We love our manual focus Nikkor lenses!

[bigpond]

Here's a brief comparison of the old AIS 50mm f1.2 against the new aspherical AFS 50mm f1.8G lens. Apertures compared are f2 and f2.8. D800 on tripod and flash used. Interest in the sharpness at the centre only.

This is the overall scene:

First is the shot from the AIS 50/1.2 at f2 (100% crop of the centre):

Next, the AFS 50/1.8 at f2 (think it is not as good as the AIS, despite the use of an aspherical lens):

Now, the AIS 50/1.2 at f2.8:

Then, the AFS 50/1.8 at f2.8 (a draw?):

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Here's a brief comparison of the old AIS 50mm f1.2 against the new aspherical AFS 50mm f1.8G lens. Apertures compared are f2 and f2.8. D800 on tripod and flash used. Interest in the sharpness at the centre only.

This is the overall scene:

First is the shot from the AIS 50/1.2 at f2 (100% crop of the centre):

Next, the AFS 50/1.8 at f2 (think it is not as good as the AIS, despite the use of an aspherical lens):

Now, the AIS 50/1.2 at f2.8:

Then, the AFS 50/1.8 at f2.8 (a draw?):

The f/2 scene with AFS 50mm f/1.8G - the sharpest point appears to be the branch towards the front 2/3 way to the right. The same observation appears to apply to the f/2.8 shot. Looking at both AFS 50mm f/1.8G shots, and judging from the depth-of-field, there appear to be front focus. If you intend to do critical examination, the conventional wisdom is to use live view and ensure the point of comparison is the point of critical focus.

This round of comparison appears to be not a fair comparison. Please help us and redo.

 

[cichlid]

I also think that there is something not right about the comparision...

 

[JacePhoto]

Hi everyone, I am looking for a telephone (at least 300 mm and above). Does anyone has any experience to share?

Thanks!

 

[cichlid]

Hi everyone, I am looking for a telephone (at least 300 mm and above). Does anyone has any experience to share?

Thanks!

Ovaltinemilo has one, a 400mm i think, you can PM him.

 

[bigpond]

I also think that there is something not right about the comparision...

Thanks very much both for your comments. I have examined other parts of the photo to ascertain that there was no big focusing error. It appears to me that the AFS 50/1.8G still has quite a lot of spherical aberration at f2 despite the use of an aspherical element. It is mostly gone by f2.8. Of course, wide open, the f1.2 is even softer (as to be expected), but that's mostly gone by about f2.

On the whole, I don't think my results are that surprising, although the 36MP sensor will tend to exagerate the flaws. Photozone test results of the AFS 50/1.8 centre sharpness (with lack of contrast wide open), and increasing sharpness till f4, is roughly consistent with my own findings.

Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

I'll post further tests just to be sure that I did not make a mistake

 

[JacePhoto]

Ovaltinemilo has one, a 400mm i think, you can PM him.

Thanks

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Hi everyone, I am looking for a telephone (at least 300 mm and above). Does anyone has any experience to share?

Thanks!

I have many telephones. Nokia, Samsung, HTC, which one is 300mm, not sure le.

Surely you meant telephoto. Just sold my Tokina 400mm.

 

[Fudgecakes]

photos from the shifus in this thread have poisoned me. i'm curious to know if there is any place that you can still get such lenses? i would like to try out MF photography with fast MF lenses too =D i tried calling TK and SLRR but they said they dont carry such lenses

 

[azzurri]

photos from the shifus in this thread have poisoned me. i'm curious to know if there is any place that you can still get such lenses? i would like to try out MF photography with fast MF lenses too =D i tried calling TK and SLRR but they said they dont carry such lenses

either try b&s or the secondhand shops in the peninsula area. good luck!

 

[azzurri]

bumping up the MF thread...sharing another of my cat shot...

what lens did you shoot with? love the dreamy feel!

 

[cichlid]

what lens did you shoot with? love the dreamy feel!

