Nikon 50mm f1.4D or f1.4G

My experiences of both the AF-D and AF-S G lenses.

The G lens is a better lens, is the short story. It suffers far less CA and fringing, it's (IME) a better performer right from f1.4. The suggestion that the G isn't sharp until f2.8 is simply not true and I've any number of shots that lay that to rest very swiftly.

AF speed - the focus ring on the G has a longer throw. It's NOT slower to AF that the D, it's that the longer throw needs more time, obviously. It is, however, far, far, more accurate than the D for micro-adjustments using AF (especially using AF-C which I exclusively shoot).

An example at f2, lit by window light only:

Joseph

4237029465_b163407fd2_o.jpg
 
The 1.4G is a cracker but I find that there's quite a bit of fringing at 1.4 and 1.6. At 1.8 it's gone. Either way it's sharp wide open but better stopped down a tad (which is quite natural).

I tend to shoot it at 1.8 or smaller (but not much smaller) and think it's a fab lens. Great VFM too if that helps.
 
Radiohead said:
My experiences of both the AF-D and AF-S G lenses.

The G lens is a better lens, is the short story. It suffers far less CA and fringing, it's (IME) a better performer right from f1.4. The suggestion that the G isn't sharp until f2.8 is simply not true and I've any number of shots that lay that to rest very swiftly.

AF speed - the focus ring on the G has a longer throw. It's NOT slower to AF that the D, it's that the longer throw needs more time, obviously. It is, however, far, far, more accurate than the D for micro-adjustments using AF (especially using AF-C which I exclusively shoot).

An example at f2, lit by window light only:

Joseph

​
Click to expand...


I can show you my example made with AF-S 50mm at f/1.4 which is sharp enough. But is doesn't confirm that G version is sharper at f/1.4 than D version is.
And don't forget that if ISO is high and "high ISO noise reduction" is swithed on results are different. :thumbs:

cat9.jpg
 
StingerNikon said:
I can show you my example made with AF-S 50mm at f/1.4 which is sharp enough. But is doesn't confirm that G version is sharper at f/1.4 than D version is.
And don't forget that if ISO is high and "high ISO noise reduction" is swithed on results are different. :thumbs:

cat9.jpg
Click to expand...


No - but I'm telling you that my G is sharper than my D ever was - you're not going to argue with that are you?

And my shot was ISO1600, with NR off. What's your point exactly.
 
Radiohead said:
No - but I'm telling you that my G is sharper than my D ever was - you're not going to argue with that are you?

And my shot was ISO1600, with NR off. What's your point exactly.
Click to expand...

My point is "before post a replay read the discussion first".

Don't tell to other people that they are wrong if you don't have an evidence for it.

If you have read the discussion and still don't see what my point is I can repeat.

On a DX format Nikon 50mm D lens is sharper than G at f/1.4.
This is my opinion and suggestion to the author's choice

Based:
1. on my own experience
2. It is confirmed by tests which I mentioned above.
 
StingerNikon said:
My point is "before post a replay read the discussion first".

Don't tell to other people that they are wrong if you don't have an evidence for it.

If you have read the discussion and still not don't see what my point is I can repeat.

On a DX format Nikon 50mm D lens is sharper than G at f/1.4.
This is my opinion and suggestion to the author's choice

Based:
1. on my own experience
2. It is confirmed by tests which I mention above.
Click to expand...

Let's recount your posts shall we:

1. D version is sharper if you use it wide open (f/1.4, f/2.0), G - has better "background blur" but it is sharp starting only from f/2.8 and It is very sharp at f/3.5.

Here you claim that the G is sharp only from f2.8, which is untrue.

You then post a test from SLR gear as evidence. Of centre sharpness.Neatly ignoring the fact that one of the areas the G improved on the D was sharpness across the frame. You are, of course, also defining a lens's performance solely by sharpness there.

2. I agree that at f/1,4 good technique is required to get in focus images, but did you know that at f/1.4 this Nikon AF-S50 G lens has "back focus"?

Firstly there's the question of technique - the 2 portraits you posted above lead me to believe your technique is suspect on occasion. Your statement 'the 50G has back focus at f1.4' also leads me to believe this. The lens is widely used and any such issue (such as with Canon's 50L below f2.8 and close to MFD) would be widely known. The area I specialise in, especially so as we typically shoot this lens at wide apertures. I suggest it's more a case of trying to shoot everything at f1.4, not having the correct AF method or technique or taking account of the resulting shallow DOF, and then blaming the lens for back-focus.

3. Can you think than and explain why at f/1.4 Niko 50mm G has "back focus" and at f/3.5 it doesn't have it any more?

See the end of the answer above. Look at your technique and use of f1.4 first.

