Reading mode: Light Dark

which 50mm nikkor lens for a d200

Go to last post
You have not said what quality you want, whether you want AF, whether you will be pre testing for sensor induced CA and other sensor induced artefact's or whether f2 or faster is critical..

I am intrigued by claims of high contrast etc. for the f1.4. I have never seen a lens test or owned a 1.4 lens with high contrast at f1.4. Nikons full aperture MTF at http://www.nikonimaging.com confirm by recent DX lens standards the f1.4 is poor wide open and the f1.8 is not good at f1.8.

There are compromises with fast lenses. Examining Nikons full aperture MTF for the not optically brilliant 18-200 shows higher sharpness and implies better detail at around f5.6 than the new Zeiss 50 and 85 f1.4's in Nikon mount using the Zeiss f5.6 MTF.

In terms of "ultimate" optical quality the 17-55 at 50mm is likely to come out best, though it's maximum aperture is f2.8.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Usually skill in using equipment has more to do with good photography than the equipment itself.
 
I have both AF 50mm 1:1.8D and MF 50mm 1:1.8 AI-S, and it's hard to tell the difference between them, maybe the AF is a tiny little bit warmer, or not .... lol

I can recommend the f/1.8, great lens.
 
It is one of the sharpest lenses I own. A bit of a lens-snob myself, this lens helped change my perspective. At $60 used, it is so far ahead of its price point, it's worth having...EVEN if you have a 1.4.

Use the saved money for something else on your 'need to have' list.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
You have not said what quality you want, whether you want AF,
whether you will be pre testing for sensor induced CA and other
sensor induced artefact's or whether f2 or faster is critical..
I am intrigued by claims of high contrast etc. for the f1.4. I have
never seen a lens test or owned a 1.4 lens with high contrast at
f1.4. Nikons full aperture MTF at http://www.nikonimaging.com confirm by
recent DX lens standards the f1.4 is poor wide open and the f1.8 is
not good at f1.8.
There are compromises with fast lenses. Examining Nikons full
aperture MTF for the not optically brilliant 18-200 shows higher
sharpness and implies better detail at around f5.6 than the new
Zeiss 50 and 85 f1.4's in Nikon mount using the Zeiss f5.6 MTF.
In terms of "ultimate" optical quality the 17-55 at 50mm is likely
to come out best, though it's maximum aperture is f2.8.
Click to expand...
Hmmm I guess Zeiss makes bold statements about the highest resolving power of their lenses, I guess the have no clue what they are talking about. To bad they can’t steal technology from 18-200mm :P

In the mean time here is excellent read about MTF, what it is, how to read it and how to compare it.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

Leonard don’t forget when looking at the DX lenses that there is huge difference between the horizontal line, on non DX lenses we are just looking at first 12-13 mm, not the whole scale, so called “sweat spot”, now go back to the charts and compare it with other similar lenses, doesn’t look the best anymore ;)
 
There's something about manually focusing a lens that helps me frame better shots. Also, the AI-S lens is an amazing piece of glass for clarity. I think it's faster than most anybody would ever employ, but with that design came a great deal of clarity and contrast.

For most handy work, I'd go with the 50mm AF f/1.4. It's amazing how people like the f/1.8 so much more when most lens examples will show that the f/1.4 is significantly sharper approaching the edges and also doesn't have noticable vignetting like the f/1.8 has when open wide. The f/1.8 is like looking out an egg when shooting something monochromatic the way the clarity and light drop off together (yes... on the DSLR crop sensor). In terms of fringing supression, contrast, and frame center clarity, there's not a noticable difference to most people.

Now... if you wanna talk the best, get the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZF. The very close second place to that is to find a way to put the Pentax 43mm f/1.9 Limited on that Nikon of yours. You'll have a better piece of glass than Nikon can offer in that approximate focal range.

--
-Ethan Olson
[email protected]
Ich kann deutsch!
 
blo220 said:
hello
im in the middle of buying my first prime lens for my d200
i decided id start off with buying a 50mm nikkor
which will suit the d200 best? 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.0 with all of their
varieties
anyone could maybe share his experience with using one of these
with a d200, thanks a lot
Click to expand...
You might also find it helpful to ask this question in the Nikon SLR Lens Forum rather than here as it is mainly going to come down to comparing optics quality. Actually there have already been many threads on that forum comparing these lenses that are worth reading.
 
If you can afford the 1.4, get it; if not, get the 1.8. The former is great glass, the latter is a steal. Both are good lenses. I have the 1.4 but I don't have a web site to show you an pics. I doubt the difference would show up on pics compressed enough for the web.

