Z 50 f1.8S

[Rich Rosen]

"Too big"...Too expensive! Perhaps, but is the Z50 1.8S worth the $600 retail price tag for new? And how can it be almost three times more expensive than the F AF-S 50 1.8G, which was a really good lens for DSLRs? Let's take a look at specs of the two lenses:

Specifications for Z 50 f 1.8S

1. Mount Type Nikon Z Mount
2. Focal Length 50mm
3. Maximum Aperture f/ 1.8
4. Minimum Aperture f/ 16
5. Format FX
6. Maximum Angle of View (DX-format )31°30′
7. Maximum Angle of View (FX-format) 47°00′
8. Maximum Reproduction Ratio 0.15x
9. Lens Elements *12*
10. Lens Groups *9*
11. Diaphragm Blades *9*
12. Nano Crystal Coat *Yes*
13. ED Glass Elements *2*
14. Aspherical Elements *2*
15. Super Integrated Coating Yes
16. Autofocus Yes
17. AF Actuator STM (stepping motor)
18. Internal Focusing Yes
19. Minimum Focus Distance 1.32 ft.( 0.4m)
20. Focus Mode Autofocus
    Manual
21. Filter Size 62mm
22. Approx. Dimensions (Diameter x Length )3 in.(76 mm) x 3.4 in.(86.5 mm) Distance from camera lens mount flange when lens is retracte

Specifications F AF-S 50 f1.8G

1. Mount Type Nikon F-Bayonet
2. Focal Length 50mm
3. Maximum Aperture f/ 1.8
4. Minimum Aperture f/ 16
5. Format FX/ 35mm
6. Maximum Angle of View (DX-format) 31°30'
7. Maximum Angle of View (FX-format )47°
8. Maximum Reproduction Ratio 0.15x
9. Lens Elements 7
10. Lens Groups 6
11. Diaphragm Blades 7
12. Aspherical Elements 1
13. Super Integrated Coating Yes
14. Autofocus Yes
15. AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) Yes
16. Minimum Focus Distance 1.48 ft.( 0.45m)
17. Focus Mode Auto
    Manual
    Manual/Auto
18. Filter Size 58mm
19. Accepts Filter Type Screw-on
20. Approx. Dimensions (Diameter x Length)2.8 in.(72.1 mm)x 2.1 in.(52.4 mm)
21. Approx. Weight 6.6 oz.(185 g)

(major differences in the two lenses are in boldface for the better spec.)

Are the extra lenses, specially treated lenses, coatings, additional diaphragm blades worth the additional $400? They certainly cover at least part of the difference in cost based on materials used. But what about operation? AF-s motors are pretty quiet, until you use them in videos without a separate microphone. Then you hear the AF-S focus motor go to work...and recorded on the video. With the Z mount the STM motor is quieter, although not silent. (still need an off camera microphone, or manually focus).

That leaves the difference in image rendering a key question. Sharpness tests show that the Z outperforms not only the F 1.8, but also the Sigma Art 50 1.4 f mount until f8 where the Art edges the Z out until f16 ( https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/3 ). However the Sigma is a f1.4 lens which suggests that its bokeh is more transitional, more pleasing than the Z mount. Photos from the two seem to bear this out. But then again the Art is $850 and much heavier than the Z, which is only $600.

So how nifty is this 50? For any Z mount owner, unless you hate primes or the focal length, this is an essential lens your bag.

 

[z2122]

Thank you for that summary

I've read that the 50 1.8 S gives a similar IQ than a Zeiss Milvus or Otus. I never had these lenses , but if this is true, the Nikon 50 S is worth every penny and is relatively cheap.

--
catch the light - explore emotions

 

[Barnie25]

It was the first lens I bought for my Z50 past my kit lens and it hasn't disappointed so far. It's so sharp and very versatile.

 

[el_mediocre]

Thanks for the review, have been looking at the 50mm as my next likely lens purchase - primarily to be used as a street/walkaround lens. I think the 40mm might work better in a couple of ways, but I’m kinda addicted to the S-line lenses now (and I’m assuming it won’t show up before 2022 anyway.)

 

[woody allen]

The sharpest lens I ever owned, period.

Plus, colors and contrast are usually so good, I almost don't need to do any correction of RAW file in PP.

Highly recommended if you shoot 50s.

 

[Gangster Chicken]

I have a Z6II and the Z 50mm f1.8 S and it has better image quality and it's sharper too than any lens I in my 16 years pf photography have ever had, the quality more than justifies the price. Here's a photo I took with the Z 50mm f1.8 S.





And to properly see the amazingly quality here's a 100% crop.

 

[MrWinnieThePooh]

I have the Z 50mm f/1.8S but I have found that, since getting the Z 24-70mm f/2.8S, the 50mm has become more of a niche lens, which I only require in those situations when I want a wider aperture than f/2.8. It's not that I "hate" prime lenses, it's just that the Z f/2.8 zoom lenses are so good that the only reason for opting for a prime lens is for the wider aperture (and possibly size and weight) and not optical quality.

Yes, sure that 50mm f/1.8S may be slightly sharper than the Z 24-70mm f/2.8S at 50mm, but this is hardly visible in real world usage and, for me, this is not sufficient to offset the increased flexibility of the zoom.

 

[Rich Rosen]

Zoom lenses tend to do that to primes. I also have the 24-70 f 2.8s. According to Ricci talks, the 50 1.8s is one of the few primes, that out does the 24-70 at 50. In an unscientific test, of the 2, I agree. And of course the 50 is better in low light.

 

[cali92rs]

Awesome lens for sure.
But I just don’t get along with that focal length. That’s obviously not a fault of the lens, it is probably the sharpest lens I have ever owned.