Nikon releases new 50mm f/1.4G AF-S

[monokakata]

I'm just wasting a little time here, waiting for a phone call.

I haven't done the research (and won't, because it's only an idle wish to know) but have there been decent comparisons between classic Nikkor lenses and the newer ones? Yesterday I was shooting a reception, and took my 85 f/1.4 (new one), an 18-200 VR, and, just because I felt like it, my 24 f2.8 that I bought in Tokyo in 1969 (and had AId a while back). The 24 gave a great image. Obviously it was auto-nothing but it felt like old times. I was telling people I was shooting with a 39 year old lens. In my closet I have a 50 f/1.4, probably from 1967, a 135 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, a 55 micro (which I use fairly often) and some others, all from the 60s, like 85 f/1.8, 28 f/2.

They're not convenient to use and they're heavy, but they're old friends.

So I'm curious about comparisons. I'd be surprised if the newer lenses didn't have better specs. Certainly I have no complaint at all with my new ones. But I'm just wondering how those old designs stand up to the modern ones.

If this counts as thread-hijacking, and maybe it does, I apologize.

 

[ChrisA]

I haven't done the research (and won't, because it's only an idle wish to know) but have there been decent comparisons between classic Nikkor lenses and the newer ones?

The thing about 50mm lenses is that they have been quite good for many years. I have one made by Zeiss in the early 1950's. It is stamped "made in USSR Occupied Germany" and has an Exacta mount. That lens is as good as my Nikon manual focus AI lens that I used with my F2. My newer 50mm f/1.5 AF-D is about the same. The only real advance in those 45 years was in optical coatings. All of those lenses were the same "double-Gauss" design. Nikon's new design adds one more element and if you believe the MTF curves at dpreview then this ne lens is a bit sharper.

Hopefully before Christmas, or next summer at the latest. Seems like that would be ideal for underwater shooting...

You are even thinking of shooting under water but are complaining about the cost of a $400 lens? I'll tell you that $400 is pocket change once you get into an underwater SLR housing. Just try buying something simple like a TTL flash cable or a lens port.

Actually if you are shooting U/W with an SLR 50mm is an odd lens to use. Normally you want something much wider so that you can get closer. The 50mm requires you to stand off to far.

 

[mrgreen4242]

You are even thinking of shooting under water but are complaining about the cost of a $400 lens? I'll tell you that $400 is pocket change once you get into an underwater SLR housing. Just try buying something simple like a TTL flash cable or a lens port.

Actually if you are shooting U/W with an SLR 50mm is an odd lens to use. Normally you want something much wider so that you can get closer. The 50mm requires you to stand off to far.

Good to know (about the length of lens - I've not looking into it much yet, just assuming I'll need a fast lens). Casings are expensive I know, but I'm actually considering a used film Nikon SLR and casing for underwater shoots, I can just share lenses between the two. There's also a casing for the D40 that's abotu $350, and includes space for am external flash inside. It's just sort of and idle thought at this point... are there any autofocusing high speed wideangle lenses for the D40 at this point? How fast do you need for U/W? Maybe I'm wrong in assuming it needs to be very fast? The kit lens might do, at the 18mm end of the lens?

 

[spencers]

Give me the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S NOW!

 

[compuwar]

I don't think that any "pro" cares a ton about AF-S. Their camera has the motor so it's sort of a moot point for them (yes, there are some advantages in speed and quick manual override as pointed out, but they don't seem to

Speed is only an issue on lenses with long focus travel, but AF override is *critical* to getting shots in a pinch. I think that alone makes it worth-while, but that's just my opinion. If I've got a hunting AF target, I can have a good chance at getting the shot or I can miss it- AF override is important, and making it easy means not having to think about something that should be instinctive. Add in better Bokeh and I think you've got something that'll do well in the market.

be generally deal breakers). Releasing a f/1.8 50mm with AF-S first would seem to be the more logical move, in terms of selling them to a market who is searching for just such a thing, than the f/1.4. Unless there is some really significant improvement in the optical quality of the lens, at least.

I think you're wrong in marketing terms. Here's my thinking: If I have a pool of 100,000 people who want a new 50mm lens and I release a slower cheaper lens, then if say 80,000 were interested in price and 20,000 just wanted a great lens for their camera, if the 1.8 is the only one available, I've potentially lost up to 20k sales (let's say 5% want that extra bit of light, that's 16k who may not wait for a higher-margin lens (or with even margins, higher revenue.) Let's say that 5% just wont wait- they want whatever they can get now- that means you've got 24k customers where you had 20k, and you get the increase in margins and or revenue.

Maybe the f/1.8 will come out really shortly after this and the 1.4 announcement just came first because it's more exiciting sounding... who knows. If/when they do release a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S I'll probably get one right away if it's reasonably prices ($150 or so, as would match the pricing of the exisiting lenses and the new 1.4 AF-S). But there's not much chance I'll drop over $400 for the 1.4, and I think I am fairly representative of the D40 owning demographic.

I can't imagine a 1.8 at $150 if it's another new optical design- I'm surprised they're not adding NC to this lens though- even if it doesn't _need_ it.

I think if you're looking for representative samples of the D40 demographic, even spending $150 on a non-zoom lens is out. Plus an effective FL of 75mm isn't usual for small-format shooters- I think I'd rather have an 85mm for portraits and 30 or 35mm for "standard angle of view." IMO, the 50mm is put out for the D700/D3 crowd, not the D40/40x/60 crowd most of whom are either doing the kit lens exclusively or looking at the 18-200 as a one lens solution.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Speed is only an issue on lenses with long focus travel, but AF override is *critical* to getting shots in a pinch. I think that alone makes it worth-while, but that's just my opinion. If I've got a hunting AF target, I can have a good chance at getting the shot or I can miss it- AF override is important, and making it easy means not having to think about something that should be instinctive. Add in better Bokeh and I think you've got something that'll do well in the market.



I think you're wrong in marketing terms. Here's my thinking: If I have a pool of 100,000 people who want a new 50mm lens and I release a slower cheaper lens, then if say 80,000 were interested in price and 20,000 just wanted a great lens for their camera, if the 1.8 is the only one available, I've potentially lost up to 20k sales (let's say 5% want that extra bit of light, that's 16k who may not wait for a higher-margin lens (or with even margins, higher revenue.) Let's say that 5% just wont wait- they want whatever they can get now- that means you've got 24k customers where you had 20k, and you get the increase in margins and or revenue.

Now THAT makes sense to me.

I can't imagine a 1.8 at $150 if it's another new optical design- I'm surprised they're not adding NC to this lens though- even if it doesn't _need_ it.

I think if you're looking for representative samples of the D40 demographic, even spending $150 on a non-zoom lens is out. Plus an effective FL of 75mm isn't usual for small-format shooters- I think I'd rather have an 85mm for portraits and 30 or 35mm for "standard angle of view." IMO, the 50mm is put out for the D700/D3 crowd, not the D40/40x/60 crowd most of whom are either doing the kit lens exclusively or looking at the 18-200 as a one lens solution.

The current f/1.4 is $400 and the f/1.8 is $120 (from a quick spot check at Adorama). If they new 1.4 AF-S is $430, I figured the 1.8 would run around $150.

 

[compuwar]

The current f/1.4 is $400 and the f/1.8 is $120 (from a quick spot check at Adorama). If they new 1.4 AF-S is $430, I figured the 1.8 would run around $150.

If they do a 1.8 based upon the new optical formula, it'll take more glass and more and better blades (1 more element, 2 more blades)-- that's going to add to the price- the 60mm AF-D and AF-S both had 12 elements in 9 groups, and the new lens is about 20% more than the old one.

While I wish you luck, my guess is it'd be more in the $185-230 price range. Given the new 1.4 is a new optical design that's likely to even eclipse the expensive manual-focus-only Zeiss ZF series 50mm in terms of performance I don't see that Nikon needs to come too far down-market with a new prime- they're going to be able to take the quality high-road on this.

Let's face it, the traditional 50mm lens design hasn't changed in several decades and there are two classes of prime users- quality optics and low light. You get low light here, and you get what may end up being the highest quality-- if you're the brand guy, you're not going to want to cater to the "not really prime user" crowd who's looking for a bargain uber alles when you can basically make the argument that at below USD$250, a 50mm 1.8 with the new formula is a price/performance leader likely to fly off the shelves (and you'd probably do almost as well in volume at $285 and under as you would at $185 and up.)

If I were brand manager at Nikon and I thought the 50mm/1.8 crowd was large enough, I'd likely make it a Holiday Season "kit" lens with the D700. Then again, if I were brand manager, I'd be looking for a rectlinear, fast 12mm or 14mm nano-coated prime, a 35mm f/2 or f/2.8 and perhaps a 24 or 20mm to round out the AF-S wide angle line (a 12mm with the quality of the 14mm on film would probably be a great seller at $1200.) I'd also want one of the 85mms redone to AF-S. But then, if I were the brand manager, I'd be going "Hmm, got minimal profit for the D40, got minimal profit for the 50mm f/1.8- I'd rather sell more into the D300/D700 crowd than the D40 crowd- I can increase my margins, have people raving about the combos and increase profitability- and make as much profit per purchase as 4 or so purchases at the low end."

Personally though, I really wish the'd do a new version of the 20-35mm AF-D, which was stronger at 24mm than the 24mm prime. Something around 12-35 at f/2.8 with NC for flare resistance- with the right formula and vignette control on the D3, they could then just do an 85mm and call the lens thing baked and start on a round of updates.

 

[Abstract]

Also, anyone know what the average difference is in the AF vs AF-S speed? Are we talking a 5% increase or a 50%?

The advantage of this lens is not only that it has AF-S, which by the way, is a great advantage. AF-S makes it faster to focus, and the manual override is excellent for portraits, even more with this kind of lenses were so little is in focus.

Sometimes there's no speed advantage at all, while sometimes it's huge. My fastest focusing lens is a Sigma without HSM.

To me, the main benefit of AF-S is the quiet speed, manual focus override, and the ability to work on those D40/D40x/D60 cameras that some fellow Nikon owners own. For some lenses, focus speed was never an issue prior to AF-S. If I remember correctly, the my 50 mm f/1.8 I used to own (before I sold it), focused rather quickly as well.

 

[66217]

Sometimes there's no speed advantage at all, while sometimes it's huge. My fastest focusing lens is a Sigma without HSM.

To me, the main benefit of AF-S is the quiet speed, manual focus override, and the ability to work on those D40/D40x/D60 cameras that some fellow Nikon owners own. For some lenses, focus speed was never an issue prior to AF-S. If I remember correctly, the my 50 mm f/1.8 I used to own (before I sold it), focused rather quickly as well.

I was reading today that AF-S makes a noticeable difference in focusing speed in bodies like the D40/D60 or the D80/D90, but in bodies like the D700 or D3 it won't be a big difference.

I have a D40x, and I'll definitely get this lens. It is even better for me, I was going to go for the 17-55 f/2.8, but now I might just buy this lens and a 18-70mm.

God, I hate Nikon! Just as I hate Apple.

 

[rogersmj]

I was reading today that AF-S makes a noticeable difference in focusing speed in bodies like the D40/D60 or the D80/D90, but in bodies like the D700 or D3 it won't be a big difference.

Uh, yeah it does make a noticeable difference...because AF-S is the only way you get autofocus at all on the D40/60! Any lenses without AF-S have to be manually focused on those. But on other bodies, according to what I have read, yes it makes a slight difference -- not huge, but that depends on what you're shooting. If it's something like sports, it could be considered a big difference.

I'm probably going to get this for my D40. I've been wanting a really fast lens for a little while now, and I find myself near this focal length a lot.