Thanks, it's the 50mm f1.2, wide open.

 

[bigpond]

Further to my 50mm lens tests, just out of curiosity, here's some other comparison shots for those interested. Shot newspapers laid on the floor, at an angle. Live view manual focus -- focus point is on the word "local".

I happened to have an old Ai 50/1.8 lens and included this in the test as well. From what I can see, they are all pretty sharp in the centre when in focus. However, the older lenses seem to have a nicer transition from the point of focus to the surrounding areas, especially at f2. Either I have a dud AFS 50/1.8 (which incidentally has served me well so far), or the newer design is really not much of an improvement over the older one.

All sample shown below are 100% crops. As expected, the 50/1.2 is just brilliant. I really like the AFS 501.8G so am kinda disappointed by these simple test results. Wonder why that is so.

1. AFS 50/1.8G lens at f2

2. AFS 50/1.8G at f2.8

3. AIS 50/1.2 at f2

4. AIS 50/1.2 at f2.8

 

[bigpond]

5. Ai 50/1.8 at f2

6. Ai 50/1.8 at f2.8

 

[homan]

A good testing.Thanks for Bigpond sharing for us. :thumbsup:
Now I have full confidene for my AI and AIS lens. :bsmilie:

 

[diediealsomustdive]

This round of comparison looks valid - with the focus point clearly indicated, we can now concentrate on the pictures. The AFS 50/1.8 appear to have more spherical aberation (if my view is correct, or is it coma?) wide open, and contrast is still a tad low at f/2.8 when compared with both lenses (1.2 and Ai 1.8). My experience with my AFS50/1.4 also showed that at wider apertures the contrast was too low for my liking. But I had committed to that lens already, and selling it would involved significant loss - and for better for worse I bought a MIJ AFD 50/1.4 while I had the chance. Have not made critical comparison yet.

Was to why older lenses could perform better, perhaps it is the cost factor. I am sure to make the f/1.8 lenses some corners are cut. The f/1.2 lenses are flag bearers - spare no expense, sell them high.

But then the spherical aberation may be nice if used as portrait lens?

Thanks for sharing.

 

[bigpond]

This round of comparison looks valid - with the focus point clearly indicated, we can now concentrate on the pictures. The AFS 50/1.8 appear to have more spherical aberation (if my view is correct, or is it coma?) wide open, and contrast is still a tad low at f/2.8 when compared with both lenses (1.2 and Ai 1.8). My experience with my AFS50/1.4 also showed that at wider apertures the contrast was too low for my liking. But I had committed to that lens already, and selling it would involved significant loss - and for better for worse I bought a MIJ AFD 50/1.4 while I had the chance. Have not made critical comparison yet.

Was to why older lenses could perform better, perhaps it is the cost factor. I am sure to make the f/1.8 lenses some corners are cut. The f/1.2 lenses are flag bearers - spare no expense, sell them high.

But then the spherical aberation may be nice if used as portrait lens?

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks guys for your comments I've been using the 50/1.8G mostly on the D90 but usually at moderate apertures. I guess the D800 reveals its deficiencies a bit more at large apertures. I bought the AFS 50/1.8G the moment it came out because of the aspherical lens element, thinking that it would give the sort of contrasty images wide open, just like the modern Leica asphericals. But I was wrong -- not all asphericals are the same. There must be a reason why the Leica 50 Summicron ASPH costs like 10x more than the Nikkor

Guess you get what you pay for. Nikon sells its 50/1.8 aspherical for $300 simply because they have not really invested the time and resources to correct for all the optical aberrations that can be corrected for. But it makes me wonder why Nikkor added the aspherical lens if it does nothing to improve contrast wide open? Sheer BS marketing?

Likewise, images from the new AFS 28/1.8G lens showed problems that I thought should have been corrected by now (unfortunately I don't have this lens to try out). While it looks sharp wide open, there are lots of other issues like lack of contrast, CA, esp longitudinal CA, etc. Is this partly due to the fact that it is MIC (like the 50/1.8G)? I'm not sure, cos I have the 105G micro -- also MIC -- and I have no issues with that lens. But whatever it is, I really dislike the light, plasticky feel of these newer Nikkors...

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Thanks guys for your comments I've been using the 50/1.8G mostly on the D90 but usually at moderate apertures. I guess the D800 reveals its deficiencies a bit more at large apertures. I bought the AFS 50/1.8G the moment it came out because of the aspherical lens element, thinking that it would give the sort of contrasty images wide open, just like the modern Leica asphericals. But I was wrong -- not all asphericals are the same. There must be a reason why the Leica 50 Summicron ASPH costs like 10x more than the Nikkor

Guess you get what you pay for. Nikon sells its 50/1.8 aspherical for $300 simply because they have not really invested the time and resources to correct for all the optical aberrations that can be corrected for. But it makes me wonder why Nikkor added the aspherical lens if it does nothing to improve contrast wide open? Sheer BS marketing?

Likewise, images from the new AFS 28/1.8G lens showed problems that I thought should have been corrected by now (unfortunately I don't have this lens to try out). While it looks sharp wide open, there are lots of other issues like lack of contrast, CA, esp longitudinal CA, etc. Is this partly due to the fact that it is MIC (like the 50/1.8G)? I'm not sure, cos I have the 105G micro -- also MIC -- and I have no issues with that lens. But whatever it is, I really dislike the light, plasticky feel of these newer Nikkors...

OT liao. In the past aspherical elements were manually ground to shape, so the earlier lenses with asph elements are exceptionally sharp and do not suffer from aberrations the way normal spherical surfaced elements do. Then in 1991 Nikon introduced the AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 with an aspherical element and the performance was outstanding, for its price. Kit lens with aspherical element? 50mm with aspherical element, both selling at a $300 or so? It seems the aspherical element is molded. So in introducing aspherical element to do something, a compromise has to be made. IIRC the element is a high density plastic - I may be wrong. I have not found anything on the AFS50/1.8G to suggest this. But for $300, a mass production method has to be found. The Leica is definitely manually or CNC ground. Very expensive.

Don't think it is sheer BS marketing. The AFS50/1.8G from what I have read is quite outstanding, just not up to the expectation of the word "aspherical". The 105G micro is a spare no expense lens, so cannot be compared in the same way. It is a statement lens - along with 35/1.4, 85/1.4 etc. Don't think MIC has anything to do with it (although my 105G micro is MIJ).

 

[rain5533]

OT liao. In the past aspherical elements were manually ground to shape, so the earlier lenses with asph elements are exceptionally sharp and do not suffer from aberrations the way normal spherical surfaced elements do. Then in 1991 Nikon introduced the AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 with an aspherical element and the performance was outstanding, for its price. Kit lens with aspherical element? 50mm with aspherical element, both selling at a $300 or so? It seems the aspherical element is molded. So in introducing aspherical element to do something, a compromise has to be made. IIRC the element is a high density plastic - I may be wrong. I have not found anything on the AFS50/1.8G to suggest this. But for $300, a mass production method has to be found. The Leica is definitely manually or CNC ground. Very expensive.

Don't think it is sheer BS marketing. The AFS50/1.8G from what I have read is quite outstanding, just not up to the expectation of the word "aspherical". The 105G micro is a spare no expense lens, so cannot be compared in the same way. It is a statement lens - along with 35/1.4, 85/1.4 etc. Don't think MIC has anything to do with it (although my 105G micro is MIJ).

What body are you using the 50mm f1.8G isn't outstanding performance to compare others?

If mount on DX yes, if used on FX still best than others.. Good enough sharp and better CA control in wide open.

 

[Zichar]

Would distance matter for the test? Remember reading some perform better at infinity or close-up than others