Nikon MC 50mm f2.8 not that good?

zakaria · Feb 9, 2025

Today I had the chance to try the Nikon MC 50mm Macro lens with the ZF camera. The lens, as a first impression, is not as good as the S-line lenses or even those manufactured by Tamron under the Nikon name. The quality is not what I would expect from a lens bearing the Nikon name. The manufacturing quality of the plastic Nikon MS 40mm lenses seems much better. The focus is slow and I don't know if it is due to the camera or the lens. Sharpness and clarity are reasonable but not compared to classic macro lenses. The amount of $500 for this type of lens is a lot and I think $300 is a reasonable price. Here are some shots from Abu Dhabi. I hope you like them

--
pentaxian .

ghostfox_1 · Feb 9, 2025

Macro lenses are generally slower to focus.

I haven't heard anyone complain about the lens, but I don't think your examples are necessarily good at proving anything either way. It's not as good as things like the 105, but for half the cost there's not really a lot to say bad about it imo.

shuncheung · Feb 9, 2025

ghostfox_1 said:
Macro lenses are generally slower to focus.

And they are optimized to perform at or near macro distances. If you use them to capture subjects at or near infinity, it shouldn't be surprising that they are not that great.

ghostfox_1 said:
I haven't heard anyone complain about the lens, but I don't think your examples are necessarily good at proving anything either way. It's not as good as things like the 105, but for half the cost there's not really a lot to say bad about it imo.

TheSoaringSprite · Feb 9, 2025

zakaria said:
Today I had the chance to try the Nikon MC 50mm Macro lens with the ZF camera. The lens, as a first impression, is not as good as the S-line lenses or even those manufactured by Tamron under the Nikon name. The quality is not what I would expect from a lens bearing the Nikon name. The manufacturing quality of the plastic Nikon MS 40mm lenses seems much better. The focus is slow and I don't know if it is due to the camera or the lens. Sharpness and clarity are reasonable but not compared to classic macro lenses. The amount of $500 for this type of lens is a lot and I think $300 is a reasonable price. Here are some shots from Abu Dhabi. I hope you like them

Those are all very nice shots. I think you could have gotten the same and probably better quality color/contrast/autofocus from the excellent Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S.

I was looking into buying the Z MC 50mm f/2.8 myself, I wanted a shorter than 105mm macro, but I wasn't wowed by user reviews of the Z MC 50mm and held off.

Forward a few months, I discovered the Voigtlander 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar macro lens for Z mount. It is manual focus (which may be a bummer to some) but the build quality is very good, the manual focusing is easy and smooth, and the image quality, colors and contrast are superb. Only downside is that it's not weather-sealed.

It's a bit longer than the 50mm, but that's OK. I always have the 50mm f/1.8 S for that.

--

Dream Source Studio | Photography by J.P.

Welcome to Dream Source Studio, home to sports, wildlife, event, travel & landscape photography. Need help improving your own skills as an aspiring photographer? Check out the new photography tips section or feel free to e-mail me with your questions!

www.dreamsourcestudio.com

zakaria · Feb 9, 2025

TheSoaringSprite said:
zakaria said:

Today I had the chance to try the Nikon MC 50mm Macro lens with the ZF camera. The lens, as a first impression, is not as good as the S-line lenses or even those manufactured by Tamron under the Nikon name. The quality is not what I would expect from a lens bearing the Nikon name. The manufacturing quality of the plastic Nikon MS 40mm lenses seems much better. The focus is slow and I don't know if it is due to the camera or the lens. Sharpness and clarity are reasonable but not compared to classic macro lenses. The amount of $500 for this type of lens is a lot and I think $300 is a reasonable price. Here are some shots from Abu Dhabi. I hope you like them

Click to expand...

Those are all very nice shots. I think you could have gotten the same and probably better quality color/contrast/autofocus from the excellent Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S.

I was looking into buying the Z MC 50mm f/2.8 myself, I wanted a shorter than 105mm macro, but I wasn't wowed by user reviews of the Z MC 50mm and held off.

Forward a few months, I discovered the Voigtlander 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar macro lens for Z mount. It is manual focus (which may be a bummer to some) but the build quality is very good, the manual focusing is easy and smooth, and the image quality, colors and contrast are superb. Only downside is that it's not weather-sealed.

It's a bit longer than the 50mm, but that's OK. I always have the 50mm f/1.8 S for that.

Nice set. The color rendering is very nice compared to my nikon MC 50mm. I am disappointed in the results. The lens lacks of contrast. I was intended to use it for some macro purposes but when I saw the result I used it as a general lens. I will give it a second try.

2 samples to show what I meant

--
pentaxian .

TheSoaringSprite · Feb 9, 2025

zakaria said:
TheSoaringSprite said:

zakaria said:

Today I had the chance to try the Nikon MC 50mm Macro lens with the ZF camera. The lens, as a first impression, is not as good as the S-line lenses or even those manufactured by Tamron under the Nikon name. The quality is not what I would expect from a lens bearing the Nikon name. The manufacturing quality of the plastic Nikon MS 40mm lenses seems much better. The focus is slow and I don't know if it is due to the camera or the lens. Sharpness and clarity are reasonable but not compared to classic macro lenses. The amount of $500 for this type of lens is a lot and I think $300 is a reasonable price. Here are some shots from Abu Dhabi. I hope you like them

Click to expand...

Those are all very nice shots. I think you could have gotten the same and probably better quality color/contrast/autofocus from the excellent Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S.

I was looking into buying the Z MC 50mm f/2.8 myself, I wanted a shorter than 105mm macro, but I wasn't wowed by user reviews of the Z MC 50mm and held off.

Forward a few months, I discovered the Voigtlander 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar macro lens for Z mount. It is manual focus (which may be a bummer to some) but the build quality is very good, the manual focusing is easy and smooth, and the image quality, colors and contrast are superb. Only downside is that it's not weather-sealed.

It's a bit longer than the 50mm, but that's OK. I always have the 50mm f/1.8 S for that.

Click to expand...

Nice set. The color rendering is very nice compared to my nikon MC 50mm. I am disappointed in the results. The lens lacks of contrast. I was intended to use it for some macro purposes but when I saw the result I used it as a general lens. I will give it a second try.

I don't know how the Z MC 50mm f/2.8 compares to the Z 50mm f/1.8 S with a macro extension tube, but I liked the results when I tried it.

It has excellent color, contrast, sharpness and AF speed, and you can turn it into a macro lens with a 15mm extension tube. I was using the Fotodiox Pro Auto Macro extension tube for the examples below. Maybe something to consider if you want better IQ and AF speed:

--

Dream Source Studio | Photography by J.P.

Welcome to Dream Source Studio, home to sports, wildlife, event, travel & landscape photography. Need help improving your own skills as an aspiring photographer? Check out the new photography tips section or feel free to e-mail me with your questions!

www.dreamsourcestudio.com

TheSoaringSprite · Feb 9, 2025

zakaria said:
Nice set. The color rendering is very nice compared to my nikon MC 50mm. I am disappointed in the results. The lens lacks of contrast. I was intended to use it for some macro purposes but when I saw the result I used it as a general lens. I will give it a second try.

2 samples to show what I meant

How do you post-process your images? That could have something to do with the lack of contrast and color as well. Are you shooting JPEG only? RAW? What PP software?

--

Dream Source Studio | Photography by J.P.

Welcome to Dream Source Studio, home to sports, wildlife, event, travel & landscape photography. Need help improving your own skills as an aspiring photographer? Check out the new photography tips section or feel free to e-mail me with your questions!

www.dreamsourcestudio.com

zakaria · Feb 9, 2025

TheSoaringSprite said:
zakaria said:

TheSoaringSprite said:

zakaria said:

Today I had the chance to try the Nikon MC 50mm Macro lens with the ZF camera. The lens, as a first impression, is not as good as the S-line lenses or even those manufactured by Tamron under the Nikon name. The quality is not what I would expect from a lens bearing the Nikon name. The manufacturing quality of the plastic Nikon MS 40mm lenses seems much better. The focus is slow and I don't know if it is due to the camera or the lens. Sharpness and clarity are reasonable but not compared to classic macro lenses. The amount of $500 for this type of lens is a lot and I think $300 is a reasonable price. Here are some shots from Abu Dhabi. I hope you like them

Click to expand...

Those are all very nice shots. I think you could have gotten the same and probably better quality color/contrast/autofocus from the excellent Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S.

I was looking into buying the Z MC 50mm f/2.8 myself, I wanted a shorter than 105mm macro, but I wasn't wowed by user reviews of the Z MC 50mm and held off.

Forward a few months, I discovered the Voigtlander 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar macro lens for Z mount. It is manual focus (which may be a bummer to some) but the build quality is very good, the manual focusing is easy and smooth, and the image quality, colors and contrast are superb. Only downside is that it's not weather-sealed.

It's a bit longer than the 50mm, but that's OK. I always have the 50mm f/1.8 S for that.

Click to expand...

Nice set. The color rendering is very nice compared to my nikon MC 50mm. I am disappointed in the results. The lens lacks of contrast. I was intended to use it for some macro purposes but when I saw the result I used it as a general lens. I will give it a second try.

Click to expand...

I don't know how the Z MC 50mm f/2.8 compares to the Z 50mm f/1.8 S with a macro extension tube, but I liked the results when I tried it.

It has excellent color, contrast, sharpness and AF speed, and you can turn it into a macro lens with a 15mm extension tube. I was using the Fotodiox Pro Auto Macro extension tube for the examples below. Maybe something to consider if you want better IQ and AF speed:

--
http://www.dreamsourcestudio.com

Thank you so much. Will see.

--
pentaxian .

ghostfox_1 · Feb 9, 2025

zakaria said:
Nice set. The color rendering is very nice compared to my nikon MC 50mm.

You can't really compare color rendering in massively different situations and different post processing.

zakaria said:
I am disappointed in the results. The lens lacks of contrast. I was intended to use it for some macro purposes but when I saw the result I used it as a general lens. I will give it a second try.

2 samples to show what I meant

Neither of those images is high contrast? But the light is completely flat in the second shot, so of course it doesn't have contrast. The first also doesn't have high contrast because the light is boring.

