The almighty 50mm Nikkor.... What?

Published by: rose 2009-01-07

I keep hearing about this 50 mm lens...

I don't understand. You can't zoom?

What's the use of a lense with a fixed zoom. I've always needed to tweak the frame of a pic a bit wit a slight zoom in or out...

Regardless, what makes the 50mm lens good?

It's a nice sharp lens that gives you effortless depth of field, and it's inexpensive. ($100)

Yes they do - 50mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4.
Don't forget the $1600 50mm f/1.2 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082415canon50f12lens.asp)

Wow. Sounds awsome.

Can anyone recomend the best, cheap, zoom lense?
If you are shooting with a Nikon body look for a Nikkor 70-210 F4 AF.

This lens is commonly found for under $150 used on ebay. It is every bit as sharp as my 80-200 2.8 Nikkor and probably weighs less than half as much.

I'm a shallow DOF junkie so I don't regret getting the 2.8 but I should have kept the F4 as well.

LWW

They actually have a 50mm f/1!
M.

:lol: ^

Love my 50, it's on par with the 180 f2.8 Nikkor I have and it's known to be one of the finest Nikkors ever made.

There's a 50mm f/0.95 for vintage Canon rangefinders.

The Norita 6x6 SLR comes with an awesome Noritar 80mm f/2 (fast for medium format).

And if you can find a C-Mount or SC-Mount adaptor for your SLR there are many many f/1, f/1.1 and f/1.2 lenses for between $100 and $800. Zoom lenses with those specs and prices too! :thumbup:

I have a wide open example.. this is expired slide film, why the color's all funky..

personally, I don't think the 1.8 is all that bad..
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2872882173_fe66682116_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/2872882173/)

There's a 50mm f/0.95 for vintage Canon rangefinders.

The Norita 6x6 SLR comes with an awesome Noritar 80mm f/2 (fast for medium format).

fixed lens give better optical clarity for a few reasons.
1. there is no zoom element. thus there is much much less glass in the lens.
2. less glass means less glass light barriers. Every time light passes between barriers (IE glass and air) it will get slightly distorted.

All in all, less glass = much much better optical clarity. my 50mm and 28 mm primes blow the frak out of my 80 - 200 any day of the week. period

Does Canon have an equivilant?

Everybody has an equivalent. Before zoom lenses became popular the kit lens for 35mm SLRs was a 50mm lens around f/2.

The most popular nikkor is the 50mm f/1.8, because at around $100 it's less then a third of the cost of the f/1.4. Here's a link to it (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=247091&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) at B&H. As for reviews, well this one (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018af.htm) by Ken Rockwell is good.

Look Out Point - Velocity Forums::
Nikkor AF50mm f1.8 D -Tokina 16mm-50mm f2.8. 308Drag. View Member Profile. May 14 2007, 05:42 AM blessed by our Almighty!!! NelsonChow. View Member Profile
http://www.velocity-media.net/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=357096HOME

As quoted from a website he linked: Photodo.com (http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/nikkor.shtml) rates no other Nikon lens as sharper.

The bokeh on it is really nice too.

Not DIRECTLY, but in general, a fast lens stopped down to, say, f/4 will be sharper than an f/4 lens wide open.

Well for a given definition of good anyway. Lets just say you can shoot at f/1.8. The sharpness is a no go for anything that requires good detail or high contrast up until around f/2.8 though :(

The 50mm f/1.8 is crap wide open. There's no other way to describe it, and in reality you can't expect much else given it's price. It's also the reason the 50mm f/1.4 is so popular. At f/2 it's already a tac sharp lens.

Does Canon have an equivilant?

Search results: canon 50mm::
dslr video) Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G lens A 50mm f1.4 lens thatll auto from work yesterday with an almighty craving for sausage, eggs, beans,
http://www.irishblogs.ie/search/canon 50mm/HOME

Foreign Dispatches: Technology::
almost as wonderful as Steve Almighty Jobs promised it would be. Tags: 18-200mm, Lenses, Nikkor, Nikon, Photography, Technology, Vibration Reduction
http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/technology/page/2/HOME

Wow. Sounds awsome.

Can anyone recomend the best, cheap, zoom lense?

What's the use of a lense with a fixed zoom.

Before the 1990's almost all zoom lenses sucked. Zoom lenses have gotten significantly better since then, but prime lenses still are almost always faster, cheaper, and have better image quality (at least in labratory testing, real world experience may vary).

What's the use of a lense with a fixed zoom. I've always needed to tweak the frame of a pic a bit wit a slight zoom in or out...

You're pretty new to this whole photography thing, aren't you? :lol:

I'll give you 2 words:

- CHEAP (and)
- QUALITY (as in results).

Not DIRECTLY, but in general, a fast lens stopped down to, say, f/4 will be sharper than an f/4 lens wide open.

