Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

[Wolffn]

I took delivery of this lens on Monday and have been testing. So far it's great although auto focus is a little slower than modern lenses that have IF; but that's OK because most images I will use this for will be static objects.

I am comparing sharpness with my 60mm 1: 1.8 AF Micro and maybe the 60mm wins by a little. In low light however the f/1.8 gives much better results even with very low shutter speeds. As is expected, although the difference is stark. The 50mm has faster focus time and doesn't hunt around as the 60mm does.

I think it wins in sharpness and colour against my AF-S 35mm f/1.8G also but have yet to do comparison tests.

Verdict; well worth the US$99.95 I paid to Nikon USA for this refurbished lens. I have rated it **** 1/2* because I don't yet know what perfection is.

 

[paultr]

I was so pleased I had this lens when I bought my D7200. After unboxing the camera I put it on and went into the garden and took a single photograph of a colourful plant. I looked at the shot on the rear monitor and when I zoomed in I was a very happy bunny as the florets in the flower where pin sharp. I did not know at that point just how different the sensor is to the one in the D80 it replaced and certainly did not realise the extra thought that has to go in to make the most of the quality potential. It was a fortuitous first image and I don't think I have had any that have been sharper since and certainly many that have gone wrong in some way or another. I could have so easily been disappointed with my new camera. Thank you 50mm 1.8D ;-)

 

[Wolffn]

Thanks Paul,

It's always great when an image provides such perfection. It's nice to think that we contributed to the image's perfection but for me most times my input is to recognize the potential of a shot and I hope the camera makes up for my inexperience.

Regards,

Wolffn

 

[Esquilo]

I used to have this lens as my primary portrait lens on my D7100, but I was not satisfied with the bokeh (which honestly is awful), so I changed it for the successor AF-S 50 mm f/1.8G.

 

[Vince P]

I have had this a couple of times. I have the 1.4G. But the 1.8D is tiny and light even compared to the 1.8g.. A great just in case lens that performs well enough and can squeeze anywhere. It is also deep enough set that it's like having a lens hood.

 

[anotherMike]

Wow. What the hell are you going to do when you actually get to use a truly great lens as opposed to this rather middle of the pack 50mm lens that has honestly not a single distinguishing "great" image quality aspect - the only thing one can truly say about it is that it can be had dirt cheap.

But let's now get REAL and talk about the reality of where it truly sits when we speak of image quality.

1) All 50mm lenses are pretty sharp stopped down a bit. Pretty basic, classic design that has been around for several decades. I'm not sure I've ever seen a "bad" 50mm lens, from anyone, in over 50 years, if one shoots it at mid apertures.

2) That being said, there are differences among them. Of the most magnitude, in wide open (or near wide open) performance, absolutely. Most definitely in bokeh quality, and yes, even resolution stopped down. The 50/1.8 AFD is mid pack at best wide open - there's a long list of lenses quite a bit better wide open or near it, including both more modern G variants (50/1.8G, 50/1.4G), the Tamron 45, and lenses that absolutely destroy it image quality wise anywhere near wide open (and happen also to be sharper stopped down) like the Sigma 50/1.4 art, Zeiss 50/1.4 Milvus, and certainly the Zeiss Otus 55. If we change gears over to bokeh, the original Sigma 50/1.4, the Zeiss Milvus, the Nikon 58/1.4, honestly the 50/1.4G even, and probably the Tamron 45 as well all have (far) better bokeh than the 50/1.8D. Ain't lookin too good for your 50/1.8D to be considered anywhere near 4.5 stars now, frankly, if one has actually *used* a wide enough set of lenses to have an opinion.

3) And the big winner, the reason I can't recommend this lens - to anyone - even thought it's cheap: There are three known (as in, are facts, not opinions) Nikon older AF/AF-D lenses with design flaws due to them being designed prior to the advent of the digital camera. The 50/1.8 AF/D, 50/1.4 AF/D, and the 85/1.8 AF/D. What happens is that if you shoot any of these three lenses at F/10 or higher in scenes with bright backgrounds, you'll get a whitish ghost-like artifact of the aperture blades reflection in the center. It will ruin shots. I've had it happen with, oh, all three of these lenses, and (besides their rather mid pack optical performance) is the reason I sold them.

4.5 stars? Not even close. I couldn't give it 2, and the artifact issue alone means I wouldn't recommend to anyone, at any price.

Please try to have some real experience with lenses before you go off in this forum about some average performing mid pack 50 that has the potential to ruin somebodies images should they mistakenly put any weight into your sorry "review". Seriously.

Disclaimer #1: I've used all lenses in this discussion.

