Huge Heavy Expensive

[exifnotfound]

For a zoom it isn't too bad but when you consider a 50 1.8G costs 1/10th that of the 24-70 and has better optics, you have to wonder if it's worth it.
I will say in it's defence however that it is extremely useful.

Problems:

Heavy, Costly, Optics could be better.

 

[Gearsau]

How does the Nikon 50mm f1.8 G perform at 24mm focal length ?

Regards Peter

 

[Rich Rosen]

How does the Nikon 50mm f1.8 G perform at 24mm focal length ?

Regards Peter

If you step back a few steps, so you get an equal FOV, it should perform very well. If you step forward, a few steps, it'll perform better than the 24-70 at the 70mm FOV

 

[TwistaCatz]

Honestly this review is worthless and helps no one. It's annoying when people compare zooms to primes. If you want to compare lenses compare a zoom to another zoom.

 

[sfnikon]

Yes, Yes and Yes. However it's probably my most used lens. I enjoy shooting primes more and own many more of them (including the 50/1.8G) but this is my go-to-lens when I must get quality shots at an event.

The optics are as good as it gets with a zoom in this FL range on a F-mount as of 12/2014.

 

[ormdig]

The 50 f/1.8g has better optics than the 24-70 at 50mm? Baloney. I'll take the 24-70 at 50mm over my 50 f/1.8 at any equivalent aperture any day. The only saving grace of the 50 f/1.8 is the fact that it can shoot below f/2.8. It is slow focusing and soft in the corners. The 24-70 is almost instantaneous in focusing and whatever is in the DOF is sharp. It is well worth the money because I can trust it to do the job, always. When I shoot an event of any kind I have to be able to trust my equipment so I can concentrate on the job at hand and not worry whether my tools are up to the task at hand.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing with the 50 to see what I can do with it but I don't put a lot of trust in it's capabilities. It's worth exactly what it costs,

 

[Teila Day]

How does the Nikon 50mm f1.8 G perform at 24mm focal length ?

Regards Peter

If you step back a few steps, so you get an equal FOV, it should perform very well. If you step forward, a few steps, it'll perform better than the 24-70 at the 70mm FOV

Shoved up against a wall shooting a client indoors where I need a wide angle of view one shot and then a much longer focal length for the next.

That reality is probably the main reason that the 24-70 f/2.8 is considered a "bread & butter" lens; because it's all about getting work done. Once I process the file, can you tell whether or not I used my 50mm or 24-70 lens to take the shot? Probably not... and you darn sure aren't likely to tell once I print the the processed file, and that's the bottom line.

I like the 50 (still valuable to me), but it's my least used lens.

50mm using 24-70

24mm using 24-70

70mm, can quickly fill most of the frame with a twist of the zoom, even during times where there's people between the subject and I; I like having the luxury of zooming out when I'm too close and my movement is horribly restricted.

46mm using the zoom.

The "nifty fifty" is a great lens, especially for the price in my opinion- however for many people it doesn't come close to replacing or comparing to a zoom when one doesn't have the time or luxury to zoom with his or her sneakers or can't afford to switch lenses multiple times over a short time frame

Best in photography to all of you

--
Teila K. Day

Getting Started

 

[Mr Physics]

I can put 3 AF-D lenses into a bag (OK two in a bag and one on the camera) and get 24-70mm image quality. It'll way the same and cost half as much. I'm very cool with that. But sometimes at an event (wedding, fund raiser, family thing, etc.) you want a zoom. You want a zoom to be able to quickly respond to something happening and a BIG, HEAVY ZOOM is needed. At those times, I twist my 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D on. It does quite well. And it is only a little bit heavier than a prime.

 

[Lord of the Badgers]

For a zoom it isn't too bad but when you consider a 50 1.8G costs 1/10th that of the 24-70 and has better optics, you have to wonder if it's worth it.
I will say in it's defence however that it is extremely useful.

Problems:

Heavy, Costly, Optics could be better.

Heavy = better balance surely.

In my case certainly.

 

[BartyLobethal]

If you step back a few steps, so you get an equal FOV, it should perform very well. If you step forward, a few steps, it'll perform better than the 24-70 at the 70mm FOV

If you take a few steps back, you'll still have a 47° angle of view, not an 84° angle of view. If you take a few steps forward, you'll still have a 47° angle of view, not a 34° angle of view.

Even if, using your method of stepping back or forward, the subject occupies the same angular space within the frame, the resulting images will be very different from those obtained using 24mm or 70mm focal lengths.