4. Just try to do severat shoots at f/1.4 and 45 degres to a text from newspaper. And you will see that it is not only about DoF. It's about "back focus" and even taking into account this "back focus" if you try to check the sharpest region region it is still not as sharp as it is at 2.8

Try using the lens and likely focal distances. The 45 degree test is notoriously inaccurate.

5. My point is "before post a replay read the discussion first".

I have, thanks.

6. Don't tell to other people that they are wrong if you don't have an evidence for it.

Which is exactly what you're doing. You're ignoring the real-world comparisons of many here and instead using a web test to try and batter them into submission.

Again, by focussing (no pun intended)on sharpness and sharpness alone you completely ignore everything else the G improves on compared to the D - namely, CA, fringing, quality of OOF rendition, contrast, accuity, colour accuracy and (very important this) accuracy of focus.

When 10 people tell you you look ill, go and see a doctor.
 
Radiohead said:
When 10 people tell you you look ill, go and see a doctor.
Click to expand...

I did not ask how I look.

I wrote my point of view regarding the author's topick and supported it with an evidence.

It wasn't just "bla-bla-bla"... As somebody did.


For some who are interested to undestand the issue of the focus shift

"Focus shift An interesting phenomenon occurs when an aperture stop is placed next to the lens in Fig. 1. If the aperture is closed so as to block the marginal rays, it is observed that the best focus shifts to the right. At small lens apertures the best focus is found at position c and it will also be a better focus, i.e., the circle of least confusion is a smaller circle than the circle of least confusion at full aperture. To profit fully from the improved performance, the sensor should ideally be located at position c. This cleary presents a risk of underachievement, since many photographic systems are focused with the lens at full aperture. The unsuspecting photographer focuses with the lens wide open to place the circle of least confusion at the sensor position b, and, taking the actual picture at a reduced aperture, he is unaware of the ensuing focus shift that prevents him from getting the best out of the lens. Surely, the reduced aperture mitigates the effect of spherical aberration also for a sensor fixed at b, but it is possible to do better. SLR users may stop down the lens with the DOF preview button to focus at the actual working aperture. An automatic compensation mechanism for the focus shift is proposed by Goldberg [3]. Zeiss launch a line of rangefinder lenses for the return of the Zeiss Ikon legend, for which they mention that the minimization of focus shifts with aperture changes was a specific design goal [4]. Apparently spherical aberration is noticeably reduced, which makes the reader wonder how serious the focus shift is with existing (rangefinder) lenses. Values of order 100 µm are reported for the Noctilux-M 1.0/50 [5].
"
http://toothwalker.org/optics/spherical.html


For your info:

"Hi , I wonder if any one did notice that there is a shift in focus at lower F.stops , exactly from 1.4 till 2.8 , i realized that fine tuning on a D3 is not solving the problem , like if i did a fine tuning at 1.4 and then changed my f.stop to 1.8 , the focus will be soft again ,it will shift and needs to be fine tuned again , this is very annoying , and is making me mad , Photozone did mention this in its review about the lens ....and there is a chart that explains the case , they did not mention that this is a problem , i am thinking now to sell the lens and i am glad i kept my wonderful nikkor 50 1.8 , any advice or explanation ?? i have a friend facing the same problem with his D700 , telling me that he has a lot of out of focus photos coming out from this lens
Posted at 6:19AM, 28 January 2009 PST".
http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs50mmf14/discuss/72157613043399615/
 
The whoosh sound you can hear is the argument going over your head.

The Canon 50L displays focus shift and if you've shot it you'll know that the Nikkor G does NOT display it. It's VERY different to backfocus, so probably best to stick with the term you want to use rather than switch half-way through.

Did that person perform their test at the correct distance? You are aware that's a critical factor with micro-adjustments aren't you? As for the 'my mate has loads of out of focus shots with his D700' - that's laughable.

Now what you're doing is trawling the web for any negative comment about the G lens, throwing in anything you can find, in a desperate attempt to retain credibility. You've failed.

You call my post bla-bla-bla. You haven't responded to any point I made there, despite you suggesting people need to re-read the thread. We have, your arguments are confused and inconsistent.

So, for the hard of reading:

Again, by focussing (no pun intended)on sharpness and sharpness alone you completely ignore everything else the G improves on compared to the D - namely, CA, fringing, quality of OOF rendition, contrast, accuity, colour accuracy and (very important this) accuracy of focus.
 
i dont know much about the whole tec side of lenses (i just use them) but i take it lenses r i bit softer at 1.4 r is there a pin sharp 1.4 lens ??
 
Radiohead said:
Again, by focussing (no pun intended)on sharpness and sharpness alone you completely ignore everything else the G improves on compared to the D - namely, CA, fringing, quality of OOF rendition, contrast, accuity, colour accuracy and (very important this) accuracy of focus.
Click to expand...