Disclaimer #2: If it wasn't for point 3 in my response, I wouldn't have replied to you. But given this lens is unfortunately one of the few that actually CAN ruin an image for someone, the truth and reality about this lens must be mentioned so other readers don't make a serious mistake and buy it. That's why I'm so harsh and blunt.

-m

 

[fPrime]

Sorry, it's a lens not a body cap. The OP rated it more accurately than you did.

I have this lens and it it's supremely small, light, and sharp for its size. With its low element count it also renders a great sense of three dimensional depth especially when used within the f/2.2 to f/2.8 range... the elusive 3D Pop effect. Flaring is its only real weakness.

Just because one person intentionally misuses the lens by shooting it at f/10 into bright lights to cause a rare reflection occurrence does not mean it's a zero star lens. Ridiculous.

fPrime

 

[Paddler213]

Wow. What the hell are you going to do when you actually get to use a truly great lens as opposed to this rather middle of the pack 50mm lens that has honestly not a single distinguishing "great" image quality aspect - the only thing one can truly say about it is that it can be had dirt cheap.

But let's now get REAL and talk about the reality of where it truly sits when we speak of image quality.

1) All 50mm lenses are pretty sharp stopped down a bit. Pretty basic, classic design that has been around for several decades. I'm not sure I've ever seen a "bad" 50mm lens, from anyone, in over 50 years, if one shoots it at mid apertures.

2) That being said, there are differences among them. Of the most magnitude, in wide open (or near wide open) performance, absolutely. Most definitely in bokeh quality, and yes, even resolution stopped down. The 50/1.8 AFD is mid pack at best wide open - there's a long list of lenses quite a bit better wide open or near it, including both more modern G variants (50/1.8G, 50/1.4G), the Tamron 45, and lenses that absolutely destroy it image quality wise anywhere near wide open (and happen also to be sharper stopped down) like the Sigma 50/1.4 art, Zeiss 50/1.4 Milvus, and certainly the Zeiss Otus 55. If we change gears over to bokeh, the original Sigma 50/1.4, the Zeiss Milvus, the Nikon 58/1.4, honestly the 50/1.4G even, and probably the Tamron 45 as well all have (far) better bokeh than the 50/1.8D. Ain't lookin too good for your 50/1.8D to be considered anywhere near 4.5 stars now, frankly, if one has actually *used* a wide enough set of lenses to have an opinion.

3) And the big winner, the reason I can't recommend this lens - to anyone - even thought it's cheap: There are three known (as in, are facts, not opinions) Nikon older AF/AF-D lenses with design flaws due to them being designed prior to the advent of the digital camera. The 50/1.8 AF/D, 50/1.4 AF/D, and the 85/1.8 AF/D. What happens is that if you shoot any of these three lenses at F/10 or higher in scenes with bright backgrounds, you'll get a whitish ghost-like artifact of the aperture blades reflection in the center. It will ruin shots. I've had it happen with, oh, all three of these lenses, and (besides their rather mid pack optical performance) is the reason I sold them.

4.5 stars? Not even close. I couldn't give it 2, and the artifact issue alone means I wouldn't recommend to anyone, at any price.

Please try to have some real experience with lenses before you go off in this forum about some average performing mid pack 50 that has the potential to ruin somebodies images should they mistakenly put any weight into your sorry "review". Seriously.

Disclaimer #1: I've used all lenses in this discussion.

Disclaimer #2: If it wasn't for point 3 in my response, I wouldn't have replied to you. But given this lens is unfortunately one of the few that actually CAN ruin an image for someone, the truth and reality about this lens must be mentioned so other readers don't make a serious mistake and buy it. That's why I'm so harsh and blunt.

-m

Thanks, Mike. I have two of the three lenses on your "Complete Crap" list. I don't think they're that bad if one knows about and avoids the flare problem. I'd give the 50/1.8D 3.5 stars, the 85mm/1.8D a bit better. That said, I upgrade to the G versions. I toured the Quilleute Needles National Wildlife yesterday. Here are murres nesting on Petrel Rock near La Push.

 

[Marianne Oelund]

Thanks, Mike. I have two of the three lenses on your "Complete Crap" list. I don't think they're that bad if one knows about and avoids the flare problem. I'd give the 50/1.8D 3.5 stars, the 85mm/1.8D a bit better. That said, I upgrade to the G versions. I toured the Quilleute Needles National Wildlife yesterday. Here are murres nesting on Petrel Rock near La Push.

I need to go and wash some of that stuff off of my car.

