got my Nikkor-Z 50S this morning, for £300 had a quick run around the house with it , and a couple of shots from the bedroom window, and I am impressed already , I have quite a collection of Nikkor lenses , with lenses like the 5.8cm of 1959, through the early Nikkor-s 50mm the later SC version , the 55mm f1.2 the Ais 50mm f1.2 the AIS 50mm f1.4 50mm 1.4D and the later 1.8G and 58G, but i can see that the new Z 50 beats them all hands down in every department eccept Bokeh, that said Bokeh is highly subjective and most of us have go-to lenses when we want bokeh anyway , I like the transition from in focus to out of focus with the new 50s a lot.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 s - bokeh thread
- Thread starter H o g n e
- Start date
- Status
Gobzy
Senior Member
Ah-ah-ah! Thanks for your interest, Matei, and please, don't feel sorry, it's great to have different opinions ;-)
I'm not a "bokeh boy" as well, nor a techie. What pleases me in this 50S lens is its versatility: an excellent (IMO) all-rounder mount Z 50 lens, and this from f/1.8, showing "correct and very usable" OOF backgrounds when casually needed. In any case I'd not say it's the ultimate "bokeh machine" of course.
And I agree, for more "character", there are a lot of options on the shelves. Speaking of Summicron, funnily enough, I just received some adapters to be able to play with my old lenses of all sorts:
Fun times coming :-D
--
Ray
virtualkyr
Leading Member
I’ve been enjoying my 50 1..4D for a couple years and this looks much better for the z will definitely be getting the new 50 for the z6 when I get it
thanks for helping me spend more money!
thanks for helping me spend more money!
Peter3579
Leading Member
Where do you get it for £300?
Here you go:
F 50mm f/1.4g @ f/1.8
Z 50mm f/1.8s @ f/1.8
--
H o g n e
Critique Portfolio Pro International
Critique Portfolio Pro (CPP) is about constructive critiques, discussions, comments and feedback. Here you will interact with experienced photographers - both amateurs and professionals. Key topics are: critiques, critics, discussions, learning, constructive feedback and comments. Critique...
www.flickr.com
I have shot the Zony 55, and I can tell you that the bokeh on it is not better than the Nikon Z 50S. The OOF transition is far better on the Nikon.
Added to this , the center to edge sharpness, the lack of purple fringing, and the contrast are far better.
Have you had a chance to see Jim Kasson's post comparing these very lenses? It's a great read and a very useful comparison.
Last edited:
Gobzy
Senior Member
Exactly so: IMO the Z 50 f1.8S is a really great "everyday use" lens. If I want something special, I know what to look for on my shelves ;-)
on the Bay (private seller) I had not planned on getting it just yet as I had probably spent a little more than i had planned on lenses etc over the past few months .I was doing a search for a nippon kogaku 52 lens hood for one of my older lenses when it appeared mid search , after the initial surprise, then thinking it must be some sort of scam , i bought it , thats about half price here in the UK . I looked into the seller and she had sold four of them for the same price over the christmas/new year period.
Peter3579
Leading Member
D
Drplusplus
Guest
Observe the narrow region of sharpness in this one
And consider Dibyendu Majumdar's post demonstrating how the 58 1.4G has a unique and long transition zone, while other 50s (like the 1.8 S, apparently, judging from your sample above) have much more abrupt zone changes. To me this would be at least as important a distinction as background blur.
And consider Dibyendu Majumdar's post demonstrating how the 58 1.4G has a unique and long transition zone, while other 50s (like the 1.8 S, apparently, judging from your sample above) have much more abrupt zone changes. To me this would be at least as important a distinction as background blur.
That’s exactly what I did and I am glad to own and use both lenses. The great thing is that the 50S can produce beautiful backgrounds and foregrounds, and skin textures are not overemphasized, even though the lens is extremely sharp all the way into the corners. The 58G produces the best focus transitions I have seen in the 50-ish focal length region and can either produce soft focus (at F1.4) or sharp in-focus imagery (at F2.0 or higher). The longer focal length of the 58G lends itself a little more to environmental portraiture, while the 50S focal length makes it slightly more versatile for general use for me.
aflundi
Forum Enthusiast
How is "narrowness/longness" of a transition zone different from DoF?
I think it's pretty clear that Dibyendu Majumdar's point of focus crop was further away than the cookie, so of course the cookie image's transition zone is going to be narrower. Right? It's just simple geometry.
If the geometry is different, how can you make a comparison?
D
Drplusplus
Guest
See Marianne Oelund's post for a better technical description of the difference I think I see. Note particularly her last three paragraphs.
aflundi
Forum Enthusiast
Sure, SA has a role in the OOF appearance, and I can certainly see that if SA pushes most of the light in the light cone to the center it will make a region where is it not really clear what the plane of best focus is, but necessarily the other direction where the light concentration is at the periphery of the cone becomes worse and more abrupt, so is the DoF really any longer?
Maybe it is and just comes down to details, definitions, and working out the math. But none-the-less, I just don't see how those two photos can be compared as far as transition zone length is concerned when we don't know the geometries of each.
aflundi
Forum Enthusiast
I've got to admit, her ruler example looks pretty convincing. It seems like to me something is amiss with it since I don't see how both the 58G foreground and background can have this same "readability" when looking at the 58G foreground point spread distribution looks like it'd be worse than Art's -- almost like the 58G was actually shot as a smaller aperture than f/1.4. But I guess it is what it is.
Thanks for reminding me of her post.
Some examples (at various angles and distances) that might help.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
--
H o g n e
Critique Portfolio Pro International
Critique Portfolio Pro (CPP) is about constructive critiques, discussions, comments and feedback. Here you will interact with experienced photographers - both amateurs and professionals. Key topics are: critiques, critics, discussions, learning, constructive feedback and comments. Critique...
www.flickr.com
Ebrahim Saadawi
Leading Member
Hi Gozby! Nothing wrong with these images but IMHO the bokeh looks too busy. I'm not sure if it's the 1.8 aperture or just the lens design. Seems like a pretty sharp lens, just doesn't get me excited. I don't find enough 'character' like in the Summicron, or the Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.4 or even the Zeiss 1.8 or less sharper lenses like the 58mm 1.4 Nikon or the 50mm 1.2 Canon. And yes the super sharp Sigma seemed very clinical until I saw these images... sorry just my opinion.
Got my 50S about one week ago, and since then, it has been a love affair
Not being a techie, I can't really "debate" about the OOF areas. At least I like to play with these...
Playing with the OOF background:
In the real world, "street" genre: shots from the hip:
For my use, I don't see what is so wrong/ugly with the "bokeh" of this lens. I find it very usable and fun to play with. As well the lens is really sharp from edge to edge even at f/1.8, and shows a nice subject "isolation" as well as a great subject "modelling and density"...
Cheers
faocisco
Leading Member
- Status
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum