I've been using this lens for over 10 years, from my first 12mp Nikon D5000 to my new 61mp Sony A7RIV. Really appreciate having a review like this. In real world use it still holds up surprisingly well and I'm quite fond of its visual quirks. Thanks always for these reviews Chris
the “older lens design” you speak of is called “Double Gauss” - all these characteristics are telltale double gauss. modern mirrorless lenses in the 50mm range are more expensive cause they’re more complex with more elements. the double gauss design has been manufactured for over 60 years
I often use this lens at f4 to be confident image will turn out to be sharp. Hence why I prefer the 50mm f1.8g, a little bit better @f2.8 and at close focus for half the price.
@@crystalous small and cheap f1.8 is a must for any system. Nikon chose to have a well corrected 50f1.8s in z mount is a mistake. It is so good when $2300 f1.2s came out, many pros didn't upgrade. Canon on the other hand, have a cheap and same old formula 50f1.8 RF at $200 and a $2200 outstanding 50f1.2L RF. People don't regret choosing either one or might keep both.
@@frankluo230 old glass is great too!!!The s is superior on the wide apertures only!!!The new lenses are so corrected that lack any character!!!I wish Nikon will release 1.4s instead of the huge and pricey 1.2s lenses!!!Nikon images look better than canon by the way.But the lense line up goes way too slow.No serious 85mm no macro no pancake
At large aperture most of the photos need center sharpness mostly . This lens has decent center sharpness at f1.4 for 45mp body. At 24mp ff bodies , the center sharpness is even better. Plus the lightweight of the lens make it a very useful one. Modern lenses are two heavy and impractical
I picked up this lens used for pretty cheap when I purchased my Z6. It is very fun to shoot with and the size is stunningly small. It has a well used place in my bag, good value for money. The purple fringing and coma issues are the only limits I find on its use.
How is focusing speed and accuracy and sharpness?Can you share some images.I'm planning to buy one as I'll get a Z5 or Z6 ii.Since the DSLR era is almost dead,there are only a few momths left till I can get this lens.
As someone who has been shooting with Nikon prior to the winter of 2017, I would recommend the f/1.8G. It focus faster and is sharper at every aperture.
Maybe it’s sharper but it doesn’t have the 3 D rendering of the 1.4g , the 1.4g is made for low light and it blows the most 50mm lenses out of the water
Shang-Hsien Yang what offers the 1.8g ? the rendering is like a cheap kit lens , it’s reminds me of the 35mm 1.8 DX . 1.4 D is better at daylight then the 1.4g , the 1.4g smokes the most lenses in low light
I use this lens for portraits, typically at f/2. Surely corners are soft but for portraits the important stuff is not in the image corners. While the lens performance peaks at f/5.6, I like to take some dreaminess created by wider aperture. However fully open, it is almost unusable on DX, and just borderline usable on FX. Bokeh is also bad at 1.4, but looks good beginning with f/2. For its price, I consider it a very good portrait lens, with soft transition from in-focus to out-of-focus if you stop down just a bit. I also like its softer rendering, creating good-looking skin. If one just compares test shots, the 1.8G wins every single comparison, it is sharper, has less chromatic aberration and so on. But for my portrait stuff, I prefer the look the 1.4G provides.
I ordered the Sigma 50mm Art lens a week ago and it has yet to arrive. I did struggle to convince myself that the extra money would be worth it compared to the Nikon one, but your video on the Sigma lens and this one certainly shows the difference between the two and I think I made the right choice after all.
@@aussie8114 that's why still today I stick with my old AF-D 50 1.4. The G version has nothing more to offer in terms of IQ. Sigma would be the only good alternative but I am concerned with so many bad reviews I read about AF performance.
Il Matanela Yes I was going to get the Sigma 50. I played with it at the camera shop but decided not to get it because of the reverse engineered AF issues. Sigma are making it would seem better optics than the Nikon F but no point having better optics if the photos are not focusing correctly. Sony have given Sigma the tech info so they can make the AF perform well, but Nikon won’t give anyone their tech info so Sigma and Tamron have to guess.
@@aussie8114 I believe the difference with the better performance on Sony cameras has to be due to the ML technology. Also on reflex cameras Sigma lenses nail the focus when in live view, problems occur through the viewfinder. Anyway a fast prime with unreliable AF is useless.
The sample images throughout the video looked very nice. I would say a good budget friendly option. Having autofocus beats using the old manual focus lenses.
Glad you bring some older Nikon APS-C lens too, Thanks man! I Have this lens, and i dont recommend, it has a bokeh f1.4 but in term of sharpness is too soft for my eyes, most of the times it missed autofocus, so u keep checking after shooting, everything explain by the video, insane review and consistency, really love your review! stay healthy =))
I love the 1.4G. I prefer it to the 50mm 1.8 S lens on my Zf. The 1.4G may not be as sharp but it has that “something” that looks wonderful. And the bokeh is beautiful.