--
Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

 

[paultr]

.....

happen also to be sharper stopped down) like the Sigma 50/1.4 art, Zeiss 50/1.4 Milvus, and certainly the Zeiss Otus 55. If we change gears over to bokeh, the original Sigma 50/1.4, the Zeiss Milvus, the Nikon 58/1.4, honestly the 50/1.4G even, and probably the Tamron 45 as well all have (far) better bokeh than the 50/1.8D. Ain't lookin too good for your 50/1.8D to be considered anywhere near 4.5 stars now, frankly, if one has actually *used* a wide enough set of lenses to have an opinion.

.....

Zeiss Milvus £1,759

Sigma Art £575

Zeiss Otus £2,948

Nikon 58 f1/4 £1,199

Wow, how perceptive

 

[Marianne Oelund]

I have rated it **** 1/2* because I don't yet know what perfection is.

Hint: Nothing from Nikon with "50mm" on it.

I have yet to see Nikon produce an outstanding 50mm lens - just a long line of boring mediocrity.

 

[Wolffn]

Well anothermike,

Do you mean to say that only experienced people like yourself should enter this forum? I joined it to learn more about photography and you certainly have done that for me. I have learned that not all people interested in the equipment and art of photography are possessed of common good manners. I see in some reviews an overwhelming pride, even arrogance. The condescension of a professional perhaps. Then there is this need to have the newest and the best; and I thought it was more about skill and art.

I have also found is that there are many differing opinions on any given piece of equipment; yours is just one. I am well aware that a $99 refurbished lens cannot equal one costing 5 or 10 or 20 times that amount.

It's also true that my stars cannot be of equal value to yours or any other long established person in the game. But a star rating is not an absolute, it's subjective unless backed by the results of measureable, repeatable tests. I believe we are not asked to provide these, on this forum, just give our subjective experience. You may correct me if I'm wrong.

I have not at any time claimed to be more than a newcomer to the DSLR game. Persons reading my input will understand that and maybe be happy to see someone else starting to enjoy the art of DSLR cameras.

Yes I rated it at 4-1/2 and as time goes on I might revise it as I get more experience. Noted that my rating is the same as given in this website; but most of those must be ignoramuses like me.

 

[paultr]

I bought this as my first prime lens and I think paid less than the OP. I researched it on here before I bought it and was aware of the poor bokeh but since using the lens I have found it has good subject isolation and providing you keep the background relatively dark and distant you can manage the bokeh. For the price I have found it versatile - it forces me to consider composition so much more (zooms make one lazy !), despite what some say I have had tack sharp images from it - I think there are other weaker points in my system, the main one being my monitor. I have also used it a lot with extension rings for extreme close ups. Finally there is its physical size - walking around with it is much easier than even my 18-70 which is a heavy old beast. No doubt it will be part exchanged at some point and I am sure I will really appreciate it's replacement but I will definitely miss it !

 

[Vince P]

Wow. What the hell are you going to do when you actually get to use a truly great lens as opposed to this rather middle of the pack 50mm lens that has honestly not a single distinguishing "great" image quality aspect - the only thing one can truly say about it is that it can be had dirt cheap.

But let's now get REAL and talk about the reality of where it truly sits when we speak of image quality.

1) All 50mm lenses are pretty sharp stopped down a bit. Pretty basic, classic design that has been around for several decades. I'm not sure I've ever seen a "bad" 50mm lens, from anyone, in over 50 years, if one shoots it at mid apertures.

2) That being said, there are differences among them. Of the most magnitude, in wide open (or near wide open) performance, absolutely. Most definitely in bokeh quality, and yes, even resolution stopped down. The 50/1.8 AFD is mid pack at best wide open - there's a long list of lenses quite a bit better wide open or near it, including both more modern G variants (50/1.8G, 50/1.4G), the Tamron 45, and lenses that absolutely destroy it image quality wise anywhere near wide open (and happen also to be sharper stopped down) like the Sigma 50/1.4 art, Zeiss 50/1.4 Milvus, and certainly the Zeiss Otus 55. If we change gears over to bokeh, the original Sigma 50/1.4, the Zeiss Milvus, the Nikon 58/1.4, honestly the 50/1.4G even, and probably the Tamron 45 as well all have (far) better bokeh than the 50/1.8D. Ain't lookin too good for your 50/1.8D to be considered anywhere near 4.5 stars now, frankly, if one has actually *used* a wide enough set of lenses to have an opinion.

3) And the big winner, the reason I can't recommend this lens - to anyone - even thought it's cheap: There are three known (as in, are facts, not opinions) Nikon older AF/AF-D lenses with design flaws due to them being designed prior to the advent of the digital camera. The 50/1.8 AF/D, 50/1.4 AF/D, and the 85/1.8 AF/D. What happens is that if you shoot any of these three lenses at F/10 or higher in scenes with bright backgrounds, you'll get a whitish ghost-like artifact of the aperture blades reflection in the center. It will ruin shots. I've had it happen with, oh, all three of these lenses, and (besides their rather mid pack optical performance) is the reason I sold them.

