which 50mm lens to buy (Page 2): The Nikon 50 1.8 is very good. Don't see any reason to spend a lot of money. Interesting I am helping my daughter with a cook book for families with...

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

The Nikon 50 1.8 is very good. Don't see any reason to spend a lot of money.
Interesting I am helping my daughter with a cook book for families with autistic children last night. I was trying to get great booked with Sony a7s and the zeiss 55mm. Hadn't used a 50mm in a while and found myself struggling to get the framing I wanted. The amazing bokeh on this lens forced me to keep refocusing etc. A short soon like the 24 70 would have been better. Only have the kit 28 70. This goes back to 35mm being ideal and said above for just about everything. Don't have a Sony 35mm. Just thinking out loud.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

ollie wrote:

My main camera is a Nikon D800. I'm looking to ad... (show quote)

I'd suggest the 50mm f/1.4. It's a great lens and reasonably priced. The little difference the f/1.2 makes over the f/1.4 can easily be compensated, if necessary, with a little ISO adjustment.
--Bob

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

ollie wrote:

My main camera is a Nikon D800. I'm looking to ad... (show quote)

Back when I used film, I had two of the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S lenses. They were fine, but my acquisition of a 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and a 35mm f/2 and a 105mm f/2.5 and a 135mm f/2.8 saw me using neither of the 50mm lenses for anything.

The 55 is a classic that I still use for a bit of everything. It's not fast on FX, but it is sharp as a tack at f/5.6 to f/8. It adapts well to Micro Four-Thirds, where it's the equivalent of a 110mm f/2.8 with a plain adapter, or 78mm f/2 with a SpeedBooster, or 70mm f/1.8 with a SpeedBooster XL.

I'd probably get a 50mm f/1.8 these days, and put the savings elsewhere. Most of my work is done with zooms, so the only primes I'd use on full frame would be a 35 and an 85.

bdo Loc: Colorado

ollie wrote:

My main camera is a Nikon D800. I'm looking to ad... (show quote)

I recommend the older 50mm f/1.4D AF (not AF-S). I believe your D800 has the focus motor in the camera body, which this lens requires.

I bought a used one from KEH in 2013 for about $250, and have been very satisfied with the performance. I can't say anything about the bokeh, because I don't pay much attention to that. (This lens is still available new for $334 at B&H.)

The latest version (50mm f/1.4 G AF-S) will run you about twice the cost ($446 new at B&H), with no significant improvement in picture quality. You lose the manual aperture control, and the shutter is 9-blade instead of 7-blade. You gain the AF-S focus set-up, which may be faster than the AF.

The 50mm f/1.8 is available in the G version (AF-S, around $220 new at B&H) and the D version (AF, around $132 new at B&H).

You didn't mention cost as a factor, so you might prefer the 50mm f/1.4 D AF new rather than used.

Your call...

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I use the 50mm f/1.4G on my D800e and have not found any reason to need more. Excellent lens.The half stop more light from the f/1.2 would most likely be undetectable but I can't speak for the booked differences.

Bull-Dozer Loc: Vermont

I am a new forum member but have been doing production photography for 40+ years. I hope this is the place to send this.

I recently purchased a D800 for production work. It arrived with a 50mm F1.4 (which I ordered). I immediately ran into problems with the RAW images having red and blue banding on the text I am shooting (it is used to shoot historic newspapers.. the red and blue banding is likely lateral chromatic aberration caused by poor lens design). I switched to the old standard F1.8 and the images got sharper as did the banding but never went away.

This is a problem which requires me to shoot in the .tif mode where the camera fixes the imperfections of the lens but made huge files that were 111 meg each which are more of a problem to manage.

I have multiple Canon cameras with 50 mm lens and have never had this problem. Why are modern Nikon lens doing this. I hear the very expensive lens are the worst for this defect.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Bull-Dozer wrote:

I am a new forum member but have been doing produc... (show quote)

For what it's worth, try using raw mode and batch convert the images in Lightroom or some non-Nikon post-photography editing solution. I'd bet it's not a lens problem, but something in the algorithm that the camera is using to process JPEGs from the raw data.

Also vary the size (compression ratio or quality setting) of the JPEG files and try again.

Oh, and if you're photographing flat art, use f/4 or f/5.6 on that lens. Use manual focus, perhaps with autofocus assist.

mikeysaling Loc: essex uk

A really good lens is the Voigtlander manual 58 1.4 - if you can cope with manual - this is a great lens

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

BebuLamar wrote:

Does Nikon make a 50mm f/1.2 with auto focus? I heard the 58mm f/1.4 has very good bokeh.

The 50mm f/1.2 is manual focus only and the 58mm f/1.4 is $1600

Bull-Dozer Loc: Vermont

burkphoto wrote:

For what it's worth, try using raw mode and batch convert the images in Lightroom or some non-Nikon post-photography editing solution. I'd bet it's not a lens problem, but something in the algorithm that the camera is using to process JPEGs from the raw data.

Also vary the size (compression ratio or quality setting) of the JPEG files and try again.

Oh, and if you're photographing flat art, use f/4 or f/5.6 on that lens. Use manual focus, perhaps with autofocus assist.

Not trying to grab this thread but I normally shoot at F/9-F/11 if I have enough light to get a reasonable depth of field while not dropping the shutter speed down to slow.

I have tried the Nikon Raw converter, and others which are about the same. This is production work and most things go through a automatic custom script with ImageMajic as the engine running it which has limited ability to cope with this defect(convert from .NEF to .tif and .jpg than feed to hosting). I have tried PS and others and always get the color banding on brightly illuminated subjects. This defect likely would be much less visible on normal landscape or portrait work other than a reduction in contrast caused by the less than perfect color correction of the lens.

It is interesting the in camera processing corrects this defect for the lens that is in the camera when shooting in the .tif or .jpg format (it knows the lens attached to the camera and automatically puts in a correction which some people may not be aware of)

MtnMan Loc: ID

ollie wrote:

My main camera is a Nikon D800. I'm looking to ad... (show quote)

I have the AF 1.8. About $125 new. No agonizing necessary. Outstanding image quality.

With the D800's awesome high ISO performance there is no need for a faster lens.

threedeers Loc: Northern Illinois

tradio wrote:

I have the Sigma 50 ART and I'm very happy with it. I think they are going for around $850

Just looked at a Sigma 50 and really like the build of it. Have read a few negative reviews about problems with focusing. Have you had any problems? Before I drop the big bucks would like to hear pluses and minuses about the lens.

BebuLamar

flip1948 wrote:

The 50mm f/1.2 is manual focus only and the 58mm f/1.4 is $1600

I know that and the speed is really not that important but the OP wanted good bokeh so I think he/she should prepare to pay for.

JPL

ollie wrote:

My main camera is a Nikon D800. I'm looking to ad... (show quote)

I have both the 50 mm f 1.8 G lens and and older 50 mm f 1.4 lens. I honestly think you would not be very pleased with a f1.2 lens because you can probably never or very seldom use it at f 1.2. The reason is that if you are using it at close distance at f 1.2 very little of the frame will be in focus. Even a face will only be partially in focus at that aperture and usual portrait distance. This is the same problem with the other 50 mm lenses, but if you stop down a bit to f2 or f2.8 you will usually have what you want in focus. But then again that is not f1.2 so you will hardly be using it at all. If you are shooting landscape and far distances it is a different story.

William Royer Loc: Kansas

I have the Nikon 50 1.8 and the 50 1.2 ais, as well as the Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro. Sold the Nikon 1.4 because I just didn't like the results at under 2.8, which is why I wanted the 1.4 to begin with. The 1.8 is superb if you want AF, and the difference from 1.4 is not meaningful with the low lit capabilities of the D800 nor with using varying DOF. The old ais 1.2 is a hell of a lot of fun to use for speciality applications on DOF, if you don't mind manual focus. And, the Zeiss is the 50mm most often on my D810 -- I love its rendering and close up capability, but again it's obviously Manual focus and 'only' f/2:0 -- although that works fine for me both in terms of low light and DOF management. Lastly, he latest version of Zeiss' 50mm f1.4 is reviewed as being a big step forward in IQ over the current version.
My $.02