Boring shots from AF-S testing

[RichDitch]

I found a like new AF-S 50/1.8 that got delivered on Friday - it replaces a30+ year old screw drive AF 50. So I’ve been pointing it at junk around the house to test it out on a V! with an FT1. I’ve included a couple shots taken with my 85/3.5 micro Nikkor taken at thr same time.


The 85/3.5


The 50/1.8 14 hours later


85/3.5


50/1.8


50/1.8


50/1.8


85/3.5. Cord at the bottom of the window blind behind the computer.

My conclusion: the 50/1.8 is a nice focal length (135 equivalent) on an N1 camera especially with the f/1.8 compared to the 10-100 or 30-110 at 50mm. The tradeoff is size, of course, and the lack of VR. I was able to use the 85/3.5 handheld more reliably than the 50/1.8 because of the VR on the 85.

--
You can see a lot just by looking.
And you can learn a lot by reading the manual.
WSSA #449

 

[Paul Pasco]

Rich, your 50/1.8G seems about like mine as far as sharpness goes. I have found that while it is not critically sharp at f/1.8, the speed can be beneficial for getting a shot in low light that a native lens may struggle with, and stopping down to f/2.8 makes a substantial difference in sharpness while still being significantly faster than any of the native zooms at the same focal length. OpticalLimits! tested this on a V1:

https://photozone.de/nikon1/767-afs5018gv1

Another interesting comparison would be the 50G vs your 32/1.2, both shot at f/1.8 and from the same subject distance.

 

[RichDitch]

Rich, your 50/1.8G seems about like mine as far as sharpness goes. I have found that while it is not critically sharp at f/1.8, the speed can be beneficial for getting a shot in low light that a native lens may struggle with, and stopping down to f/2.8 makes a substantial difference in sharpness while still being significantly faster than any of the native zooms at the same focal length. OpticalLimits! tested this on a V1:

https://photozone.de/nikon1/767-afs5018gv1

Another interesting comparison would be the 50G vs your 32/1.2, both shot at f/1.8 and from the same subject distance.

Interesting comments Paul. Many thanks for the link as I had never seen this before.

I’ll give that comparison a try, but I’ll have to think what would make at interesting subject. Perhaps a shelf of just books?

 

[Paul Pasco]

Rich, your 50/1.8G seems about like mine as far as sharpness goes. I have found that while it is not critically sharp at f/1.8, the speed can be beneficial for getting a shot in low light that a native lens may struggle with, and stopping down to f/2.8 makes a substantial difference in sharpness while still being significantly faster than any of the native zooms at the same focal length. OpticalLimits! tested this on a V1:

https://photozone.de/nikon1/767-afs5018gv1

Another interesting comparison would be the 50G vs your 32/1.2, both shot at f/1.8 and from the same subject distance.

Interesting comments Paul. Many thanks for the link as I had never seen this before.

They were one of the few sites to formally test some F mount lenses on an N1 camera. These tests are why I bought the 50/1.8 G and the 40 Micro.

I’ll give that comparison a try, but I’ll have to think what would make at interesting subject. Perhaps a shelf of just books?

Your bottle of ginger beer in front of books is not a bad subject again.

 

[RichDitch]

Rich, your 50/1.8G seems about like mine as far as sharpness goes. I have found that while it is not critically sharp at f/1.8, the speed can be beneficial for getting a shot in low light that a native lens may struggle with, and stopping down to f/2.8 makes a substantial difference in sharpness while still being significantly faster than any of the native zooms at the same focal length. OpticalLimits! tested this on a V1:

https://photozone.de/nikon1/767-afs5018gv1

Another interesting comparison would be the 50G vs your 32/1.2, both shot at f/1.8 and from the same subject distance.

A quick test that might need to be refined and shot again.

• V1
• ISO 100
• f/1.8
• auto ISO
• raw + jpeg
• matrix metering
• Vivid
• mechanical shutter
• center focus only
• 50/1.8G FX on FT1
• 35/1.8G DX on FT1
• 32/1.2 CX

I was surprised by how different the exposures looked and I went +1 with the 32/1.2.

Here are the SOOC jpegs with no additional processing. Focus area on tall doll in middle.


50/1.8G FX


35/1.8G DX


32/1.2 CX

--
You can see a lot just by looking.
And you can learn a lot by reading the manual.
WSSA #449

 

[Paul Pasco]

Interesting stuff here Rich. The fact that you had to give a whole stop of EC to the 32/1.2 is weird; its almost as if it really isn't a true f/1.2. Add to that how bright the 50/1.8 exposure is. It looks like you took all of these within 4 minutes, and given where you live, there probably wasn't a drastic change in light. I hate to ask, but are you sure your 32 aperture mechanism is up to snuff?

Sharpness wise, they all seem pretty comparable. I may have to get a 35/1.8 G as my poor man's 32.

 

[RichDitch]

Interesting stuff here Rich. The fact that you had to give a whole stop of EC to the 32/1.2 is weird; its almost as if it really isn't a true f/1.2. Add to that how bright the 50/1.8 exposure is. It looks like you took all of these within 4 minutes, and given where you live, there probably wasn't a drastic change in light. I hate to ask, but are you sure your 32 aperture mechanism is up to snuff?

Sharpness wise, they all seem pretty comparable. I may have to get a 35/1.8 G as my poor man's 32.

The first thing I did was check the 32’s aperture and it seems to be working properly. But I will check it again (and again). I’m wondering if what we are seeing here is simply matrix metering in action. Note that the 35 metered less than the 50 and the 32 metered for less exposure than the 35. It might be the amount of white wall in the frame driving this. Without the +1 EC on the 32 the exposure for the 35 was closer to the 32 than it was to the 50.

 

[RichDitch]

I see in my haste to get this posted I messed up the parameter list. The ISO was fixed at 100; the shutter speed was determined by the V1’s metering. Here’s a corrected list:

• V1
• tripod mounted
• ISO 100
• f/1.8
• auto ISO
• aperture preferred
• shutter speed determined by camera meter
• raw + jpeg
• matrix metering
• Vivid
• mechanical shutter
• center focus only
• 50/1.8G FX on FT1
• 35/1.8G DX on FT1
• 32/1.2 CX

 

[Paul Pasco]

Interesting stuff here Rich. The fact that you had to give a whole stop of EC to the 32/1.2 is weird; its almost as if it really isn't a true f/1.2. Add to that how bright the 50/1.8 exposure is. It looks like you took all of these within 4 minutes, and given where you live, there probably wasn't a drastic change in light. I hate to ask, but are you sure your 32 aperture mechanism is up to snuff?

Sharpness wise, they all seem pretty comparable. I may have to get a 35/1.8 G as my poor man's 32.

The first thing I did was check the 32’s aperture and it seems to be working properly. But I will check it again (and again). I’m wondering if what we are seeing here is simply matrix metering in action. Note that the 35 metered less than the 50 and the 32 metered for less exposure than the 35. It might be the amount of white wall in the frame driving this. Without the +1 EC on the 32 the exposure for the 35 was closer to the 32 than it was to the 50.

One way to avoid that is to use spot metering.

 

[RichDitch]

Interesting stuff here Rich. The fact that you had to give a whole stop of EC to the 32/1.2 is weird; its almost as if it really isn't a true f/1.2. Add to that how bright the 50/1.8 exposure is. It looks like you took all of these within 4 minutes, and given where you live, there probably wasn't a drastic change in light. I hate to ask, but are you sure your 32 aperture mechanism is up to snuff?

Sharpness wise, they all seem pretty comparable. I may have to get a 35/1.8 G as my poor man's 32.

The first thing I did was check the 32’s aperture and it seems to be working properly. But I will check it again (and again). I’m wondering if what we are seeing here is simply matrix metering in action. Note that the 35 metered less than the 50 and the 32 metered for less exposure than the 35. It might be the amount of white wall in the frame driving this. Without the +1 EC on the 32 the exposure for the 35 was closer to the 32 than it was to the 50.

One way to avoid that is to use spot metering.

I’ve mostly given up using spot metering. With my D7200s I have one of the function buttons set to switch to Spot while holding it - this helped when shooting backlit birds when I wanted to increase exposure without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. But with the N1 cameras I skip spot metering as well as a specific amount of exposure compensation; instead I just look at how bright the image looks in the EVF or on the screen and just crank up the EC until it looks about right.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

I found a like new AF-S 50/1.8 that got delivered on Friday - it replaces a30+ year old screw drive AF 50. So I’ve been pointing it at junk around the house to test it out on a V! with an FT1. I’ve included a couple shots taken with my 85/3.5 micro Nikkor taken at thr same time.


The 85/3.5


The 50/1.8 14 hours later


85/3.5


50/1.8


50/1.8


50/1.8


85/3.5. Cord at the bottom of the window blind behind the computer.

My conclusion: the 50/1.8 is a nice focal length (135 equivalent) on an N1 camera especially with the f/1.8 compared to the 10-100 or 30-110 at 50mm. The tradeoff is size, of course, and the lack of VR. I was able to use the 85/3.5 handheld more reliably than the 50/1.8 because of the VR on the 85.

Indeed, it was my conclusion as well, so I eventually sold my 50.

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses. DxO PhotoLab 8 user.
WSSA #456