 

[Jane79]

How does the Nikon 50mm f1.8 G perform at 24mm focal length ?

Regards Peter

If you step back a few steps, so you get an equal FOV, it should perform very well. If you step forward, a few steps, it'll perform better than the 24-70 at the 70mm FOV

You need to learn about FOV; it's really important in photography.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Huge? Heavy? Perhaps you should try a kit lens. Or any 70-200F2.8. Or a nice 200F2 prime.

Expensive? Yep.

If you wanted light, you shouldn't have bought a DSLR.

 

[Windancer]

If you step back a few steps, so you get an equal FOV, it should perform very well. If you step forward, a few steps, it'll perform better than the 24-70 at the 70mm FOV

If you take a few steps back, you'll still have a 47° angle of view, not an 84° angle of view. If you take a few steps forward, you'll still have a 47° angle of view, not a 34° angle of view.

Even if, using your method of stepping back or forward, the subject occupies the same angular space within the frame, the resulting images will be very different from those obtained using 24mm or 70mm focal lengths.

 

[Brev00]

I am not sure heavy and costly are appropriate con's in a review. Those are factors easily discovered prior to purchase and should operate as a filter in a preview. It is like buying a 70" 3D television and complaining about its size and cost. Those are inherent specs. Image quality is something one can only know after purchase but your comment is declarative without any detail to support it. Sell it. You should get a good return. And move on.
--

brev99

Explore brev99’s 6,815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Jones R]

I handled this lens once. It is huge and heavy for what it is. Nikon could use plastic barrels but some people will cry about that anyway.

I like how small the 35-70 1:2.8 D is. Ken Rockwell has it right: zooms used to be sane.

 

[Stacey_K]

I handled this lens once. It is huge and heavy for what it is. Nikon could use plastic barrels but some people will cry about that anyway.

I like how small the 35-70 1:2.8 D is. Ken Rockwell has it right: zooms used to be sane.

 

[Clubby]

For a zoom it isn't too bad but when you consider a 50 1.8G costs 1/10th that of the 24-70 and has better optics, you have to wonder if it's worth it.
I will say in it's defence however that it is extremely useful.

Problems:

Heavy, Costly, Optics could be better.

I get it, you don't want or you can't afford the 24-70 so your are trying to convince yourself and others that it is not needed. This is the kind of useless "reasoning" you can read here every day. Thanks for wasting our time.

 

[MPA1]

How does the Nikon 50mm f1.8 G perform at 24mm focal length ?

Regards Peter

If you step back a few steps, so you get an equal FOV, it should perform very well. If you step forward, a few steps, it'll perform better than the 24-70 at the 70mm FOV

You want to try that in the minefield I was shooting in recently?

 

[Rich Rosen]

How does the Nikon 50mm f1.8 G perform at 24mm focal length ?

Regards Peter

If you step back a few steps, so you get an equal FOV, it should perform very well. If you step forward, a few steps, it'll perform better than the 24-70 at the 70mm FOV

You want to try that in the minefield I was shooting in recently?

Another comedian! I think zooms are great. In fact I have a number of them. But Gearsau took a old post and made a stupid statement. I compounded that stupidity by throwing out another stupid statement. Primes are great, but like any tool, they have their usese, and in some situations they aren't useful at all. I know FOV doesn't change on a priime, when you move forward or back, but the size of the object, will change in your frame. That is what I was alluding to. Generally speaking a 50 has a pretty flat field, so distortion will be minimized. But using it too close, will give you a different image, than if you used a longer lens to get in close. Stepping back will also give a different picture from a wider lens. Barrel distortion is likely to be less.

Mpa1, being in a minefield would not be my favorite place to be taking pictures...with a prime or a zoom. In fact, a long telephoto or telephoto zom would do nicely, with me standing outside the field. I give you great credit for doing what you do risking all for your art.

 

[Rich Rosen]

If you step back a few steps, so you get an equal FOV, it should perform very well. If you step forward, a few steps, it'll perform better than the 24-70 at the 70mm FOV

If you take a few steps back, you'll still have a 47° angle of view, not an 84° angle of view. If you take a few steps forward, you'll still have a 47° angle of view, not a 34° angle of view.

Even if, using your method of stepping back or forward, the subject occupies the same angular space within the frame, the resulting images will be very different from those obtained using 24mm or 70mm focal lengths.

--
BartyL

BartyL, you're right ... FOV doesn't change at a fixed focal length. It was dumb of me to say FOV. But what I was alluding to was the size of the object in your picture. It will get smaller or larger depending on where you stand.