4.5 stars? Not even close. I couldn't give it 2, and the artifact issue alone means I wouldn't recommend to anyone, at any price.

Please try to have some real experience with lenses before you go off in this forum about some average performing mid pack 50 that has the potential to ruin somebodies images should they mistakenly put any weight into your sorry "review". Seriously.

Disclaimer #1: I've used all lenses in this discussion.

Disclaimer #2: If it wasn't for point 3 in my response, I wouldn't have replied to you. But given this lens is unfortunately one of the few that actually CAN ruin an image for someone, the truth and reality about this lens must be mentioned so other readers don't make a serious mistake and buy it. That's why I'm so harsh and blunt.

-m

If you want small and light any of those would be no stars, or if you want cheap and disposable likewise. I am not scared of heavy or expensive but there are a lot of factors at play and the OPs score is accurate because it's their score and they explain why they scored it as such. It makes sense for what they value in a lens. In the same way Some days or occasions I will take the Afd over heavier and optically better because it is what is right for that.

You are saying in a pretty blunt way that only your criteria and weighting are valid. If that is the case there is no need to look at other peoples reviews as they will never be relevant to you.

 

[MisterHairy]

Jeez, you're damn rude. Just unnecessarily so, particularly since you are nothing more than a self appointed "expert" with little more to support your position than a propensity for overly verbose monologues and a penchant for preaching.

One of your own favourite mantras is just how important it is to become familiar with the kit being used and maybe, if you had done so when using your old, cheap lenses, you would not have made the schoolboy errors of using them in inappropriate circumstances, leading to ruined images. They are cheap, lightweight documentary lenses and in that context, they are great. Nobody has ever said that the same point scale has to be applied in the same way to all lenses; it is not an absolute scale. For example, should I score my much loved 200/2 poorly because it is unusable as a wide angle or too heavy to be a good walkaround? No, of course not. Lenses are graded according to their performance in their intended field and as a cheap, almost throwaway documentary/walkabout lens to chuck in a pocket, the 50/1.8D is just fine. As is the 50/1.4D which I use all the time on my Df and never have any issues with.

I'm no big fan of the D lenses, many are downright carp (85/1.8, 24/2.8 for example) but your little diatribe there is all rather pitiful and smacks of elitism and a predisposition to dismiss the run-of-the-mill in an out of hand manner. Sad.

You have gone from being a vaguely useful source of basic lens commentary to an internet bully. It's time to wind your neck in.

--
Really beautiful photograph!

 

[anotherMike]

50/1.8G AFS: 200$ - far better sharpness wide open, no problems with sensor reflection artifact. Case closed.

Sorry - but given I've had shots ruined because I didn't know about (and then didn't believe the early reports I had heard back then) the sensor reflection artifact, I'm going to stand by my original stance - the lens simply can't be recommended. The whole point of most reviews and lens discussions is to provide accurate information to the reader, who might make a purchase of said lens. Thus, we have to be honest about its limitations. If the reader reads what I have wrote, then at least they can ponder "okay, the lens isn't going to be world class, but hey, I shoot at mid apertures, and it's small and cheap, so I'm good with it". Contrast that with the worthless review the OP wrote, where somebody could be misled into thinking it's actually a really good, nearly world class lens (which is what I'd rate a 4.5 star lens) and get back to me. Whose review is more accurate, and more helpful, and better to assist a reader? Not his.

-m

 

[anotherMike]

They're okay for you because where you shoot aperture wise, they'll perform okay (not exceptional, but certainly good enough for most cases).

Ignore what you or I own for a second: What's the purpose of a review or commentary about a lens here. Seriously. Is it to promote the lenses on owns, so one can feel trendy and superior because they own the latest (witness the guy with the endless Sigma 135/1.8 threads a while back, trying to get attention), or, possibly, is a review/commentary meant so that a *prospective buyer* can get an *accurate* indication of how the lens performs? I think the second. Now, barring that fact that my post is controversial, potentially viewed as arrogant, and likely demeaning to the OP, if you can, with an open mind, ask yourself: whose post - the OP "review" or my post, is actually the more *accurate* review of the lens that is going to be more helpful to a prospective buyer?

