Nikon 50 1.4 VS 50 1.8. TEST, hope can help fellow clubsnappers!
- Thread starter kenbellston
- Start date
- Status
he no mention about d3 n d300;
any way, price has almost always been a factor... at least 4me
it's good that you have no price factor in the equation
any way, price has almost always been a factor... at least 4me
it's good that you have no price factor in the equation
Ansel
Senior Member
I believe our beloved KRW already did tests on some of the above lenses and guess what?....
OK I won't spoil the fun of finding it out yourself.;p
kenbellston
New Member
[
i know Ken Rockwell's 50mm test.... i find his works and test fascinating when i first come to Nikon from Konica... but after a while, i feel myself dont quite believe in him... firstly, i dont really like his attitude of saying the 18-200 is best lens...
and i really dont believe his test on the 70-200 VS other lenses like 70-300. i have done the same test too, but the result is different... very difference from his..
so yeah, probably, its better to find it out myself, or yourself... its time consuming, but its quite satisfying... especially when u realize yourself have made the right choice:bsmilie:
i know Ken Rockwell's 50mm test.... i find his works and test fascinating when i first come to Nikon from Konica... but after a while, i feel myself dont quite believe in him... firstly, i dont really like his attitude of saying the 18-200 is best lens...
and i really dont believe his test on the 70-200 VS other lenses like 70-300. i have done the same test too, but the result is different... very difference from his..
so yeah, probably, its better to find it out myself, or yourself... its time consuming, but its quite satisfying... especially when u realize yourself have made the right choice:bsmilie:
I have read the Carl Zeiss ZF review from Ken and I find his 'discovery' subjective and bias. I have done several test shots of my own and showed them to friends and some close clients (I have the Nikon 50mm f1.4 AI-S, Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-D and the Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZF). Almost all of them love the results from the Carl Zeiss especially the skin tones colors, contrast and gentle sharpness.
Once you reach certain stage (or age) in photography, price is no longer a factor. I just save up enough money and go for the best I can afford. Life is too short for second best.... well for F mount lenses at least. That's why I give-up all other 3rd party lenses such as Tokina, Sigma and Tamron. They are a waste of my time, energy and money (I have owned several F mount 3rd party lenses throughout my 20+ years in photography).
By the way, I do admit the fact that Carl Zeiss ZF series ARE third party F mount lenses, but their image and build quality exceed many of my 'prized' Nikon prime lenses, including the 58mm NOCT.
Right now at this stage in life, I just want to enjoy the photo-taking process and strive for the best 'straight-out-of-camera' image quality. I won't even consider post-processing my images in Adobe Photoshop anymore.
Ansel
Senior Member
Haha...I'm not really a fan or KRW either, but I feel sometimes he makes me think hard about certain pre-conceived ideas. And in his un-orthodox ways, he has done some good for the community. I have to admit that I agree with him on many occasions, especially with things to do with pragmatic photography vs theoretical idealism.
Anyway, sorry for the OT. :embrass:
Your "Buy the best and forget about the rest" maxim is good. :thumbsup: I try to subscribe to this too. Nevertheless, price is a factor of consideration for most people. But in discussions where we are interested to look for the best image quality, we often have to put price aside.
Can you tell me which are the lenses better than your NOCT? :bigeyes:
I suppose Nikon shortened it from "Nocturnal".
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/55mmnotcnikkor.htm
Sorry for OT.
I'm not sure if i'm being OT here, but i'm seriously considering btw the Nikon 50 1.4 vis-a-vis 85 1.8.
might not be a fair comparison, but can someone enlighten me on the differences??
TKS alot!!
for a start, the diffrence in focal lenght...
be it on fx or dx...
kenbellston
New Member
thanks for you support guys... its my hobby and i really enjoy doing such tests....
im thinking of doing a tests on ZF50 1.4 too, but i dont have one yet.... i dont really like to use MF as its really eye straining.... and the "hit" rate isnt really high for me... maybe only half of the photos on focus... its probably because i started off photography with AF lenses, and no used to MF ones. its fun to play once in a while, but not nice to use in serious shooting session, very troublesome...
haha, i dont have the noct 1.2 either, its like 5k??? 5k for a 50mm prime, it is just not accpetable to me... at the end of the day, im just a hobbyist, not a prof.
im thinking of doing a tests on ZF50 1.4 too, but i dont have one yet.... i dont really like to use MF as its really eye straining.... and the "hit" rate isnt really high for me... maybe only half of the photos on focus... its probably because i started off photography with AF lenses, and no used to MF ones. its fun to play once in a while, but not nice to use in serious shooting session, very troublesome...
haha, i dont have the noct 1.2 either, its like 5k??? 5k for a 50mm prime, it is just not accpetable to me... at the end of the day, im just a hobbyist, not a prof.
it is nice to see a comparison between these 2 50mm lenses. besides image quality i believe the construction/glass quality also plays a part in the price difference.
it is pretty obvious, at least for me that the 1.4 is a far better lens than the 1.8. the question is whether we want to pay about 3x more for that difference.
it is pretty obvious, at least for me that the 1.4 is a far better lens than the 1.8. the question is whether we want to pay about 3x more for that difference.
That's why you belong to the Generation Y of photographers. I started my photography career with a mechanically-operated Shanghai TLR, then a Rolleicord TLR, therefore manual focus is easier and faster than AF to me. Also, I find AF distracting if I need to work fast.
The Makro-Planar T* 2/50mm ZF. I understand that NOCT is a much faster lens but the Makro-Planar's colors, contrast and resolution is better. Images shot with the Carl Zeiss is 'cleaner' too. Nikon optics tend to produce an 'burnt' look.
For those who have ever shot a image (preferably portrait) with a Leica and compares it with the same image shot from a Nikon, you will understand what I meant by 'burnt'.
thanks
You are welcome!
Anyway, I forgot to mention that NOCT has lesser corner distortion than Makro-Planar at maximum aperture. This as expected as this lens is known for this unique characteristic.
- Status
Similar threads