I wonder how the cheaper AF-D version holds up. I did a side by side with the f/1.8 AF-S and the f/1.8 AF-D on a Nikon D610 and the AF-D version had better sharpness in the middle.
@@meneerhalfwerk7096 They're great. Fantastic optics, cheap build quality, very loud autofocus (if at all, depending on the body) and no image stabilisation. It might not sound great nowadays, but if you want wonderful optical quality for a very reasonable price, nothing beats the AF-D series.
It's a good lens but I found it quite annoying at times. The focus was not very snappy and out of focus areas could look distracting. The focus ring grip came off of mine and the front protective plastic pieces came loose too. One great thing was it is super easy to reverse to create a macro lens, albeit with a very soft image. The images are nice enough but on full-frame the edges are very soft when open and there's a fair amount of chromatic aberration on mine. Much better on a cropped sensor but also the loss of resolution helps cover up the flaws. Like shown in this video the purple fringing and soft, low-contrast look really bothered me especially on a lens I want to shoot at f/2 and below most of the time.
Please please test other Z primes that would be awesome. Want to hear your opinion on 24mm 20mm f1.8S after all you are unbiased with tonnes of experience knowledge across mirrorless platforms. I believe Sony did an excellent job on designing the 24GM and 20mm F1.8G lenses. Wonder if Nikon is at least on par.
Could you please make content about the AF-S 35mm, 28mm, 24mm or 20mm? Some say these wider Nikon lenses have some serious chromatic ab. It would be interesting to know how sharp they are at max aperture, and how much distortion is visible.
Absolutely! Some people trivialize the wide, gaping, size of the Z mount opening, but it truly is meaningful in image quality. And that goes for video as well as photo. Say what you want about the Nikon Z series, but it's production value with the Z mount lenses can't be denied.
At this point and time you can get the 50mm 1.4 G for about 300 used maybe even less. You can't do that with the new S lens. So no I'd rather give 300 for the 1.4 than 600 for the 1.8 S version
@@jacksonjackson9474 They probably trivialize it because Sigma were able to get corner-to-corner sharpness out of the F-mount, Sony can do it with the E-mount (which is barely any bigger than the F-mount), and the theoretically smaller but faster lenses from Nikon just haven't come yet. It should happen in the future. But it hasn't happened yet. And people are understandably a little annoyed.
Azenturi fair enough. I just fear the price of a 85mm 1.4 S lens. I’ve been happy with the 1.8 versions. Maybe I am in denial of my own pessimism because deep down I know that a 35mm 1.2 will cost $2900 when it’s finally announced 🤣.
You say the 50mm Z is "large" and expensive - if you use the FTZ adapter, the 50mm is not as small any more and sticking out of the body quite a lot. And just checked - the FTZ II adapter is not a bargain at all. I mean, if you have a lot of legacy lenses it seems okay, but buying the adapter plus the used 50mm G this makes it around 200 EUR for the lens and 200 EUR for the adapter -> also around 400 EUR.
Thanks for the review! Unfortunately Nikon never had a decent 50mm lens for their dslrs. But when I still had Nikon I loved the 58mm 1.4 AF-S for it's extremely nice bokeh. Unfortunately it was suffering from quite a bit of focus shift. It might work nicely on a mirrorless body though.
Decent but not quite stellar Nikon glass, I prefer it to the Canon 50 1.4 Eos lens. Of course you could argue that it's difficult to make a really bad 50mm lens 😎😎😎 Thanks Chris.
It blows the most 50mm lenses out of the water in 3D rendering , low light , night photography , colour . it’s made for low light not for daylight . the 1.8 g is sharper but it renders like a kit lens
Hello. I would like a bright lens under the Nikon D3300. I am thinking about the sigma 50mm 1.4 dg hsm and the nikon 50mm 1.8g. Which you think will be the better choice. I usually do portraits. I know the sigma is brighter but it has problems with focus and AF. I like the bokeh from the sigma but it's not as sharp in the center as the 50mm 1.8g Nikon. Which lens would you choose as a professional? Thanks
great review, i hope you try the nikon 85mm f1.4 and the nikon 85mm f1.8 some people will say that the f1.8 version its slightly sharper and therefore doesnt worth paying the extra for f1.4
I use the Nikon 85 1,8 on my GFX 100, it's that good! it's the only lens I adapt, and it's the highest resolution prime from Nikon F mount in my opinion.
