a lot on his Plate 50mm

[stevebri]

I know Swampy has his desk full right now, but hopefully we'll see the 50mm 1.4 v 1.2 pictures at some future date.

I just got a 50mm1.4AFD and I'm blown away, i LOVE IT...!!!!

I spent the weekend just walking around with it wide open and I was just snapping away on aperture P...such fun...

Have a great Christmas all of you (Thats happy christmas in Portuguese and Spanish I guess)

Steve

[Wilm]

Originally posted by Stevebri
I know Swampy has his desk full right now, but hopefully we'll see the 50mm 1.4 v 1.2 pictures at some future date.

I just got a 50mm1.4AFD and I'm blown away, i LOVE IT...!!!!

I spent the weekend just walking around with it wide open and I was just snapping away on aperture P...such fun...

Have a great Christmas all of you (Thats happy christmas in Portuguese and Spanish I guess)

Steve

Steve,
have fun with your new lens ! The pic is great ... love it too.


Feliz navidad i un prospero ano nuevo ( in spanish )


Wilm

[Igor]

Steve, I own both AF 50mm /1.8 and /1.4. The 1.8 produces BETTER images! At least mine.

[stevebri]

Igor I'm interested to hear how or why your 1.8 produces better images. Can you expand your answer...?

Before I bought mine I did some web research and generally people thought the colour rendition on the 1.4 better (better coating of the lens maybe?).

Tuesday I am using the lens on a 'proper shoot' so I'll post when I can...

Over to you Igor.

Steve

[stevebri]

Muito Obrigado Wilm ou muchas gracias...

Abraco do Steve

[Igor]

Steve, I'm afraid I can't tell the reasons "why". Maybe because my 1.8 is a pre-historic :) non-D version with "QC" golden label still attached to the barrel, maybe some other reason. I'll shoot a few comparison pics and post for you.
I really want an old AIS 50/1.2 to test how good it is...

[Igor]

Steve,
here's a quick test of the two lenses.
Both shots at f5.6.
The test table shots look very favorable to 1.4, but check the "real world" shots below...
(1.8 left, 1.4 right)

[Igor]

The same 5.6. See how the darker 1.8 benefits over too bright 1.4...

[Igor]

Another one. I added a shot with 24-120mm at 50mm for comparison.
All images unaltered except for a bit of USM.
Of course the over-brightness of the 1.4 can be easily compensated by adding -0.5 or -1, but I'm afraid the colors won't compensate this way...

[stevebri]

Igor could it be a diaphram problem...? It looks over exposed.

If you set the 1.4 to 5.6 and the 1.8 to 4, are they the same...?


Just a thought.

I'm going to do a test today (as it's raining here) using my 50mm 1.4 at 5.6 plus the cheap 28-80mm at 50mm at 5.6 and lets see.

Which one did you buy in the end Swampy...?

Steve

[Igor]

Steve, no. All 1.4 shots are a bit overexposed, all 1.8 a bit underexposed. But the latter still look more saturated to me.
The sharness of both lenses is about equal.

[Serge]

Hi Igor,

thanks for doing and posting your interesting test shots.
It is puzzeling that both lenses shot at the same aperture, can produce such different exposures, save the reason already suggested, i.e a diaphram problem; another possible cause is the different T stop values of both lenses.

The aperture setting, is merely the Focal length devided by the diameter of the iris opening; example 50mm lens set at f2, has an iris opening diameter of 25mm. This is a purely opto-mechanical relationship.

However all professional cine lenses are individually tested and rated in T stops, a more accurate representation of the lense's light transmission rating.

The different age, design and construction, glass used etc.
is likely the cause for any discrepancy. (electronics being less forgiving than film)

Based on what you have shown, I think the 1.8 is the winner.
There is a lot to be said for some of those "older" lenses

;)

[Wichita Wayne]

I choose the f-1.8 because of its reputation for high quality results, and I have not been dissapointed. All the reviews I could find stated that the 1.8 is the best of the Nikkor 50mm lenses. This also follows the general rule of thumb that, all other things equal, the slower lenses will offer higher picture quality. Another rule of thumb is that fewer elements offer higher quality. (Actually, it is really the glass to air surfaces that need to be reduced.) I believe that the 50mm F-1.8 is a Planar lens with six elements. The Nikkor 50mm f-1.4 might also be a Planar lens but I don't know for sure. The Planar design is probably one of the best lens designs ever created and should produce great results. Planars have a symetrical design that allows the designer to more easily control aberations that cause a loss of quality as you move away from the center axis of the lens. The Planar design is well over 100 years old and doesn't require a lot of research and development cost to produce which reduces the price that Nikon can charge for the lens. Also it is the only autofocus lens that has not been "D" modified which also keeps the cost down.

[Igor]

Yes, the 50mm f1.8 looks to be the sharpest of all the lenses I tested.
Though the 85mm f1.8 holds very close.
The below 1:1 crops (no post processing at all) allows to compare them :