Reading mode: Light Dark

A couple of portraits with the 50mm 1.8g

Go to last post
paulski66 said:
Nice pics, Pic Man. I like the second picture a lot, and agree that the first is nice but with somewhat distracting bokeh.

The 50mm f/1,8g is a great lens. Is it perfect? No, of course not. but it's very capable, and its one main compromise is that it does not have super creamy bokeh. For the price, I think that's a compromise many are willing to live with, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
I don't really see much wrong with the bokeh, background is naturally busy. The lens for the price is very, very good and that is a good thing. I don't think the shot was ruined as a certain person has stated. In general a lot of wildlife photos show the environment that the animal lives in that requires lots of dof such as this one.

Larry



Eagle in the fog

Eagle in the fog
 
Wow. Looks almost other-worldly. Very beautiful.

What was the lens used?
 
I was using the NIkon 500 f4.0 vr lens with the tc 1.4EII. I like to include some of the environment with my bird images instead of just the bird with no real background. I love birds and like to show where they live.

Thanks.

Larry
 
Interesting thread since I've been considering the 50 f1.8, 35 f1.8, or maybe even the wider 28mm f1.8 for my D750. The 20mm f1.8 is on my radar too but down the road a bit.

Really like the bird shot, even if the bokeh is a little busy. You might want to consider a square crop and darkening the background to minimize it.

My only prime now is the DX 35 f1.8 (for my D7000) but I find it works surprisingly well on the D750 in 1.2x crop mode (20MP with 42mm FOV). It's small, light and sharp but it too has a fairly busy bokeh at times. More of a zoom guy anyway, I really like the 24-120 I got with the D750 and 70-300 I already had, so I'll likely just continue to use the 35mm in 42mm mode for now and see how things evolve while getting more comfortable shooting FF. The DX Tamron 10-24 works surprisingly well on the D750 from 14-24mm too, much better than it does on the D7000, so I'm in no hurry to upgrade that either.

Reading through the replies, I've actually enjoyed Stacy's comments since she tells it like she sees it. This is the internet after all and DPR at that (not known for mincing of words). If/when we get slapped down we just get up, cinch up our belts and head out for more photographic adventures, each time discovering new things and in the process finding new ways to improve our results.
 
Stacey_K said:
paultr said:
Any comments as to whether I should keep the 50mm prime and criticism of the yellow flower shot welcome.
Click to expand...
I would, but it appears that unless I just post a "lovely image!" response (rather than critiquing the lens' rendering), one is considered a lens snob and an elitist .....
Click to expand...
:) Seems I have stumbled into some kind of controversy here !

From what I have read earlier in the thread I can understand your point about what the actual bokay looks like and I can see the image posted in the original post has a random look, not helped by the absence of anything interesting in the background.

So I would appreciate your criticism of my photo. It was the first shot taken with the lens on an older Nikon model (D80). Did not take any time on the camera settings, just shoved it into P mode and pressed the shutter. Had tweaked the colourspace in custom settings earlier but really did not try hard and I was quite pleased with the result.

The lens was so cheap and gets such good reviews that I am going to keep it and see what I can do with it. It is 4 or 5 years since I last used a Dslr so I am enjoying a sense of rediscovery :)
 
Last edited:
Nexu1 said:
paultr said:
Any comments as to whether I should keep the 50mm prime and criticism of the yellow flower shot welcome.

Thanks
Click to expand...
The decision is yours. How much do you care about bokeh and what is your money worth to you. Here is a side by side with the 1.8D on the left and the 1.8G on the right. Quite the improvement. As noted by Stacey, there are even better lenses out there too, the price just keeps going up (typically).

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00a/00a2zY-444545584.jpg
Click to expand...
Yes, the G seems to be considerably sharper but interestingly, Ken Rockwell reckons the D has less distortion (and is cheaper).

Loading…

kenrockwell.com
 
paultr said:
Nexu1 said:
paultr said:
Any comments as to whether I should keep the 50mm prime and criticism of the yellow flower shot welcome.

Thanks
Click to expand...
The decision is yours. How much do you care about bokeh and what is your money worth to you. Here is a side by side with the 1.8D on the left and the 1.8G on the right. Quite the improvement. As noted by Stacey, there are even better lenses out there too, the price just keeps going up (typically).

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00a/00a2zY-444545584.jpg
Click to expand...
Yes, the G seems to be considerably sharper but interestingly, Ken Rockwell reckons the D has less distortion (and is cheaper).

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f18-g.htm
Click to expand...
Not sure anyone here has much respect for Ken Rockwell's opinion. His website is OK for digging up historical info on lenses but his lens opinions are almost completely worthless.
 
Stacey_K said:
OK you guys win, the 50 f1.8G is a fantastic lens and no one from now on can say they see any issues with it. And no one should EVER consider spending more than what this lens costs, to do so would include them in the group of lens snobs who should be happy with this $200 lens. Happy now? *sigh*

And BTW, I'm proud to be a lens snob and am very picky about the lenses I use. And *gasp* sometimes I prefer a cheaper lens, like the 85mm f1.4D over the 85mm f1.4G.