@@merodack3721 pretty much identical to this 50mm on a full frame. contrast wide open isn't great, but it's so easy to ad in post.and it's just a hair off.
for me this lens performed very similair to the canon EF 50/1.4. somewhere between vintage and modern rendering. i much prefer the older manual nikkor's like the 50mm 1.4 AIS
I owned this lens for a grand total of 6 days. Sadly its not great. I now use a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 for this (almost) focal length. That is a lens I highly recommend.
the 50mm S is sharper but it doesn’t have the 3 D rendering of the 1.4g , the 1.4g is made for low light not for daylight , the Z lenses are too sharp for portrait it gives a digital look to the image
No native Z 1.4 lens. What The Fotography ... Longer in photography than the guesstimated age with the CF voice, I have to recount some history to prevent hysteria. (History from the formal photography education that would be an applied BSc today, and all those years. Can I be wrong? Yes. Am I here? I am convinced this below is all perfect. No, I don't feel better or superior.) (I) We "needed" 1.4 or lower for a) retaining a viewfinder in our SLR, and b) every bit helped with Kodachrome 25 (yes, 25 ASA or ISO today) - that film could not be pushed AFAIK anywhere in the world. Even though the first stage of Kodachrome's multi-stage development was that of - essentially - a black and white negative film. If you needed a viewfinder in low light, when an SLR got too dark, you still could make an excursion to a rangefinder. No medium, nor large format, got even near f/2. In general. Exceptions, yes - look at the work of Dr. Erich Salomon - a gentleman paparazzo avant la lettre respected so much that he was present with the most elitist international political events in the interbellum (i.e. between WW1 and WW2). In a mirrorless (ML) camera we have an eVF - electronic viewfinder, with the electronic implying "electronically amplified" too and transitively implying "extremely good usability in the dark." Or, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is futile. (II) The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is less than 1 F-stop - from 2 to 1.4 is a whole stop. Aperture numbers relate to the diameter of the aperture, but the amount of light relates to the area of the aperture. Hence the SQRT(2) relation between a number with 2x light through compared to the next number. And because the formula relates this diameter as denominator of focal length, a smaller number gives a bigger opening (aperture means opening). Or, with a modern, even high MP, digital camera, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is almost futile. (III) Depth of Field. This is not an absolute or axiomatic thing and even subjective. The variable part in the formula is a parameter called "circle of confusion" (CoC) and that CoC defines the transition between sharp and blurred. And herein lies the subjectivity. Now you know this, you can understand that a lens with less sharpness (detail resolution), especially contour sharpness, has more depth of field than a very sharp lens with crystal clear contours. As we know that some Z lenses are a bit sharper than F lenses, or in other Z:F comparisons the difference is shocking, we now have to combine this all and conclude that a Z 50/1.8S at f/1.8 may actually have much less DoF than a F 50/1.4G at f/1.4 - because the Z lens's CoC is smaller. And this is why a decent DoF calculator app on your smartphone wants to know all those details like camera, specific lens with focal length, aperture, maybe its version, the aperture you want and the distance you have set. (IV) F-stop. The full openings on lenses are F-stops. That means these are theoretical numbers that serve the purpose of e.g. DoF calculation in a time when a photographer had to know, could benefit from knowing, all these technical things by heart. The F-stop abstracts away from what amount of light the glass elements in the lens allow to pass through. You could make a lens with elements of black glass and still have valid f-stop numbers. This is why a photographer back in the day, before cameras measured light through the lens, applied a correction for each lens. As this is, or may be, a complication the industry invented the "T-stop", which applies the light loss of a lens to the F-stop and thus defeats the necessity of a correction factor different for each lens. Ergo conclusio: at T-stop level, one lens's f/1.8 may allow equal amounts of light as another lens at f/1.4 --- Remember Albert E. - it's all relative. --- I shoot a Z 7 with a.o. Z 50/1.8S (and all the other primes available today), sold all the F x/1.4G lenses and feel I have sharper results without a trace of chromatic aberration. No, the artistic value of one's portfolio does not get better with that, but it can be more fun.
Thanks! I've been wondering how the Nikon lenses would've compared with others. This was not an encouraging performance 🤔 On second thought, it's a 12 year old lens, so I guess it's expected, though not at that price point. I'll probably skip this one in favor of the Sigma 50/1.4 Art or Nikon 50/1.2 Ai-S, if I ever decide to upgrade my 50/1.8G.
the lens being old has nothing to do with it.. there s nothing new abut the the 50/1.2 Nikon or the sigma 50/1.4 they are old designs as well. this lens has been built to be small, fast, and cheap. the 50/1.2 has been built to be fast and sharp, not small, not cheap.. get it?
I was literally just thinking about getting one! What do you think about their less expensive 50mm 1.8? I'm looking to get as close to a native experience as possible without spending too much on Z glass.
@@tommihommi1 I will second that, and I have Z mount glass (still not better than the Z mount if you do video though). For portraits, the G series is just as amazing on the Z system.
@@sosikerogu Not very pleased with the 1.4 because almost everything is out of focus quite often at 1.4. I find myself using the 1.4 at 1.8 or even 2.0 for sharper results. The bokeh is just not worth the extra money over the 1.8 (which I tried out too). But that is my experience. One extra thing about the 1.4 is that you can shoot at very low light handheld, but that's it. If you get a good price on the 1.4 and you shoot at low light places often go for it. But if you don't mind that extra just go for the 1.8 it is just as good and for a better price !
I suspect this lens has rendering qualities in low light that are not quantifiable by your testing measurements. Just a hunch. And how accurate is autofocus on say a D850?
Hi, old time subscriber here, only now noticed you had notes on translating the bible from Greek, since I am Greek I will be more than happy to help if you ever need any help with Greek
My Nikon 50mm f1.4 is extremely sharp. Maybe it's copy variance and not just design? My 50mm f1.8 is slightly better overall but I do use the extra reach with the f1.4.
FINALLYY AFTER WHOLE MY LIFE A 50 1.4 NIKKOR REVIEW THANKS OH GOD.
Im with you too man =))
+1
I agree with you 🤣 1+
True
because he shoots Canon i believe.
The interesting one for the F mount is the 58mm f/1.4. Incredible rendering and bokeh
I've been using this lens for over 10 years, from my first 12mp Nikon D5000 to my new 61mp Sony A7RIV. Really appreciate having a review like this. In real world use it still holds up surprisingly well and I'm quite fond of its visual quirks. Thanks always for these reviews Chris
the “older lens design” you speak of is called “Double Gauss” - all these characteristics are telltale double gauss. modern mirrorless lenses in the 50mm range are more expensive cause they’re more complex with more elements. the double gauss design has been manufactured for over 60 years
Good to see an older lens being reviewed 😊
Nikon improvements in Z optics are truly significant, thankfully so.
Excellent review as per usual. And John 1:1 in the greek N.T. a pleasant bonus! thanks.
I often use this lens at f4 to be confident image will turn out to be sharp. Hence why I prefer the 50mm f1.8g, a little bit better @f2.8 and at close focus for half the price.
I got them both too!!!1.4 has better colour and bokeh.Overall it is better.The 1.8g is snappier with more vivid colours(you may prefer it)
@@crystalous but 1.4G at below f2.8 is really not that sharp. Anything off center 1/3 frame is less than tack sharp.
@@frankluo230 yes it is true it should have been replaced!!!
@@crystalous small and cheap f1.8 is a must for any system. Nikon chose to have a well corrected 50f1.8s in z mount is a mistake. It is so good when $2300 f1.2s came out, many pros didn't upgrade. Canon on the other hand, have a cheap and same old formula 50f1.8 RF at $200 and a $2200 outstanding 50f1.2L RF. People don't regret choosing either one or might keep both.
@@frankluo230 old glass is great too!!!The s is superior on the wide apertures only!!!The new lenses are so corrected that lack any character!!!I wish Nikon will release 1.4s instead of the huge and pricey 1.2s lenses!!!Nikon images look better than canon by the way.But the lense line up goes way too slow.No serious 85mm no macro no pancake
Appreciate the nifty-fifty review! I have the D1.8 lems but am very happy with it!
Great review! One of my favourite lenses on my D800. Really light, compact and I don't mind the bokeh.
No reason to buy an f1.4 lens that needs to be stopped down to f4 to give good image quality. Thanks Christopher for another great video.
Are you for real? It's pretty great for the price... much better than canon's.
You have to keep in mind how old this lens is tho
It performs a lot better on the D750 then on the Z class
At large aperture most of the photos need center sharpness mostly . This lens has decent center sharpness at f1.4 for 45mp body. At 24mp ff bodies , the center sharpness is even better. Plus the lightweight of the lens make it a very useful one. Modern lenses are two heavy and impractical
I picked up this lens used for pretty cheap when I purchased my Z6. It is very fun to shoot with and the size is stunningly small. It has a well used place in my bag, good value for money. The purple fringing and coma issues are the only limits I find on its use.
How is focusing speed and accuracy and sharpness?Can you share some images.I'm planning to buy one as I'll get a Z5 or Z6 ii.Since the DSLR era is almost dead,there are only a few momths left till I can get this lens.
As someone who has been shooting with Nikon prior to the winter of 2017, I would recommend the f/1.8G. It focus faster and is sharper at every aperture.
Maybe it’s sharper but it doesn’t have the 3 D rendering of the 1.4g , the 1.4g is made for low light and it blows the most 50mm lenses out of the water
@@lukykentucky not really. If you're after 3D pop, you're better off with the D version. This 1.4G is neither sharp nor offer significant 3D pop.
Shang-Hsien Yang what offers the 1.8g ? the rendering is like a cheap kit lens , it’s reminds me of the 35mm 1.8 DX . 1.4 D is better at daylight then the 1.4g , the 1.4g smokes the most lenses in low light
This lens absolutely SHAMES the Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 - I say that as a Canon user. Canon must update that lens soon.
I use this lens for portraits, typically at f/2. Surely corners are soft but for portraits the important stuff is not in the image corners. While the lens performance peaks at f/5.6, I like to take some dreaminess created by wider aperture. However fully open, it is almost unusable on DX, and just borderline usable on FX. Bokeh is also bad at 1.4, but looks good beginning with f/2. For its price, I consider it a very good portrait lens, with soft transition from in-focus to out-of-focus if you stop down just a bit. I also like its softer rendering, creating good-looking skin. If one just compares test shots, the 1.8G wins every single comparison, it is sharper, has less chromatic aberration and so on. But for my portrait stuff, I prefer the look the 1.4G provides.