Indeed, it's probably worth mentioning that most (all?) lenses perform at their best a couple of stops shy of wide open. It's pretty rare to shoot at the widest aperture with a prime of this length, as the depth of field tends to be shallower than your subject, so a 50mm f1.8 prime stopped to about f4 is about perfect for a portrait of a person where you want nice background bokeh, but the whole face in focus from nose to back of head.

Compare that with a 28-70mm zoom (at 50mm) which has a maximum aperture of f4.5ish, your best performance will be at about f11, resulting in a longer exposure, less background bokeh and probably not as great an image.

Ok, so that's a biassed example, but the majority of my shots are <15ft to the subject distance, candid portrait type shots taken at about f2.8-f4. :lol: For this kind of thing, a nice cheap prime is the king.

Rob

Wow. Sounds awsome.

Can anyone recomend the best, cheap, zoom lense?

http://reefphoto.com/images/2137.jpg + http://bp2.blogger.com/_o_GriQJCqjE/Ri4TdqzsCyI/AAAAAAAAAlE/gM7j0BV2nJU/s400/nosweat1.jpg

Glad I found this thread. How do you think this lens would be to shoot something like gymnastics? I'm not too sure how close I will be able to get. There are a lot of good reviews on this lens for the price. I may have to put off the AF-S DX 55-200mm 4.0-5.6G ED I was looking at and get this now.
Unless you can go anywhere in the venue, the 50 would not serve you well. If you are looking for really wide shots then it will work. But for close up action you have to be close up.

Fast prime lenses are also great for low-light photography. Since you can open them up to 1.8 (or 1.4, if you have the 1.4), you can use a faster shutter speed than you could if you were using a zoom where the largest aperture at 50mm is f/4 or something like that. I got my 50mm 1.8 Nikkor from KEH for $109 (along with a bunch of other stuff). I use it more than any of my other lenses.

Just picked up this lens as well and have been quite impressed with it.

Here's my first shot with it

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b231/trackmagic/20081001-20081001-DSC_0132.jpg

It is very good in low light and, no I dont have any examples handy. If you want to shoot cityscapes at night the nifty 50 is nice.

It is very good in low light and, no I dont have any examples handy. If you want to shoot cityscapes at night the nifty 50 is nice.
Just what i needed to know...Thanks!

Hm. So, when I see an apature value on a lense, it indicates it's maximum ap?

Well i foundmyself a Nifty Fifty yesterday and heres my first shot. I really like this lens. I think its perfect for a Greenhorn such as myself...Sure am glad i brought this thread back from 2006...:lol:
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa129/AtlPikMan/Nikon%20D80/DSC_0123_01.jpg

Don't forget the $1600 50mm f/1.2 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082415canon50f12lens.asp)Oh yeah!

They actually have a 50mm f/1!Yeah, but they don't make 'em anymore. Per the reviews I heard it wasn't a stellar performer.

Well I will agree that the 1.8 isn't real great wide open, but when a picture is going to be soft wide open, or just black using a f/3.5 kit lens or slower, a soft but mostly usable photo is a pretty good result for a <$100 lens. Now I will also vouch for the fact that the 50mm 1.4, is very sharp at f/2, and well worth the price difference. I have used the 1.8 and I own the 1.4(canon, but the Nikon's are similar, actually the Nikon 1.8 is better than the canon, and closer the the canon 1.4) I really want to use the Sigma 1.4, whitch according to lab tests kicks the ass of any 1.8 or 1.4 50mm and stands up to the canon 1.2!.

You can check out the reviews including lab and real world testing of the canon and nikon 1.8 and 1.4, and the sigma 1.4 as well at www.dpreview.com
Well for a given definition of good anyway. Lets just say you can shoot at f/1.8. The sharpness is a no go for anything that requires good detail or high contrast up until around f/2.8 though :(

The 50mm f/1.8 is crap wide open. There's no other way to describe it, and in reality you can't expect much else given it's price. It's also the reason the 50mm f/1.4 is so popular. At f/2 it's already a tac sharp lens.

Yup! And if you see 2 on a zoom, the large one is for small focal length, and the small one (large number) is for the telephoto end.

M.

how much does the popular nikkor one cost? Does anyone have a link to a review of it or something?

Thanks.

In my opinion, Prime lenses blow away zoom lenses any day of the week..Especially the 50mm. Just because you cannot zoom in does not make a prime lens less essential in your bag..it just means you have to know where and when to move closer or further away from your object. Prime lenses tend to be a lot more sharper than a zoom lens...The 50mm especially...wheather you get the 1.8 or 1.4, it doesn't matter, either are very sharp because you are able to stop down that low, making it a SUPER FAST lens. The faster the lens, the sharper the image, correct?

Wrong.
Max. aperture does not determine sharpness

your zoom is moving closer to the subject :)

i love mine, the optical quality will blow away any other lens you have too ;)

I hear where you're coming from, but you also have to take into consideration the needs and knowledge of the person. This person doesn't even know the difference between a prime and a zoom, much less the differences between a $115 lens and a $400 lens.