Rene Gr · Feb 26, 2025

I did not find much difference in the contrast to any S-line lens. Good light makes contrast, not a lens. Actual differences between lenses exist, but are marginal in comparison.

However, the 50mm MC suffers from its design which allows easy sun flare if you are not careful, which indeed reduces contrast. The lens hood of the 105mm is huge, and the 50mm does not even come with one.

I have a short review here:

Loading…

rgr-photography.blogspot.com

I returned the lens, because the 105 is so much better. And for 50mm, I use the f/1.8 S-line version.

zakaria · Feb 26, 2025

Rene Gr said:
I did not find much difference in the contrast to any S-line lens. Good light makes contrast, not a lens. Actual differences between lenses exist, but are marginal in comparison.

However, the 50mm MC suffers from its design which allows easy sun flare if you are not careful, which indeed reduces contrast. The lens hood of the 105mm is huge, and the 50mm does not even come with one.

I have a short review here:

https://rgr-photography.blogspot.com/2024/10/nikkor-z-50mm-f28-mc-review.html

I returned the lens, because the 105 is so much better. And for 50mm, I use the f/1.8 S-line version.

I did the same. Returned 50mm for 105 mm .

UsherFellig · Feb 26, 2025

Funnily, I've read at least two writeups by different reviewers who've pronounced this lens "meh" for macro but excellent as a nifty-fifty. And all the samples by posters on this thread seem to bear out the praise for its 50mm chops. Can't speak for the macro but I'm always interested in a smaller nifty-fifty, and the 50mm stuff by all you guys looks really nice for my taste.

Leonard Shepherd · Feb 26, 2025

Unlike the 105 Z this macro lens does not have nano coating (good for limiting flare), a multi-focus system (for high resolution at several focus distances) or in-lens VR.

While I have the 105 Z I have not replaced my 60mm AF-s F mount macro.

ericbowles · Feb 26, 2025

In terms of pure sharpness, the 105 MC is exceptional and the F-mount AF-S 60mm f/2.8 Micro is a little better. But the 50mm f/2.8 MC is still pretty good and provides a very good small, light alternative. I've used the 50mm MC when I wanted a light kit or when macro was not expected to be important. The 50mm MC is also a good DX macro option. I probably sold the 60mm AFS Micro prematurely as it's a little better in terms of sharpness. The 50mm MC is a little better stopped down to f/8 or so in terms of sharpness, and that's typical for macro work.

labalaba · Feb 26, 2025

ericbowles said:
In terms of pure sharpness, the 105 MC is exceptional and the F-mount AF-S 60mm f/2.8 Micro is a little better. But the 50mm f/2.8 MC is still pretty good and provides a very good small, light alternative. I've used the 50mm MC when I wanted a light kit or when macro was not expected to be important. The 50mm MC is also a good DX macro option. I probably sold the 60mm AFS Micro prematurely as it's a little better in terms of sharpness. The 50mm MC is a little better stopped down to f/8 or so in terms of sharpness, and that's typical for macro work.

I guess you mean the AF-S 60 is a little better than the 50MC? As written your post suggests the AF-S 60 is a little better than the exceptional 105MC.

Terrible Photographer · Feb 26, 2025

I use it for commercial studio ad work (that you've probably seen in the wild) and I think it's a terrific lens.

Not crazy expensive, focuses closer than the 1.8 or 1.2S, plenty sharp across the frame at f/11, what more does one want?

That said, at the studio, I affectionally call it "the weird fifty"

RBFresno · Feb 26, 2025

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

zakaria · Feb 27, 2025

UsherFellig said:
Funnily, I've read at least two writeups by different reviewers who've pronounced this lens "meh" for macro but excellent as a nifty-fifty. And all the samples by posters on this thread seem to bear out the praise for its 50mm chops. Can't speak for the macro but I'm always interested in a smaller nifty-fifty, and the 50mm stuff by all you guys looks really nice for my taste.

I returned it and got 105mm macro today.

I can say you get what you pay for.

There is no comparison.

--
pentaxian .

Rene Gr · Feb 28, 2025

TheSoaringSprite said:
I don't know how the Z MC 50mm f/2.8 compares to the Z 50mm f/1.8 S with a macro extension tube, but I liked the results when I tried it.

I did the same. It works well, although the 105mm delivers better backgrounds due to the longer focal length. This helps to isolate subjects in many situations.

It should be mentioned that the 105mm closes down to f/3 fairly quickly in the macro range. The 50mm might do the same, but it does not tell you so.

Leonard Shepherd · Feb 28, 2025

Rene Gr said:
It should be mentioned that the 105mm closes down to f/3 fairly quickly in the macro range. The 50mm might do the same, but it does not tell you so.

More on this detail - as an example starting with f2.8 at Infinity in manual focus the aperture record f2.8 at Infinity, reducing to f 4 .5 by 1:1.

Interesting in manual focus at f5.6 looking though the front of the lens the aperture size changes to distinctly smaller between infinity and 1:1.

Nikon MC 50mm f2.8 not that good?

Veteran Member

Attachments

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts