Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF-S

NSXTypeR

I decided to start this discussion thread because I couldn't find a discussion thread on it. I also decided to start it because I have about $160 in Amazon gift card money, and it's mighty tempting to just buy the 50mm as a splurge purchase.

The gear acquisition syndrome is strong with this one...

Too bad I have a 50mm 1.2, or I seriously would have pulled the trigger on it ages ago.

Also, does anyone use it on DX?

PB_PM

The 50mm F1.8G is a good value, although it won't knock your socks off. Then again, neither does the price.

50mm is an odd ball on DX, not really long enough or short enough without backing off or getting too close. It's at home on FX though.

heartyfisher

I have been eying it for the longest time ... NAS is strong with that lense. However, like you the fact that I have the 50 F1.4 AIS is also being a "trigger lock" for me :-) I do use the AIS on DX and it is a nice portrait lense, as I am sure you know.

spraynpray

PB_pm is right, 50 is not useful on DX except as a full length portrait lens maybe. I had the 1.4 and sold it. Wish I had it now though for the D750...

framer

It's a great walking around lens on that FX body. Last couple of trips I used it with the D810 and it makes a nice small setup compared to most of my other lenses. I've been so happy with the results from that 50 1.8 AFs that I considering getting that new 20mm AFs. The D810 is making me rethink going to more primes again. I've been using a 17-35 AFs for years but I'm seeing it's limitations on that new body.

framer

WestEndFoto

If you like an 85 on FX, then I think that a 50 1.4 on DX could be a great choice.

Photobug

A few months after buying the D750 I purchased the 50mm 1.8. I have used it a few times until 2 weeks ago at our grand daughter's Kindergarten graduation. Results: It's a keeper. Great carry around lens, 50mm on a FX body is great. IQ and DR were more than acceptable. I am happy with this lens, especially considering I used some B&H Reward's money and the lens was on a rebate. I paid a little over $160. Highly recommended.

Finally, n the film days I owned lots of 50mm 1.4 lens. The 1.8 was my first one and its a lot of value for the money.

CaMeRaQuEsT

It's the lens I keep attached to my D3300 all the time, always ready to snap the next great portrait. A little big for what it is but its size and included hood keep the glass nicely tucked in and away from children's poking fingers, so no need to have a protector filter on it.

tcole1983

To me it would be a waste. Since you already have a 50 lens would you gain much? My thoughts are you almost always can't shoot at f1.8 because of the small focal plane. It is easy to miss getting the subject all in focus and multiple people isn't really possible...so you stop down to what? Around f2.2 or f2.8...for me I just shoot my 17-55 wide open at f2.8 and get the results I want with the flexibility of a zoom. But I am not old school and don't need a 50mm prime and I also don't love my 35 f1.8....for similar reasons. If I really needed the one stop on a landscape shot or 35 view with narrow focal plane are the only advantages.

kenadams

I'm wondering is it better optically than the 50 1.4D? Not necessarily talking about sharpness, but contrast and color rendition also. The 50 1.4D is a bit lacking in those IMO, especially when shooting against a light source...

WestEndFoto

It is significantly better, but it has been a while since I tested all the 50s, so I don't remember exactly how.

spraynpray

@NSXTypeR: My own personal experience is difference to a lot of peoples perhaps, but I am not a fan of a 50 or the 35 on DX. To me, a 35 on FX is a much handier set-up than those so perhaps you should consider a 24 for your D7000? I know the reason for the thread is to help you spend your voucher, but maybe put the money towards a 24 instead?

WestEndFoto

This depends on whether you like to shoot a little wide or a little long. To me, a 40/58 on DX/FX respectively is perfect.

henrik1963

My AFS 50 1.8G works well as a walk around lens on my D800. For some reason I prefer my 85 1.8G.

mustangdaren

Great lens for head shot portrait on DX and full length portraits on FX. I prefer it in the studio over my 24-70. I had the AF-D also. Both are excellent but I think I like the AF-S a better.

starralazn

I have it! used it quite a bit when I got my D800. not so much on the D5000, too long for taking pictures of.... food :P.
Not that i use the focus ring really, but the rubber is starting to come loose, the lens cap words' silver has worn off, the lens hood plastic hood is a little cracked. otherwise its fine, AF is fine and its still as sharp as the day i got it...