I know that G is better than the D " namely, CA, fringing, quality of OOF rendition, contrast, accuity, colour accuracy and (very important this) accuracy of focus".

I wrote that "D" is sharper than "G" at f/1.4 because for some it might be an imortant factor. Nikon AF D 50mm is one of the sharpest lens at f/1.4 even sharper than some f/1.2 lenses at f/1.4.
 
Ok OK, put your purses down and take this outside, I don't want anyone knocking over my 55" LED ;) :D

So Mr. OP, has your question been answered?
 
StingerNikon said:
1.If you read what I said you will see that its not only about one specific example of the lens.
2. I did not say that 50mm AF-D ot 50mm AF-S are bad lenses.

I said Nikon 50mm AF-D is shaper at f/1.4 than a new model Nikon 50mm AF-S


I took these photos last summer so you can see the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 at 50mm AF-S G.


AF-S 50mm f/1.4
1_41.jp


AF-S 50mm f/2.8
2_8.jp


SO PLEASE READ THE WHOLE DICSUSSION IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT YOUR REPLAY.
Click to expand...

I must say that the first picture actually looks a little soft. Both also look out of focus to me. I would say it's your technique that's letting you down here.
 
StingerNikon said:
I had Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and it was sharp even at f/1.4
The only one thing I didn't like in that Sigma is "Bokeh".
Click to expand...

That's an interesting (and perfectly legitimate) opinion :|.

The vast majority of people who have expressed opinions here about the bokeh of both the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG lenses, came out in favour of the Sigma's bokeh - even those who'd already bought the Nikkor :shrug:. In fact, to many people, it's what that particular lens does best!

I myself went for the Sigma, mostly for this reason (certainly not for the portability :D).

Anyway, it just shows that your taste in certain image properties may not be that of the majority :shrug:!? Maybe that's why your having so many problems getting people to agree with your observations on the topic in this thread:thinking:. Just a thought.
 
at the end of the day - they are all great lenses - just go and take some amazing pics! :)
 
Naboo32 said:
That's an interesting (and perfectly legitimate) opinion :|.

The vast majority of people who have expressed opinions here about the bokeh of both the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG lenses, came out in favour of the Sigma's bokeh - even those who'd already bought the Nikkor :shrug:. In fact, to many people, it's what that particular lens does best!

I myself went for the Sigma, mostly for this reason (certainly not for the portability :D).

Anyway, it just shows that your taste in certain image properties may not be that of the majority :shrug:!? Maybe that's why your having so many problems getting people to agree with your observations on the topic in this thread:thinking:. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I haven't had experience to use Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG, so as I mentioned above I was happy with Sigma 30mm f/1.4. This lens in terms of sharpness at f/1.4 was enough for me but I did not like it's "bokeh".

For example:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
F-Number: f/1.4
exposure 1/60
ISO:400
Bike6.jpg

or f/1.4 as well:
The_gaage.jpg


I wish I could get the same sharpness at f/1.4 with my Nikon AF-S 50 G
but so far I haven't achieved these results...
 
What exactly is the second shot supposed to showing (aside from why on earth you'd shoot that at f1.4 anyway)?
 
and what exactly is the connection with oxfordvipclub.co.uk - whatever that is?
 
StingerNikon said:
I haven't had experience to use Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG, so as I mentioned above I was happy with Sigma 30mm f/1.4. This lens in terms of sharpness at f/1.4 was enough for me but I did not like it's "bokeh".
Click to expand...

OK, my apologies! I was confused because you were answering a poster who mentioned the 50mm Sigma and I guess I assumed that your response was based on the same the lens. Once I re-read what you had actually written, I saw that I was wrong.

Anyway, at least I understand your point properly now :).
 
awp said:
and what exactly is the connection with oxfordvipclub.co.uk - whatever that is?
Click to expand...

This is my web page - so if you are interested to post your photos there it will be great.:thumbs:

What exactly is the second shot supposed to showing (aside from why on earth you'd shoot that at f1.4 anyway)?
Click to expand...

To show that the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens is sharp at f/1.4. The photo was already uploaded to my gallery so I did not have to search for it. I know that for such kind of photos it's better to close diafragm. So you don't have to explain it to me. Thanks.

I hope it answers your questions.

In addition to this: I'm not telling that my point of view regarding to AF-S 50G sharpeness is unique or the best. I just tried to explain why I beleive so and showed you some evidences.

It looks quite strange for me why some authors here are so offensive and instead be constructive and show some evidence or do their own test have tried to push their ideas without any logic.

Thanks to those who did some test and posted their results here.
When I have an opportunity to try 50mm G lens at a Full frame I can add some photos here.

Good luck ;)
 
StingerNikon said:
When I have an opportunity to try 50mm G lens at a Full frame I can add some photos here.

Good luck ;)
Click to expand...