--
Stacey
Click to expand...
That's not even close to what was saying and I think you know it. Of course more expensive lenses are usually better. That's obvious. So if the op could afford the better lens don't you think he would have bought it already? Telling someone using a relatively inexpensive starting kit the lens they could afford ruined their photo and then saying they should buy a lens twice as expensive comes of as pretentious snobbery and is not helpful to them or anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Josh152 said:
Stacey_K said:
OK you guys win, the 50 f1.8G is a fantastic lens and no one from now on can say they see any issues with it. And no one should EVER consider spending more than what this lens costs, to do so would include them in the group of lens snobs who should be happy with this $200 lens. Happy now? *sigh*

And BTW, I'm proud to be a lens snob and am very picky about the lenses I use. And *gasp* sometimes I prefer a cheaper lens, like the 85mm f1.4D over the 85mm f1.4G.

--
Stacey
Click to expand...
That's not even close to what was saying and I think you know it. Of course more expensive lenses are usually better. That's obvious. So if the op could afford the better lens don't you think he would have bought it already? Telling someone using a relatively inexpensive starting kit the lens they could afford ruined their photo and then saying they should buy a lens twice as expensive comes of as pretentious snobbery and is not helpful to them or anyone else.
Click to expand...
Snobbery? It doesn't appear that way to me. She gave her honest opinion, as requested by the OP.

And are you sure it's all the OP can afford? If he stated that I must have missed it. I can afford a lot of better gear but don't buy it. I have money set aside for just about any camera and set of lenses I want, but since photography is a hobby for me I personally find it hard to justify a D4s or D810 with the trinity and a BIG-A$$ telephoto or two, for taking photos of waterfalls, mountains, and shots along the trail while out hiking through the woods with my dog.

Buying the D750 + 24-120 only looked attractive to me due to the $600 off. In any case, now that I have it I feel compelled to get some better glass so have been mostly lurking in this forum for a couple months. There is some very good discussion here and even some harsh criticism that I find useful.

Folks can go ahead and tear me apart here if they feel so compelled but anyone that's been on any of the forums (anywhere) for awhile should be pretty well used to it. If they can't deal with it then get off the internet and go find a local photo club. It's a lot harder to tell someone they screwed up or they're a jerk to their face, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Josh152 said:
Stacey_K said:
OK you guys win, the 50 f1.8G is a fantastic lens and no one from now on can say they see any issues with it. And no one should EVER consider spending more than what this lens costs, to do so would include them in the group of lens snobs who should be happy with this $200 lens. Happy now? *sigh*

And BTW, I'm proud to be a lens snob and am very picky about the lenses I use. And *gasp* sometimes I prefer a cheaper lens, like the 85mm f1.4D over the 85mm f1.4G.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
paultr said:
So I would appreciate your criticism of my photo.
Click to expand...
OK, you asked for it. I wouldn't use this lens for much other than at smaller f stops where more of the image is setup to appear to be in focus. At f8-f11 it's probably OK but so are most slow zooms. The only real redeeming quality IMHO is it's small.

Look at the 4 sample shot you posted. The 18-70 shot at 50 actually has some background separation from the subject. The 50mm shot has such nervous bokeh, even though the DOF is shallower, it has less background separation. So to sum it up, having nervous bokeh defeats the whole purpose of shooting at wide apertures if it is to separate the subject from a distracting background. Hope that makes sense and you aren't personally offended that I explained why I feel these cheap lenses struggle when used under less that idea conditions.
 
Nice shot but not real sure how a shot taken with an ~$9000 lens/TC combo with lovely bokeh proves your point that a $200 lens has no real issues with rendering backgrounds..
 
Stacey_K said:
Nice shot but not real sure how a shot taken with an ~$9000 lens/TC combo with lovely bokeh proves your point that a $200 lens has no real issues with rendering backgrounds..
Click to expand...
 
larrywilson said:
It really doesn't look that bad to me.
Click to expand...
I agree, it doesn't look "that bad", but it doesn't look awesome either. I sorta hope that the idea of critique is to help someone improve past "It really doesn't look that bad to me." shots?

I guess the reason I am so vocal about this is: I worked pretty hard for about 6 months trying to learn to like this lens and I've got folders full of "almost great" shots that were held back because of this lens's harsh bokeh. It just kills the subject isolation you would likely be going for shooting this lens at f1.8-f2.8. I guess I'd like to try to save someone else that exasperation of thinking "Well let me try ____" and eventually coming to the same conclusion I did. In the scheme of things, buying a >$400 lens instead of a $200 lens to use on a $1500+ camera to get past this issue isn't a huge expense.

And with a 500mm f4, subject isolation isn't a problem :).
 
Stacey_K said:
larrywilson said:
It really doesn't look that bad to me.
Click to expand...
I agree, it doesn't look "that bad", but it doesn't look awesome either. I sorta hope that the idea of critique is to help someone improve past "It really doesn't look that bad to me." shots?

