues only the main subject is going to be in focus anyway. Your illustrations are lovely atmospheric shots.
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1168
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Quote:
So what Nikon lens would you say is better in a low light situation?
The 28mm f1.4 AF-D...
--------------------
Mark
|
Gold1
No Glass
Reged: 26/05/2008
Posts: 89
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So what Nikon lens would you say is better in a low light situation?
The 28mm f1.4 AF-D...
Yes better for a wide angle view in low light, but not for a portrait, even at over £2000 (second hand).
The 85mm 1.4 is fantastic too (if you want to get in close) but again I wouldn't say it's better.
Would be nice to have all three of course, but might work out a tad pricey, so that's where the zooms come in (I use an AF-S 28-70 2.8) convenient for general stuff, but it's the 50mm 1.4 that really shines (even at a fifth of the price).
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