On another note, i went the other way! lol, picked up the 1.4G when it was 349. Sadly i just had too much GAS, cause i only ever shot at 2.8(1.4 is nice tho...)
The 1.4G gets the job done just as well i think, but the 1.8G is noticeably lighter (to me).

Hammie

Besides the cost difference, what are the general thoughts of the 58mm 1.4G over the 50mm versions?

WestEndFoto

If you love the 85 1.4G for its wide open sharpness you will be disappointed in the 58. If you love the 85 for its bokeh and appreciate the 58 for its "quality" that many of us see but cannot really describe, then you will like it. If you need zero coma, then the 58 is good.

NSXTypeR

Thanks for all the replies and all the other users of this lens chiming in!

Ultimately, I don't think I'll be purchasing this lens as I already have a 50mm as others have said.

To me it would be a waste. Since you already have a 50 lens would you gain much? My thoughts are you almost always can't shoot at f1.8 because of the small focal plane. It is easy to miss getting the subject all in focus and multiple people isn't really possible...so you stop down to what? Around f2.2 or f2.8...for me I just shoot my 17-55 wide open at f2.8 and get the results I want with the flexibility of a zoom. But I am not old school and don't need a 50mm prime and I also don't love my 35 f1.8....for similar reasons. If I really needed the one stop on a landscape shot or 35 view with narrow focal plane are the only advantages.

For me as a DX user for the foreseeable future, the 35mm is an important tool. It helps that you have a fast zoom option, but the 17-55 is a bit out of my price range, as is a wide prime.

@NSXTypeR: My own personal experience is difference to a lot of peoples perhaps, but I am not a fan of a 50 or the 35 on DX. To me, a 35 on FX is a much handier set-up than those so perhaps you should consider a 24 for your D7000? I know the reason for the thread is to help you spend your voucher, but maybe put the money towards a 24 instead?

I do like the wider end of the spectrum, as I find myself trying to back up to get more into the frame. No good solution for wide primes from Nikon, I'm afraid though.

The 24mm would be great, if it didn't cost $2000.

PB_PM

The 24mm F2.8D isn't $2k the last time I checked. I picked up a non-D version for under $200. Don't underestimate older glass.

WestEndFoto

The 24mm F2.8D isn't $2k the last time I checked. I picked up a non-D version for under $200. Don't underestimate older glass.

The AIS version is quite good. I am thinking of getting it to round out my AIS range. It is better than the 20 but not quite as good as the exceptional 28.

If the D has the same optical formula as the AIS, it is a bargain at $200.

Some of Nikon's older stuff is a real bargain. I can afford $2,000 lenses, but I find myself buying these old AIS lenses for $400 - $600. If I was on a budget, I would buy this stuff before DX.

Ironheart

Also the 1.8G lenses are much more "value engineered". The 28mm is pretty nice on DX, and there are pre-rumors of a 24mm 1.8G

PB_PM

If the D has the same optical formula as the AIS, it is a bargain at $200.

Indeed, all three versions of the AF 24mm F2.8 (first gen with narrow plastic focus ring, the "n" with larger rubber and the current D version) share that optical formula.

NSXTypeR

The 24mm F2.8D isn't $2k the last time I checked. I picked up a non-D version for under $200. Don't underestimate older glass.

That's a good point haha. I tend to harp on the newest and greatest. The lens probably performs flawlessly, but getting used to noisy AF would be hard to go back to.

The 28mm would be a good idea, if I wanted the AF-S. I've also considered getting the 70-300 AF-S, as I'm thinking about longer focal lengths as well.

Sigh, there's so much gear I want...

kenadams

Indeed, all three versions of the AF 24mm F2.8 (first gen with narrow plastic focus ring, the "n" with larger rubber and the current D version) share that optical formula.

Oh really?! That would be pretty convenient! I might consider that, since I'm looking for a 24ish lens. The Sigma is top of my list, but - while certainly good value - it is rather expensive and pretty damn huge...

tcole1983

@NSX...of course my situation doesn't fit all. You have the 35 and if one doesn't already have the 17-55 then it is a big cost difference. It isn't that I am lazy about changing lenses either...mostly because I don't feel like I gain that much. Like I said I would probably be stopping down to what the 17-55 is wide open anyway...so possibly losing a little sharpness, but don't have to change lenses and can zoom.

Now if my camera could use them I would probably have some of the older lenses. I have all af-s because of my body..which being cheaper has forced me to buy the newest and more expensive lenses.