Very true. The comment came from the fact there are now three threads on the front page of this forum complaining about soft images. And for those that expect tac sharp images wide open of a $120 lens should go shopping else where. The images are quite usable, and the centre is actually very sharp. Its the edges which sucks quite horribly.

I should have just worded it differently yes but in essence if sharp low light images are on the agenda then this lens isn't anywhere near as well suited as a f/1.4 stopped down to f/1.8 or f/2. Just playing devils advocate here.

So yes it's useful, just don't complain about soft images and low contrast if you're going to shoot wide open. I just pointed mine at the flyscreen. The left at f/2.8 the right at f/1.8. Even that single stop makes a world of difference especially on the contrast part. (100% crop centre middle/lower part of the frame)
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a241/Garbz01/50sharp.jpg

I'm just buying the Canon equivalent - $80 brand new. Not the best of lenses, but still capable of very good results. In my Canon FD days my favourite lenses were a 24mm prime, 35mm ditto, 50mm ditto, and 135mm ditto. I loved my Sigma 500mm reflex lens and got some superb hand-held wildlife shots with it, even though it was years before image stabilisation was thought of. I also used and loved a Tamron SP 70-210 zoom. I bought the camera (an A1) with Canon's 35-70 zoom, but never liked it and rarely used it.

I started my photography career as an early teenager with an old Zeiss Contina viewfinder camera. Totally manual everything, including focus. Had a great zoom feature though, which was - guess what - my feet. I got many superb pictures with that camera. Sadly it was butchered by a "service shop" when I took it in for a small adjustment. My next was a Voigtlander Vito CLR, a superb camera with an even better lens. I still have that, but the Minox 35mm I bought and adored was later stolen from me.

See a pattern? All these cameras had "prime" lenses. It wasn't until I got my Canon A1 that I first experienced a zoom lens. Although they make great toys I have to say I find a zoom distracting, and when I'm using a camera with no zoom it forces me to look more carefully and be more creative. I suspect that once my 50mm arrives it'll stay on my camera most of the time, even though I have two zoom lenses regarded as some of the best of their type.

Just how good is the 50mm in Low Light? I mean how good is it for night shots, anyone got examples?

A friend's basement bar in low light.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1171/1393710599_723fe3522f.jpg

Does Canon have an equivilant?Yes they do - 50mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4.

http://reefphoto.com/images/2137.jpg + http://bp2.blogger.com/_o_GriQJCqjE/Ri4TdqzsCyI/AAAAAAAAAlE/gM7j0BV2nJU/s400/nosweat1.jpg

I think we need a smiley that represents this (little smiley pulls out big zoom lens other smiley pulls out tiny lens with big 50mm on the side and starts walking while the other smiley falls flat on it's face.)

That's what feet are for.

The 50mm f/1.8 has better optics than any other lens under $1000, is super light-weight and very fast. There's nothing bad about it.

That's what feet are for.

Thats what I was going to say!! :lol:

I love my 50mm Nikkor! It is one of the most often used lenses in my bag.

The 50mm f/1.8 is crap wide open.

I hear where you're coming from, but you also have to take into consideration the needs and knowledge of the person. This person doesn't even know the difference between a prime and a zoom, much less the differences between a $115 lens and a $400 lens.

Unless you are doing mission critical shooting, the "thrifty-fifty" is more than up to showing up whatever 99% of new photographers have in their bag (ie: 70-300s or any other kit and low quality lenses).

...and it's not that terrible wide-open:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1171/1393710599_723fe3522f.jpg

No it wont AF but, I have heard that people manually focus it till they see the in focus dot appear in the view finder. Not having a D40 I cant tell you for sure.

http://reefphoto.com/images/2137.jpg + http://bp2.blogger.com/_o_GriQJCqjE/Ri4TdqzsCyI/AAAAAAAAAlE/gM7j0BV2nJU/s400/nosweat1.jpg
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Freakin' priceless!

Just how good is the 50mm in Low Light? I mean how good is it for night shots, anyone got examples?

Unless you can go anywhere in the venue, the 50 would not serve you well. If you are looking for really wide shots then it will work. But for close up action you have to be close up.

Thanks Joves. That's what I was thinking. I don't think I'd be able to get close to the any of the aperatus's. I might get the lens anyways, since it seems to be a great lens for the price. Am I correct in saying that the AF won't work on this? I have been looking all over and found some compatability charts, but it seems the primes aren't on there. It's not too big of a deal if it doesn't AF, just want to know.

Thanks

My "Canon equivelent" was only $70. Outstanding! If only it wasn't cropped on my camera body so it was easier to use indoors. So light . . . so good.

As far as f/1's go, the only one I know of is the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1. Inexpensive? Yeah, at $3,895.00 on Adorama, it's a bargain. :) And it's for rangefinder cameras, not slr's.