50mm 1.8G just not sharp at 1.8 or 2.8?

So I recently picked up a new 50mm 1.8G and was shooting it against my test target and noticed that it's not that sharp at 1.8 or even 2.8. Gets sharp around f/4 or 5.6 (during the test the camera was on a tripod and I used a cable release to eliminate possibility of blur from movement).

Is this maybe a bad copy or is this just not sharp wide open / near wide open? I sort of got this lens for that reason, although I will also be using in the studio at 5.6 as well, which is fine (it's sharp at 5.6).

look up the review on cameralabs or the-digital-picture

threw the lens said:

look up the review on cameralabs or the-digital-picture

Click to expand...

Better yet Lenstip. I sold 2 copies and am done with that lens. Sigma Art 50 for me.

May need to do an AF Fine Tune. I've found I have to AF Fine Tune all my primes for sharp images wide open, varies from lens to lens.

wingster999 said:

threw the lens said:

look up the review on cameralabs or the-digital-picture

Click to expand...

Better yet Lenstip. I sold 2 copies and am done with that lens. Sigma Art 50 for me.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the size and weight of the Sigma Art are big deterrents if you are not in a studio. IQ sure is great though.

nojak said:

wingster999 said:

threw the lens said:

look up the review on cameralabs or the-digital-picture

Click to expand...

Better yet Lenstip. I sold 2 copies and am done with that lens. Sigma Art 50 for me.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the size and weight of the Sigma Art are big deterrents if you are not in a studio. IQ sure is great though.

Click to expand...

Well my other 3 lens are a Sigma 24-35, Nikon 105 1.4, and Nikon 70-200 VRII so the Sigma 50 is my light lens. I am willing to lug it if its sharp. I am not a fan of soft in betweeners.All or nothing for me.

Before we get into the "my favorite lens" club at 50mm type of discussion, let's see if we can assist you in diagnosis a bit further. Yes, you have a 200 dollar garden variety 50mm lens - if you expect that to be as sharp wide open as the Sigma 40 or 50mm Art at a similar aperture, or the Tamron wide open, or the Zeiss Milvus wide open, no, it's not going to do that. But I think it should be usable wide open.

So what you didn't say in your thread is how you performed the focus. Ideally, if you're looking to see what the lens can do (without the influence of the phase detect AF system that is used when we hit the shutter button), you should use Live View contrast detect focus (go into the menus and select so AF-ON is the only way to focus, so the pressing of the shutter doesn't engage the AF after you've focused in live view). The contrast detect method is considerably more accurate, so that becomes our gold/silver standard if you will. I'd suggest modifying your routine as follows (if you already have done this, skip this paragraph and consider upgrading lenses). You're good with the tripod and remote release. For each aperture you wish to test on the 50, and I'd suggest a series from 1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, shoot THREE frames in contrast detect live view, with a "defocus" step in between each frame, and then shoot THREE frames using the regular method (use the AF-ON button of course) without live view. So 6 frames total per aperture setting. What you're looking for is how close your AF-On regular AF shots are to your reference live view. Pick the sharpest of the 3 live view shots (they should be really close or essentially identical) and see how your 3 "regular AF" shots compare. If you're happy with the sharpness of your live view reference shots, but not happy with your "regular AF" shots, then you have to delve into AF fine tuning. At that point you introduce a series of AF fine tuning shots into the mix - I start off with a -8 and a +8 to see which one helps, to tell me which "direction" I should go, and then do series of units of 3,6,9,12,15 and see which one gets me closest to the live view frame. Note that focus shift can mess with you here, so I often accept that wide open won't be the greatest, and do my focus tuning at F/2.8 or so.

Now, if you're not happy with sharpness from your live view reference shots, you'll have to start saving up for a better lens. Those candidate lenses have been mentioned - the 50/1.4 Sigma Art the Tamron 45/1.8 VC, and so forth. They will cost more - better lenses generally do.

-m

sirhawkeye64 said:

So I recently picked up a new 50mm 1.8G and was shooting it against my test target and noticed that it's not that sharp at 1.8 or even 2.8. Gets sharp around f/4 or 5.6 (during the test the camera was on a tripod and I used a cable release to eliminate possibility of blur from movement).

Click to expand...

???

In your gear profile you rate it 5 stars and say "If I could only have ONE lens, this would be it. You can do so much with a 50mm and the 1.8's are dirt cheap compared to most other lenses (regardless of brand)."

Raticus said:

May need to do an AF Fine Tune. I've found I have to AF Fine Tune all my primes for sharp images wide open, varies from lens to lens.

Click to expand...

This was my next step.... although I Have heard also that not all lenses are sharp wide open (not sure if that statement still applies to the 1.8G or not, because quite a few photographers friends love their 1.8's and shoot them at 1.8 often, so yeah it might just need to be tuned in the camera).

I was also shooting against a flat target on a wall, so I sort of figured it should be sharp as it's flat, but if it has some slight front/back focusing, then this might be why. Or maybe I just got a defective one and needs to be exchanged. I'll try the fine tune and see.

The AF Fine tune for me is to ensure I have the best possible focus when using a prime lens wide open. This is separate from sharpness, which is an attribute of the lens itself. So, I alway fine tune at the widest aperture.

That said, in FX at f/1.8 or f/1.4 and the narrow DOF, it can take some "micro adjusting" with the AF to nail focus wide open consistently, and the AF Fine Tune is a great feature in my opinion to achieve this. I use one of these:


For the most part, and I'm a hobbyist, I only need a reasonable level of sharpness wide open due to the narrow DOF and most of the image being out of focus anyhow.

I found the 50mm f/1,8G to be sharp enough by that criteria. And by f/5.6 it's pretty sharp across the frame. Just depends on your own standards, and what you want to do, and how often you use the lens. If 50mm is your main lens, the one on your camera 80% of the time, you may want to spend more. But if it is a secondary lens that is not on the camera all the time, then 1.8G is a nice option, especially in regards to price/size/weight/performance.

And finally...rather than pixel peep too much, make some prints, see how happy you are with the prints. Usually printing disarms pixel peeping anxiety for me. (smile)

sirhawkeye64 said:

Raticus said:

May need to do an AF Fine Tune. I've found I have to AF Fine Tune all my primes for sharp images wide open, varies from lens to lens.

Click to expand...

This was my next step.... although I Have heard also that not all lenses are sharp wide open (not sure if that statement still applies to the 1.8G or not, because quite a few photographers friends love their 1.8's and shoot them at 1.8 often, so yeah it might just need to be tuned in the camera).

I was also shooting against a flat target on a wall, so I sort of figured it should be sharp as it's flat, but if it has some slight front/back focusing, then this might be why. Or maybe I just got a defective one and needs to be exchanged. I'll try the fine tune and see.

Click to expand...

Try what Mike suggests. Contrast detection AF. You can deal with AF tuning later.

wingster999 said:

nojak said:

wingster999 said:

threw the lens said:

look up the review on cameralabs or the-digital-picture

Click to expand...

Better yet Lenstip. I sold 2 copies and am done with that lens. Sigma Art 50 for me.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the size and weight of the Sigma Art are big deterrents if you are not in a studio. IQ sure is great though.

Click to expand...

Well my other 3 lens are a Sigma 24-35, Nikon 105 1.4, and Nikon 70-200 VRII so the Sigma 50 is my light lens. I am willing to lug it if its sharp. I am not a fan of soft in betweeners.All or nothing for me.

Click to expand...

Relative to those, sure. But it is still not small or light.

nojak said:

wingster999 said:

nojak said:

wingster999 said:

threw the lens said:

look up the review on cameralabs or the-digital-picture

Click to expand...

Better yet Lenstip. I sold 2 copies and am done with that lens. Sigma Art 50 for me.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the size and weight of the Sigma Art are big deterrents if you are not in a studio. IQ sure is great though.

Click to expand...

Well my other 3 lens are a Sigma 24-35, Nikon 105 1.4, and Nikon 70-200 VRII so the Sigma 50 is my light lens. I am willing to lug it if its sharp. I am not a fan of soft in betweeners.All or nothing for me.

Click to expand...

Relative to those, sure. But it is still not small or light.

Click to expand...

True, and stopped down to F4 the 50 1.8g is a very good lens. But I personally believe that the extra weight bulk of the ART is worth it but I am not doing travel either.

The OP said he had to stop down to 4 to get sharp. These results from Lenstip show this well. I believe sharp is relative but above 40 you will know it when you see it.....



N

Nikon 50 1.8 (above)

Sigma 50 ART below

It is possible to get a good f1.8 G, go to the benchmark shots at cameralabs to see how impressive it can be.

If you are not focused correctly, then the lens will keep on sharpening up when you stop down even more than it is designed to do. After testing a few lenses you get a feel for this.

Raticus said:

The AF Fine tune for me is to ensure I have the best possible focus when using a prime lens wide open. This is separate from sharpness, which is an attribute of the lens itself. So, I alway fine tune at the widest aperture.

That said, in FX at f/1.8 or f/1.4 and the narrow DOF, it can take some "micro adjusting" with the AF to nail focus wide open consistently, and the AF Fine Tune is a great feature in my opinion to achieve this. I use one of these:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B012F8G1DO/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

For the most part, and I'm a hobbyist, I only need a reasonable level of sharpness wide open due to the narrow DOF and most of the image being out of focus anyhow.

I found the 50mm f/1,8G to be sharp enough by that criteria. And by f/5.6 it's pretty sharp across the frame. Just depends on your own standards, and what you want to do, and how often you use the lens. If 50mm is your main lens, the one on your camera 80% of the time, you may want to spend more. But if it is a secondary lens that is not on the camera all the time, then 1.8G is a nice option, especially in regards to price/size/weight/performance.

And finally...rather than pixel peep too much, make some prints, see how happy you are with the prints. Usually printing disarms pixel peeping anxiety for me. (smile)

Click to expand...

Tried the fine tune and found out it is either not as sharp at 1.8 (which is what I'm reading) or the lens is defective. IT is sharp at f/4 which I Have read is about when it gets really sharp (it's maybe acceptably sharp at 2.8 or around there). I did try AF fine tune and that just made it worse so the lens is "fine" without adjustments, if shot above f/4).

It's just a little disappointment though as I was hoping to use this lens primarily around f/2 and f/2.8. Some claim that it's better at f/2 (versus 1.8) but sort of wonder because most have said it' doesn't get sharp until around f/4 which I have verified with my copy.

sirhawkeye64 said:

Raticus said:

The AF Fine tune for me is to ensure I have the best possible focus when using a prime lens wide open. This is separate from sharpness, which is an attribute of the lens itself. So, I alway fine tune at the widest aperture.

That said, in FX at f/1.8 or f/1.4 and the narrow DOF, it can take some "micro adjusting" with the AF to nail focus wide open consistently, and the AF Fine Tune is a great feature in my opinion to achieve this. I use one of these:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B012F8G1DO/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

For the most part, and I'm a hobbyist, I only need a reasonable level of sharpness wide open due to the narrow DOF and most of the image being out of focus anyhow.

I found the 50mm f/1,8G to be sharp enough by that criteria. And by f/5.6 it's pretty sharp across the frame. Just depends on your own standards, and what you want to do, and how often you use the lens. If 50mm is your main lens, the one on your camera 80% of the time, you may want to spend more. But if it is a secondary lens that is not on the camera all the time, then 1.8G is a nice option, especially in regards to price/size/weight/performance.

And finally...rather than pixel peep too much, make some prints, see how happy you are with the prints. Usually printing disarms pixel peeping anxiety for me. (smile)

Click to expand...

Tried the fine tune and found out it is either not as sharp at 1.8 (which is what I'm reading) or the lens is defective. IT is sharp at f/4 which I Have read is about when it gets really sharp (it's maybe acceptably sharp at 2.8 or around there). I did try AF fine tune and that just made it worse so the lens is "fine" without adjustments, if shot above f/4).

It's just a little disappointment though as I was hoping to use this lens primarily around f/2 and f/2.8. Some claim that it's better at f/2 (versus 1.8) but sort of wonder because most have said it' doesn't get sharp until around f/4 which I have verified with my copy.

Click to expand...

I believe you. We all have our own standards and criteria for sharpness, and 50mm 1.8G is not the sharpest in its class, and it sounds like it's not sharp enough for the things you want to do wide open. Next step up is Tamron 45 or Sigma 50 ART, at least for AF.