Bruce
 
These two only have quite different applications in mind. There's more difference between them than the fact that 1.4 is faster, slightly.

50mm f1.4 D is a normal low light lens. What this means, you would normally use this lens from f1.4 to f4, and 90% of time at about f2.8. You would shoot from medium to large distances from the main subject. As a consequence you will never shoot into the sun, you will not do closeups, you will not shoot landscapes at f11 or more. This lens is not good at any of these applications. It's bokeh is alright when used with large apertures, and uniform backgrounds with no point light sources or specular highlights.

Distortions and differences between center and corner sharpness are obvious, even at f8.

50mm f1.8 is a general purpose lens, with low distortions, good center to corner sharpness from f4 and above. As a matter of fact at f4 this lens reaches amazing center sharpness. It was meant to be general purpose and landcape lens. It can be used as low light lens in a pinch, but it is not as sharp below f2.8 (at least not in corners). It does not excel at close ups either. But above f8 it clearly beats the 1.4 version. It is usable above f11 too, so if you will shoot landscapes you will appreciate this.

You would typically use this lens from f4 to f11 and 90% of time at f5.6. Bokeh is nothing to write home about, unless your backgrounds are very uniform with no specular highlights or point light sources.
 
I'd buy the 35 f2 or take a look at Sigma's 30 1.4.

I have three 50s -- an old MF 50 1.2, and AF 50 1.4 and 1.8 -- plus a MF 55 Micro 2.8 and rarely use any of them!

The lens I DO use most is the 28mm 1.4 which is a slightly wider normal lens on the D200 (42mm FOV).

As far as I'm concerned, the only attraction of the 50 1.8 is the low price.
--
Cheers,
Joe
 
I've just ordered a 50mm 1.4 off ebay for £169 new, so hopefully got a bargain.

Will test it when it comes :-)

FletchUK.
--
He Who Dares Wins....Rodder's
 
That shot is blurry almost. 50 mm is not good up close. Bokeh is nice but there's not much in the background. Bokeh from this lens can be amazing, but put a point light source or something reflective and it's ruined.

If you like doing up close portraits, 60 macro is much much better.
 
blo220 said:
hello
im in the middle of buying my first prime lens for my d200
i decided id start off with buying a 50mm nikkor
which will suit the d200 best? 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.0 with all of their
varieties
anyone could maybe share his experience with using one of these
with a d200, thanks a lot
Click to expand...
--

An accurate definition of who terrorists are according to our corrupt rich controllers would be a population of citizens who are well informed and well educated capable of critical thinking.

'How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.'
 
My favorite lens in this range is the 55/2.8 Micro AIS. Great performance from infinity to macro range (designed for flat field even at wide aperture). There are many out there used for cheap. Some reviews complain about oil creeping onto the diaphragm blades, but mine has been great for over 20 years, with just one professional cleaning/relube. My sharpest and most contrasty lens. No CA I've ever been able to detect. Superbly solid construction. Don't need a lens hood because of the recessed front element. The D200 viewfinder is plenty bright to make for easy focusing with a 2.8 lens. I suspect the problems some have had with lubricants in this lens may be related to extreme (mis)treatments, such as repeated baking in the hot trunk of a car. This is a great travel lens---on the D200 it's a medium telephoto for portraits, architectural details, and tight landscapes, and macro for those really close detail shots of textures and small items. This lens plus a WA prime is currently my entire lens kit for travel with the D200.
 
I own and have used 50/1.4 AIS and 50/1.8AFD on film cameras. They are both good lenses.

However, I have never used either on my D200. Instead, I use a 24/2.8AFD as a "normal wide" everyday lens (equiv to 36 mm on film) and a 35/2.0AFD as a "normal" lens.

My recommendation is to try the 35/2AFD as a normal lens. Any of the 50s will have too long an effective focal length for most "normal lens" purposes.

BTW, the 35/2 is no optical slouch . . .
--
Carlo R
 
The 50mm 1.8 is my standard lens, and I use it all the time. Because the front lens element sits rather deep, it's well protected against flare as well as physical impacts.

Here's a photo taken at dusk in a small town in Cambodia recently. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 at 2.0, handheld, 1/60s, Fuji S3 at ISO 800.



--
Zakk 9, the number 9 zakk
 
so you do have the 1.5x crop as well, isnt the 50 too tight to use as normal lens? did u have to move back a lot to frame this whole picture?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top