I still can't understand why you think FF will magically improve sharpness - it wont. The image circle projected from the back of the lens will be the same regardless of sensor. It doesn't matter if its on a D3S, a D90 or some old bit of tesco's value 35mm film.
 
boyfalldown said:
I still can't understand why you think FF will magically improve sharpness - it wont. The image circle projected from the back of the lens will be the same regardless of sensor. It doesn't matter if its on a D3S, a D90 or some old bit of tesco's value 35mm film.
Click to expand...

1st reason: some people from this forum who use FX beleive that 50mm G is sharp at f/1.4. I haven't seen it on my DX so perharps I'll see it on FX.

2nd reason:

"Sharpness
The 50mm ƒ/1.4G AF-S is a sharp lens, though not as sharp wide-open at ƒ/1.4 as we would prefer. Optimal results start at ƒ/2, and by ƒ/2.8 we see excellent results for sharpness.

On the sub-frame D200, results for image sharpness at ƒ/1.4 were slightly soft and showed slight decentering: the bottom of the frame showed 3 blur units, while the top showed almost 4. Stopping down to ƒ/2 improves this profile, with a central region of sharpness of around 1.5 blur units, and slightly softer corners of 2 blur units; an optimal setting for portraits. At ƒ/2.8, the lens is almost as sharp as it gets, with results hovering in the 1-1.5 blur unit range; according to the numbers, the lens isn't at its sharpest until ƒ/8, where it shows corner-to-corner results of 1 blur unit. Diffraction limiting starts in at ƒ/11, but even at ƒ/16 we note only 1.5 blur units across the frame, offering better performance for sharpness when fully stopped down at ƒ/16, than when fully open at ƒ/1.4.

The full-frame sensor of the D3x is much more critical of the 50mm ƒ/1.4G. With the lens set to ƒ/1.4, we still note results in the range of 4 blur units, but the image is slightly uneven in its focus. Again, stopping down to ƒ/2 improves this profile, providing a small ''pocket'' of sharpness in the center of the image (~1.5 blur units) and corner softness upwards of 5 blur units. At ƒ/2.8, the image is more uniformly sharp, but it isn't until ƒ/5.6 that I would say the lens is completely sharp from corner to corner. An important clarification on this point: between ƒ/2.8-ƒ/5.6, I would say it is hard to point to a real-world example that shows off any uneven areas of focus. After all, we are looking at variances under one blur unit. But for applications where even image sharpness is critical, stopping down to ƒ/8 would be a must with this lens.
"

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1231/cat/12

3. I can adjust the lens on D700 especially at f/1.4 - on D90 I can't do it or I have to bring my camera to Nikon and they will adjust - but there is no garantee that it will be sharp at other f-numbers.
4. Due to crop factor I have to use exposure time with 50mm lens on a DX camera no longer than 1/50 while on FX I can use the same lens with exposures untill 1/30 and still get images without "blurred pictures" because of hands movement.
 
go and take some photos - stop reading that very wrong review, and start to think about things a little. What is a blur unit anyway :shrug:
 
StingerNikon said:
It looks quite strange for me why some authors here are so offensive and instead be constructive and show some evidence or do their own test have tried to push their ideas without any logic.
Click to expand...

Logic I'm afraid is an element that you seem to be utterly void of.

I find it strange that you regard 'slrgear' as impenetrable fact and refuse to accept that your technique could be at fault.

Many have tried to be constructive for your benefit but instead, you take offence defence.

Your attitude and conduct is nothing short of ignorant and highly complacent.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
I find it strange that you regard 'slrgear' as impenetrable fact and refuse to accept that your technique could be at fault.
Click to expand...

I owned Nikon AF-S 18-55, Nikon AF-S 55-200, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Nikon 50mm f/1.8, Nikon 50mm D, Nikon 50mm G, Nikon 85mm f/1.8, nikon 24-70 f/2.8

and for each of these models I saw that my personal experience in terms of lens sharpeness is the same as performance of tests made by "slrgear" for these lences. Just try to check 70-300 VR and you can see it is not sharp according to their test on 300mm. I don't think a lot of people here would agree this lens it is as sharp on 300mm as on 200mm. But this is another story.:lol:

That is why I do trust their way to meashure lenses sharpeness.
In addition to this you can easily see their detailed photos with explanations of what and how they did it.
 
You remain utterly obsessed with sharpness at the expense of every other aspect of lens performance. That's why people are answering you the way they are. You also seem obsessed with shooting everything at f1.4 - that landscape shot being an example. No need for it and it shows a lack of understanding and technique, again.

Frankly, any test that starts to refer to blur units switches me off. It tells us nothing about how a lens renders images in real life.

Oh, and a shutter speed of 1/30s will not magically make subject motion vanish on FF. If you're shooting people at that shutter speed you're asking for trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top