I agree also that it's not as sharp wide open as the other 1.8G primes, it would be nice if Nikon would update this lens to an AF-P VR version, but I doubt that is on the radar.

Raticus said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Raticus said:

The AF Fine tune for me is to ensure I have the best possible focus when using a prime lens wide open. This is separate from sharpness, which is an attribute of the lens itself. So, I alway fine tune at the widest aperture.

That said, in FX at f/1.8 or f/1.4 and the narrow DOF, it can take some "micro adjusting" with the AF to nail focus wide open consistently, and the AF Fine Tune is a great feature in my opinion to achieve this. I use one of these:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B012F8G1DO/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

For the most part, and I'm a hobbyist, I only need a reasonable level of sharpness wide open due to the narrow DOF and most of the image being out of focus anyhow.

I found the 50mm f/1,8G to be sharp enough by that criteria. And by f/5.6 it's pretty sharp across the frame. Just depends on your own standards, and what you want to do, and how often you use the lens. If 50mm is your main lens, the one on your camera 80% of the time, you may want to spend more. But if it is a secondary lens that is not on the camera all the time, then 1.8G is a nice option, especially in regards to price/size/weight/performance.

And finally...rather than pixel peep too much, make some prints, see how happy you are with the prints. Usually printing disarms pixel peeping anxiety for me. (smile)

Click to expand...

Tried the fine tune and found out it is either not as sharp at 1.8 (which is what I'm reading) or the lens is defective. IT is sharp at f/4 which I Have read is about when it gets really sharp (it's maybe acceptably sharp at 2.8 or around there). I did try AF fine tune and that just made it worse so the lens is "fine" without adjustments, if shot above f/4).

It's just a little disappointment though as I was hoping to use this lens primarily around f/2 and f/2.8. Some claim that it's better at f/2 (versus 1.8) but sort of wonder because most have said it' doesn't get sharp until around f/4 which I have verified with my copy.

Click to expand...

I believe you. We all have our own standards and criteria for sharpness, and 50mm 1.8G is not the sharpest in its class, and it sounds like it's not sharp enough for the things you want to do wide open. Next step up is Tamron 45 or Sigma 50 ART, at least for AF.

I agree also that it's not as sharp wide open as the other 1.8G primes, it would be nice if Nikon would update this lens to an AF-P VR version, but I doubt that is on the radar.

Click to expand...

Yeah I might look at both of those as alternatives. I have heard overall good things about the Sigma ART line (many of their lenses at least, not all of them) and if the Tamron 45 is a G2 and can be calibrated in the dock, then I may consider that one also (as I already have a dock). Yeah the 1.8G is a bit of a disappointment that it can't be shot wide open (at least from what I see and have read) and needs to be stepped down. I know many do have to be stepped down to be at their sharpest aperture, but I would even take acceptably sharp at this point, at 1.8.

It's expensive, but based upon early tests and a few folks I know whose standards are very high and whose opinions I trust, if I were to buy a normal lens that needed to be sharp wide open, it would be the new Sigma 40/1.4 Art. From everything I've seen test and discussion wise, there is *no* 50mm lens that touches it and Nikon has nothing close. But it's 1400$ and big/heavy...

I hope to evaluate (and possibly purchase one) some day...

-m

You may want to consider the new Sigma 40mm Art lens. It is supposed to be outstanding; very sharp. Also, very expensive, but wait for one of Sigma's sale promotions. May be able to save $100 - $200. I would love to own this lens too, but it is currently too expensive for me. The result of retirement.

anotherMike said:

It's expensive, but based upon early tests and a few folks I know whose standards are very high and whose opinions I trust, if I were to buy a normal lens that needed to be sharp wide open, it would be the new Sigma 40/1.4 Art. From everything I've seen test and discussion wise, there is *no* 50mm lens that touches it and Nikon has nothing close. But it's 1400$ and big/heavy...

I hope to evaluate (and possibly purchase one) some day...

-m

Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that. Maybe I'll just accept it and it can be an f/4+ lens. I mean part of the reason I got it was it was light and relatively cheap compared to the other alternatives. Plus I've found also at 1.8 there isn't really enough DOF at 50mm for what i'd want to do, so I'd likely be a 2.8 or 4 anyway so maybe I just won't worry about shooting at 1.8.