The 1.8D lenses mentioned are not coke bottles: Like I've said quite often in these forums, there really aren't that many truly "bad" lenses. So if one is aware of their limitations, one can work with them. But from *my* perspective, my rating scale, any lens that potentially can *ruin* a shot completely because of a design issue gets no stars, and is not worth purchasing new when there are simply better options available. I honestly don't see what is so hard about that. So if the extremely inexperienced OP can rate a mid pack lens 4.5 stars, I have the same right to rate it zero stars.

-m

 

[Vince P]

50/1.8G AFS: 200$ - far better sharpness wide open, no problems with sensor reflection artifact. Case closed.

20% heavier, 25% longer, 10% fatter, more prone to flare without a lens hood more distortion. Pay your (less) money and take your choice.

 

[Wolffn]

Thanks Paultr, For a moderate and balanced viewpoint. I can see my own lens preferences changing too. I bought a used Nikon 55-200 f/4 VRII but now use it only occasionally.

Being on a restricted budget I can now only afford to buy used and superseded lenses; many of the suggested lenses I just cannot buy. I have to buy the best I can with the funds available.

 

[UGFujiKon]

Wow. What the hell are you going to do when you actually get to use a truly great lens as opposed to this rather middle of the pack 50mm lens that has honestly not a single distinguishing "great" image quality aspect - the only thing one can truly say about it is that it can be had dirt cheap.

But let's now get REAL and talk about the reality of where it truly sits when we speak of image quality.

1) All 50mm lenses are pretty sharp stopped down a bit. Pretty basic, classic design that has been around for several decades. I'm not sure I've ever seen a "bad" 50mm lens, from anyone, in over 50 years, if one shoots it at mid apertures.

2) That being said, there are differences among them. Of the most magnitude, in wide open (or near wide open) performance, absolutely. Most definitely in bokeh quality, and yes, even resolution stopped down. The 50/1.8 AFD is mid pack at best wide open - there's a long list of lenses quite a bit better wide open or near it, including both more modern G variants (50/1.8G, 50/1.4G), the Tamron 45, and lenses that absolutely destroy it image quality wise anywhere near wide open (and happen also to be sharper stopped down) like the Sigma 50/1.4 art, Zeiss 50/1.4 Milvus, and certainly the Zeiss Otus 55. If we change gears over to bokeh, the original Sigma 50/1.4, the Zeiss Milvus, the Nikon 58/1.4, honestly the 50/1.4G even, and probably the Tamron 45 as well all have (far) better bokeh than the 50/1.8D. Ain't lookin too good for your 50/1.8D to be considered anywhere near 4.5 stars now, frankly, if one has actually *used* a wide enough set of lenses to have an opinion.

3) And the big winner, the reason I can't recommend this lens - to anyone - even thought it's cheap: There are three known (as in, are facts, not opinions) Nikon older AF/AF-D lenses with design flaws due to them being designed prior to the advent of the digital camera. The 50/1.8 AF/D, 50/1.4 AF/D, and the 85/1.8 AF/D. What happens is that if you shoot any of these three lenses at F/10 or higher in scenes with bright backgrounds, you'll get a whitish ghost-like artifact of the aperture blades reflection in the center. It will ruin shots. I've had it happen with, oh, all three of these lenses, and (besides their rather mid pack optical performance) is the reason I sold them.

4.5 stars? Not even close. I couldn't give it 2, and the artifact issue alone means I wouldn't recommend to anyone, at any price.

Please try to have some real experience with lenses before you go off in this forum about some average performing mid pack 50 that has the potential to ruin somebodies images should they mistakenly put any weight into your sorry "review". Seriously.

Disclaimer #1: I've used all lenses in this discussion.

Disclaimer #2: If it wasn't for point 3 in my response, I wouldn't have replied to you. But given this lens is unfortunately one of the few that actually CAN ruin an image for someone, the truth and reality about this lens must be mentioned so other readers don't make a serious mistake and buy it. That's why I'm so harsh and blunt.

-m

Where do you rate your AF-"G" Garbage lens ??

I got rid of the boring 50mm 1.8 AF-G lens, acquired older 50mm 1.4 AF (non-D) looking at the pictures not at useless charts. Sharpness is BS for me. I've never seen a pleasing image with any of the so called "G" (garbage) lenses. Seriously !!I I'm not kidding or exaggerating the stupidity of "G" lens. Just frustrated with 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm 1.8 AF-G lens, never tried their newer 1.4 brothers though. No depth, no microcontrast, awkward colors, subject and background gets jelled making a dull pictures. All that the G lens capable is corner sharpness that is of no use.

You know i don't make pictures with my subjects in the extreme corners with lens wide open. . lol

Older glass still holds place in photography due to its capability and character, newer plastic gear started loosing its fake shone/glitter, the Gold Ring.