Yay Nikon F reviews
I ordered the Sigma 50mm Art lens a week ago and it has yet to arrive. I did struggle to convince myself that the extra money would be worth it compared to the Nikon one, but your video on the Sigma lens and this one certainly shows the difference between the two and I think I made the right choice after all.
I've just bought one myself actually. It's one of the few bright aperture lenses sharp enough to shoot 8k video on my Canon EOS R5
Good luck with autofocus accuracy though.
@@aussie8114 that's why still today I stick with my old AF-D 50 1.4. The G version has nothing more to offer in terms of IQ. Sigma would be the only good alternative but I am concerned with so many bad reviews I read about AF performance.
Il Matanela Yes I was going to get the Sigma 50. I played with it at the camera shop but decided not to get it because of the reverse engineered AF issues. Sigma are making it would seem better optics than the Nikon F but no point having better optics if the photos are not focusing correctly. Sony have given Sigma the tech info so they can make the AF perform well, but Nikon won’t give anyone their tech info so Sigma and Tamron have to guess.
@@aussie8114 I believe the difference with the better performance on Sony cameras has to be due to the ML technology. Also on reflex cameras Sigma lenses nail the focus when in live view, problems occur through the viewfinder. Anyway a fast prime with unreliable AF is useless.
I use Sony but Nikon D7200 is my first camera and I absolutely loved it
I'm quite sure the trusty 7200 is the first love of many shooters these days. And they still sell like hot cakes on amazon.
The sample images throughout the video looked very nice. I would say a good budget friendly option. Having autofocus beats using the old manual focus lenses.
Wow. A lens which isn't saddled with a stupidly long initialist name. That's unusual. Great review as ever Mr Frost!
Amazing reviews. I love your videos.
Hi Chris ...... it would be nice to see a review of the new full frame kit "S" lens announced for the Z5 ........ keep up the great work and thanks !!
Glad you bring some older Nikon APS-C lens too, Thanks man!
I Have this lens,
and i dont recommend,
it has a bokeh f1.4 but in term of sharpness is too soft for my eyes,
most of the times it missed autofocus, so u keep checking after shooting,
everything explain by the video,
insane review and consistency,
really love your review!
stay healthy =))
Can u show us the right way or your own way to clean your sensor camera? thanksman!
I just got a used one for $100 yesterday, IT’S AMAZINGGGGG!
I love the 1.4G. I prefer it to the 50mm 1.8 S lens on my Zf. The 1.4G may not be as sharp but it has that “something” that looks wonderful. And the bokeh is beautiful.
I wonder how the cheaper AF-D version holds up. I did a side by side with the f/1.8 AF-S and the f/1.8 AF-D on a Nikon D610 and the AF-D version had better sharpness in the middle.
My D lens is noticeably darker than my G lens. It does seem a bit sharper but not worth using because of the old lens type issues.
Finally someone with knowledge about the AF-D series!!!
@@meneerhalfwerk7096 They're great. Fantastic optics, cheap build quality, very loud autofocus (if at all, depending on the body) and no image stabilisation. It might not sound great nowadays, but if you want wonderful optical quality for a very reasonable price, nothing beats the AF-D series.
R van Kuik it’s one of my favourite lenses!
It's a good lens but I found it quite annoying at times. The focus was not very snappy and out of focus areas could look distracting. The focus ring grip came off of mine and the front protective plastic pieces came loose too. One great thing was it is super easy to reverse to create a macro lens, albeit with a very soft image. The images are nice enough but on full-frame the edges are very soft when open and there's a fair amount of chromatic aberration on mine. Much better on a cropped sensor but also the loss of resolution helps cover up the flaws.
Like shown in this video the purple fringing and soft, low-contrast look really bothered me especially on a lens I want to shoot at f/2 and below most of the time.
I love this lens for shooting concerts and festivals at night on my d4s. Makes it possible to get great images with very low light and really high ISO
that d4s is something special isn't it?.. what a spectacular camera
I wish Nikon would make some lenses this compact for the Z series.
You and me both brotha
It would be interesting to see how a Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM performs on your Canon EOS R5 when it is delivered to you.
Very useful. Thank you!
1:29 Not only G type lenses, but E and D... If focusing is AF-S AF-P
Well D-type lenses are all screw drive AF no they'll be MF only on the FTZ.
Oh My Google, Christopher Frost! Are you "DIY Perks" in a parallel universe?
the 1.8g is sucha steal, worth every penny
I keep around a 50mm F/1.8D for some reason. Looking at the Sigma Art offering TBH
Please please test other Z primes that would be awesome. Want to hear your opinion on 24mm 20mm f1.8S after all you are unbiased with tonnes of experience knowledge across mirrorless platforms. I believe Sony did an excellent job on designing the 24GM and 20mm F1.8G lenses. Wonder if Nikon is at least on par.
Very good and honest review, thank you! Could you please review the more expensive 58mm f1.4 Nikon with Nano coating?
Could you please make content about the AF-S 35mm, 28mm, 24mm or 20mm? Some say these wider Nikon lenses have some serious chromatic ab. It would be interesting to know how sharp they are at max aperture, and how much distortion is visible.
I still think the new 50mm z lens is well worth the extra money even though it only opens up to 1.8 it’s sharper edge to edge.
Absolutely! Some people trivialize the wide, gaping, size of the Z mount opening, but it truly is meaningful in image quality. And that goes for video as well as photo. Say what you want about the Nikon Z series, but it's production value with the Z mount lenses can't be denied.
This guy says it is highly recommended - th-cam.com/video/i-PqTvcS1r0/w-d-xo.html
At this point and time you can get the 50mm 1.4 G for about 300 used maybe even less. You can't do that with the new S lens. So no I'd rather give 300 for the 1.4 than 600 for the 1.8 S version
@@jacksonjackson9474 They probably trivialize it because Sigma were able to get corner-to-corner sharpness out of the F-mount, Sony can do it with the E-mount (which is barely any bigger than the F-mount), and the theoretically smaller but faster lenses from Nikon just haven't come yet.
It should happen in the future. But it hasn't happened yet. And people are understandably a little annoyed.
Azenturi fair enough. I just fear the price of a 85mm 1.4 S lens. I’ve been happy with the 1.8 versions. Maybe I am in denial of my own pessimism because deep down I know that a 35mm 1.2 will cost $2900 when it’s finally announced 🤣.
Thank you... I own a Nikkor 50 f1.8G too... Please do a review on it..
You say the 50mm Z is "large" and expensive - if you use the FTZ adapter, the 50mm is not as small any more and sticking out of the body quite a lot. And just checked - the FTZ II adapter is not a bargain at all. I mean, if you have a lot of legacy lenses it seems okay, but buying the adapter plus the used 50mm G this makes it around 200 EUR for the lens and 200 EUR for the adapter -> also around 400 EUR.
A year ago I nabbed a copy for $35 because the owner thought the focus was broken but I fixed it :)
Well, for THAT price it definitely has to come highly recommended! ;-)
You said pincushion distortion, but wasn’t it barrel though?
Had this one, absolutely hated its softness wide open
Last time I was this early, I still had money to buy a camera
Lol
Thanks for the review! Unfortunately Nikon never had a decent 50mm lens for their dslrs. But when I still had Nikon I loved the 58mm 1.4 AF-S for it's extremely nice bokeh. Unfortunately it was suffering from quite a bit of focus shift. It might work nicely on a mirrorless body though.
This is the only lens I bought new, like ever. For the longest time it was the only lens I needed for my work..
Decent but not quite stellar Nikon glass, I prefer it to the Canon 50 1.4 Eos lens. Of course you could argue that it's difficult to make a really bad 50mm lens 😎😎😎 Thanks Chris.
Please: AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED.
This lens sucks at large apertures. Go get 50mm F1.8 G instead.
It blows the most 50mm lenses out of the water in 3D rendering , low light , night photography , colour . it’s made for low light not for daylight . the 1.8 g is sharper but it renders like a kit lens
@@lukykentucky In my experience, 1.4g has even more longitudinal chromatic abberation with bad contrast. While they renders almost same bokeh.
Gukin I don’t have any chromatic aberration in low light , this lens is made for low light and night photography not for daylight
Gukin the 1.4g has more dynamic range , the 1.8g crushes the blacks very quickly , the tonal range and Color is in a different level
@@lukykentucky I did not experienced them. Even if it does, few clicking in lightroom will make em pointless.
Hello. I would like a bright lens under the Nikon D3300. I am thinking about the sigma 50mm 1.4 dg hsm and the nikon 50mm 1.8g. Which you think will be the better choice. I usually do portraits. I know the sigma is brighter but it has problems with focus and AF. I like the bokeh from the sigma but it's not as sharp in the center as the 50mm 1.8g Nikon. Which lens would you choose as a professional? Thanks
I grabbed one on sale for $200 brand new for the bokeh. I kinda like the images out of it although it's not the sharpest lens out there.
3:28 Christopher, it's time to branch out into a cat image channel!
Nice review! But 08:06 sigma 50mm f1.4 art is not just a bit more expensive. It is much more expensive.
great review, i hope you try the nikon 85mm f1.4 and the nikon 85mm f1.8 some people will say that the f1.8 version its slightly sharper and therefore doesnt worth paying the extra for f1.4
I use the Nikon 85 1,8 on my GFX 100, it's that good! it's the only lens I adapt, and it's the highest resolution prime from Nikon F mount in my opinion.
@@Juventinos for real? what about vignetting?
@@merodack3721 pretty much identical to this 50mm on a full frame. contrast wide open isn't great, but it's so easy to ad in post.and it's just a hair off.
woah he's finally looking at the Nikon lenses xD
I thought you once did mention you will not review vintages lenses 🤔😁🤷🏻♂️
This lens has barrel distortion instead of pincushion distortion right? I'm certainly no expert though.
Oops - well spotted
@@christopherfrost It happens to the best it seems. Thanks for all your videos. I'm pretty new to photography and I learned a lot from your videos.
6:07 barrel distortion*
Oops - well spotted
Just about to leave the same, when I saw your comment :)
Excellent, peaceful video--as always
for me this lens performed very similair to the canon EF 50/1.4. somewhere between vintage and modern rendering. i much prefer the older manual nikkor's like the 50mm 1.4 AIS
Pincushion distortion?? Isn’t it barrel distortion? Love your reviews btw 💚
I owned this lens for a grand total of 6 days. Sadly its not great. I now use a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 for this (almost) focal length. That is a lens I highly recommend.
I like if you put an UV filter on it's an internal focusing lens.
No way I would buy this and adapt it for the Z bodies. The 50mm S lens is a mile ahead in every way.
the 50mm S is sharper but it doesn’t have the 3 D rendering of the 1.4g , the 1.4g is made for low light not for daylight , the Z lenses are too sharp for portrait it gives a digital look to the image
Nice mr christopher frost. You have finally bought a nikon dslr and reviewed an F mount lens. Is this an effect of lockdown?
No - just wanted to expand my horizons :-)
I'm switching from Sony E-mount to Nikon F-mount ríght now.
How about the Nikon G's 58mm FX and 35mm 1.8 DX, 35mm FX?
We need your cat as a part of your test, Christ. We need to know the lens has unique characteristic of fur-tone or not..
If you are a Z shooter, no brainer to go for the 50mm f/1.8 S. Image quality is another level!
No native Z 1.4 lens. What The Fotography ...
Longer in photography than the guesstimated age with the CF voice, I have to recount some history to prevent hysteria. (History from the formal photography education that would be an applied BSc today, and all those years. Can I be wrong? Yes. Am I here? I am convinced this below is all perfect. No, I don't feel better or superior.)
(I) We "needed" 1.4 or lower for a) retaining a viewfinder in our SLR, and b) every bit helped with Kodachrome 25 (yes, 25 ASA or ISO today) - that film could not be pushed AFAIK anywhere in the world. Even though the first stage of Kodachrome's multi-stage development was that of - essentially - a black and white negative film.
If you needed a viewfinder in low light, when an SLR got too dark, you still could make an excursion to a rangefinder. No medium, nor large format, got even near f/2. In general. Exceptions, yes - look at the work of Dr. Erich Salomon - a gentleman paparazzo avant la lettre respected so much that he was present with the most elitist international political events in the interbellum (i.e. between WW1 and WW2).
In a mirrorless (ML) camera we have an eVF - electronic viewfinder, with the electronic implying "electronically amplified" too and transitively implying "extremely good usability in the dark." Or, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is futile.
(II) The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is less than 1 F-stop - from 2 to 1.4 is a whole stop. Aperture numbers relate to the diameter of the aperture, but the amount of light relates to the area of the aperture. Hence the SQRT(2) relation between a number with 2x light through compared to the next number. And because the formula relates this diameter as denominator of focal length, a smaller number gives a bigger opening (aperture means opening).
Or, with a modern, even high MP, digital camera, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is almost futile.
(III) Depth of Field. This is not an absolute or axiomatic thing and even subjective. The variable part in the formula is a parameter called "circle of confusion" (CoC) and that CoC defines the transition between sharp and blurred. And herein lies the subjectivity. Now you know this, you can understand that a lens with less sharpness (detail resolution), especially contour sharpness, has more depth of field than a very sharp lens with crystal clear contours.
As we know that some Z lenses are a bit sharper than F lenses, or in other Z:F comparisons the difference is shocking, we now have to combine this all and conclude that a Z 50/1.8S at f/1.8 may actually have much less DoF than a F 50/1.4G at f/1.4 - because the Z lens's CoC is smaller.
And this is why a decent DoF calculator app on your smartphone wants to know all those details like camera, specific lens with focal length, aperture, maybe its version, the aperture you want and the distance you have set.
(IV) F-stop. The full openings on lenses are F-stops. That means these are theoretical numbers that serve the purpose of e.g. DoF calculation in a time when a photographer had to know, could benefit from knowing, all these technical things by heart. The F-stop abstracts away from what amount of light the glass elements in the lens allow to pass through. You could make a lens with elements of black glass and still have valid f-stop numbers. This is why a photographer back in the day, before cameras measured light through the lens, applied a correction for each lens. As this is, or may be, a complication the industry invented the "T-stop", which applies the light loss of a lens to the F-stop and thus defeats the necessity of a correction factor different for each lens.