I guess the reason I am so vocal about this is: I worked pretty hard for about 6 months trying to learn to like this lens and I've got folders full of "almost great" shots that were held back because of this lens's harsh bokeh. It just kills the subject isolation you would likely be going for shooting this lens at f1.8-f2.8. I guess I'd like to try to save someone else that exasperation of thinking "Well let me try ____" and eventually coming to the same conclusion I did. In the scheme of things, buying a >$400 lens instead of a $200 lens to use on a $1500+ camera to get past this issue isn't a huge expense.

And with a 500mm f4, subject isolation isn't a problem :).
Click to expand...
 
paulski66 said:
Stacey_K said:
paultr said:
Any comments as to whether I should keep the 50mm prime and criticism of the yellow flower shot welcome.
Click to expand...
I would, but it appears that unless I just post a "lovely image!" response (rather than critiquing the lens' rendering), one is considered a lens snob and an elitist. Seems nonsensical to me that on a technical formal when someone posts an image from a specific lens (and it's the title of the thread), people are then personally attacked if they say anything negative about the lens in question.

So my critique will have to be "lovely image" and this is an "epic lens" in fear of offending someone who can't immediately afford to buy something better. Hope everyone now feels all warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
IMO the 50mm f1.8G is fully capable of producing stunning photos. Sure, there are some awkward shots with foliage where it will struggle. Some notice the bokeh issues, many do not. We've seen it here for years, and you can find it all over the internet, people will take "bokeh shots" with the 50mm f1.8G that they think are great while some will think those same shots are lousy.

Your criticism of the 50mm f1.8G reminds me of 2-3 posters who seemed to make it their life mission to criticize the sharpness of the 58mm f1.4. You remember how annoying that got? For the most part, at least IMO, the 58 is typically "sharp enough". And the same can be said for the 50mm f1.8G IMO, in most situations the bokeh is "good enough" (although there are some scenarios where it's bad and struggles).

We talk about improving photography or giving critique which is valid. Thing is, the 50mm f1.8G can be a great tool for doing just that. Here is a pile of very nice photos with the 50mm f1.8G. Much better than 90% of what I see posted around here. Perhaps the 50mm f1.8G discussion could be steered towards what the lens is capable of doing rather than focusing on the few % of situations where its going to struggle, that is, unless the posters here are getting advice are routinely besting these images:

http://ryanbrenizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/samples110619-190529-50mm_f1.8.jpg

https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Nikon-50mm-f1.8G-Weddings-16.jpg

https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Nikon-50mm-f1.8G-Weddings-7.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7052/6980526350_07d2d1e33e_c.jpg

http://www.wexphotographic.com/webcontent/images/lens-samples/nikon/nikon-lens-50mm-f1.8-sample.jpg (1.8D but photo would be the same with the G)

Most of these shots (except the quasi macro/foliage shots): http://fleetingcaptures.blogspot.com/2011/11/review-nikon-50mm-18g-lens.html

http://www.evokingyou.com/2011/11/03/jovial-photographyfamily-photography-inspiration/

https://flic.kr/p/9Ga3bD
 
Last edited:
This thread has become surprisingly long. In the argument over the merits of the Nikon 50mm 1.8g lens, the attention focused on the bird in the first photo contains what some consider to be a distracting, busy, or even harsh background bokeh. I think everyone can agree that some lenses are more appropriate in some siutations than others, and that the 50mm 1.8G is probably not the lens of choice for wildlife photography. The OP even admits this in one of his posts, but he took the image anyway because it was the only lens he opted to take with him on his "photo safari" to the zoo.

However, the lens seems well suited in the case of the the second portrait of the girl, where the background looks just fine. I haven't noted any complaints about that image. Seems like the lesson learned here is that when shooting wildlife with busy backgrounds at the zoo, bring a telephoto next time. I commend the OP for limiting himself to one lens to challenge his creativity. I would never have predicted the controversy and polarity of opinion over his first photo. I'm not sure if it's the use of the 50mm 1.8G or just the photo itself, but it certainly makes for interesting dialogue as is evident by the number of posts in this thread.

Mike
 
I'd like to thank everyone for commenting, I see the thread has somewhat turned into a debate on how good the 50mm 1.8g is. I don't mind as this is a gear forum and I put the 50mm 1.8g in the title of my thread. I would like to clarify though that I purchased the 50mm 1.8g because it's cheap but not because I couldn't afford other lenses. When I was using M43 I bought lots of lenses because I thought they were cool but ended up not using them as much as I'd like. I don't really want to make the same mistake again. I bought the 24-85mm and 50mm 1.8g because together they are a very versatile package as well as being relatively cheap and quite good, at least according the many reviews I read anyway. And if I didn't like them I could sell at a small loss. Eventually I'll buy better glass but for now I'm content with what I have. The D610 with 24-85 and 50mm 1.8g might sound like the most unexciting package in Nikon FF world but if you're moving up from a much smaller sensor it's a different story.
 
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