Ergo conclusio: at T-stop level, one lens's f/1.8 may allow equal amounts of light as another lens at f/1.4
---
Remember Albert E. - it's all relative.
---
I shoot a Z 7 with a.o. Z 50/1.8S (and all the other primes available today), sold all the F x/1.4G lenses and feel I have sharper results without a trace of chromatic aberration. No, the artistic value of one's portfolio does not get better with that, but it can be more fun.
I use this lens on my Z50 and unfortunately it is pretty soft on f1.4
One of my more regrettable photo-gear purchases.
Thanks! I've been wondering how the Nikon lenses would've compared with others. This was not an encouraging performance 🤔 On second thought, it's a 12 year old lens, so I guess it's expected, though not at that price point. I'll probably skip this one in favor of the Sigma 50/1.4 Art or Nikon 50/1.2 Ai-S, if I ever decide to upgrade my 50/1.8G.
The Art lens is likely to give you focus accuracy issues.
the lens being old has nothing to do with it.. there s nothing new abut the the 50/1.2 Nikon or the sigma 50/1.4 they are old designs as well. this lens has been built to be small, fast, and cheap.
the 50/1.2 has been built to be fast and sharp, not small, not cheap.. get it?
Hey Chris, Fujinon has just announced their new Fuji 50mm f/1.0 !!!! I am sure that you will be interested in it too! Will you have it for testing? :)
I was literally just thinking about getting one! What do you think about their less expensive 50mm 1.8? I'm looking to get as close to a native experience as possible without spending too much on Z glass.
A review of that lens is coming eventually. I've had a try with one and, as far as I remember, it's actually a little sharper than this lens
@@christopherfrost Thanks Christopher!
@@christopherfrost thanks for all the new Nikon reviews!
the 50mm and 35mm 1.8 are a couple fantastic lenses
@@tommihommi1 I will second that, and I have Z mount glass (still not better than the Z mount if you do video though). For portraits, the G series is just as amazing on the Z system.
6:06 pincushion? 🤔
Oops - well spotted
Going back and forth wondering should I get 1.8g or 1.4g. Is there a shocking big difference between them ?
I'd get the 1.8, I think it's a little better although if you want more deeply out of focus backgrounds then the 1.4 is obviously better
@@christopherfrost I was going for 1.8 but a friend of mine found me one 1.4 for half the price so I got the 1.4g.
@@tsenovskiplays7532 Can you share your experience of use?
@@sosikerogu Not very pleased with the 1.4 because almost everything is out of focus quite often at 1.4. I find myself using the 1.4 at 1.8 or even 2.0 for sharper results. The bokeh is just not worth the extra money over the 1.8 (which I tried out too). But that is my experience. One extra thing about the 1.4 is that you can shoot at very low light handheld, but that's it. If you get a good price on the 1.4 and you shoot at low light places often go for it. But if you don't mind that extra just go for the 1.8 it is just as good and for a better price !
Test versus 50mm 1.8G
Can u review the nikon 85mm 1.8g
Is this sharper than sigma 56mm f1.4??
I suspect this lens has rendering qualities in low light that are not quantifiable by your testing measurements. Just a hunch. And how accurate is autofocus on say a D850?
Please, review an AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G
Can you review the afs nikkor 50 1.8g and 85 1.8g.. thanks chris. Regards from Philippines
Is the Canon 50mm 1.4 better?
Finally someone who pronounces 'Z' correctly..
It's not zeeeeeeee it's ZED.
Performance is pretty good.....i was expecting it to be worse....
Any Concert photographers using thsi lens? How fast is the focus?
How you think autofocus works on sony a9 with adapter? Btw which one you suggest?
I have heard/read several times that the new Z 1.8 lenses are equivalent to the old 1.4 regarding light (or also bokeh?). Can that be true?
Is there an affordable mount to use this lens on a sony a7iii ? one that will allow you to use all features on your sony camera?
How many stops does that adapter eat up?
Semuanya dah Pandai tak nak pergi kedai Gambar ambik 4D sebelum pergi ke Luar Negara.
How about the 58 1.4?
Hi, old time subscriber here, only now noticed you had notes on translating the bible from Greek, since I am Greek I will be more than happy to help if you ever need any help with Greek
Nikon I see. Uncharted territory
for how small it is it's fine. it's not a s good as the 50mm d 1.8 version but I would rather have any of these 2 than the Sigma.
can i request a review of xf50mm 1.0.. Thank you
the 50mm 1.8G lens is bigger than the 1.4 lens, a bit weird. It's half the price, of course
It's actually pretty much the same size
@@christopherfrost hm, it actually is a tiny bit smaller than the 1.4, had remembered it the wrong way around.
Can the lens fit on Nikon D7500?
My Nikon 50mm f1.4 is extremely sharp. Maybe it's copy variance and not just design? My 50mm f1.8 is slightly better overall but I do use the extra reach with the f1.4.