pvdhaar
Peter
I'm not a big fan of Nikon's 50/1.8 when it comes to sharpness. Over the years I've had 4 of them, ranging from the 50E, 50AF, 50AFn, and lately 50AFD.
In theory, its reason for being is the f1.8 aperture that should let you shoot at less than ideal light. But that's theory. From f1.8 to f4, they're so soft, that you get better results with some slower lenses and ISO bumped up a stop or two. The 50/1.8 needs to be set at f8 to get really sharp, and by then, what's the point of the 1.8 aperture?
If you're looking for better lenses in the same price bracket, the already mentioned 28-70/3.5-4.5 is lots and lots better (probably due to its molded aspherics). Another option would be a Sigma 50/2.8 1:1 macro if the 60/2.8 would be pushing your budget. The Sigma's auto-focus is geared slower than the Nikons, but again it's a lot sharper than the 50/1.8.
In theory, its reason for being is the f1.8 aperture that should let you shoot at less than ideal light. But that's theory. From f1.8 to f4, they're so soft, that you get better results with some slower lenses and ISO bumped up a stop or two. The 50/1.8 needs to be set at f8 to get really sharp, and by then, what's the point of the 1.8 aperture?
If you're looking for better lenses in the same price bracket, the already mentioned 28-70/3.5-4.5 is lots and lots better (probably due to its molded aspherics). Another option would be a Sigma 50/2.8 1:1 macro if the 60/2.8 would be pushing your budget. The Sigma's auto-focus is geared slower than the Nikons, but again it's a lot sharper than the 50/1.8.
robbo
Robbo
Good grief! After reading all these comments about the 50/1.8, it's a wonder I got that picture of Kayla:>)
peterm1
Veteran
Both are excellent lenses optically (the 50mm is not so well built though as you will see if you compare them side by side but for one hundred bucks who is complaining!) A slightly cheaper alternative than the 60mm is the 55mm f2.8 AF micro - Nikon's first AF micro. It is acknowledged as being even sharper than the 60mm AF at distance and is much cheaper than it, although still dearer than the 50mm. All three will give great results. One slight hitch with the micro lenses is that they only stop down to f2.8 so you will not get quite the same out of focus softness as with the others. If you are tempted to try some macro work too then by all means get one of these micro lenses but otherwise I would say that the 50mm will not let you down. The is one further alternative that I really like to use too - the 50mm f1.4. This has equivalent build quality to the micro lenses but costs a bit less - say twice that of the 1.8 if you buy an older non D variant second hand. I love it wide open. I will try posting an example shot later as photobucket is down right now.
pvdhaar
Peter
I think this really depends on what you expect from a lens..
The 50/1.8 can be put to excellent use, as you've shown (although you probably did not shoot that picture at f/1.8)..
The OP however is looking for ultra realism.. and that's where I find the 50/1.8 is not at its best wide open..
hootnholla1
Newbie
Honestly i would recommend the 85mm f1.8 or 1.4. I know its not one of your options but I have used the 60mm and the 50mm f1.8 and 1.4 and the results from the 85mm far surpass all results from the other ones. You can find an 85mm f1.8 pretty cheap and there is not much difference between it and the 1.4. Its ultra sharp, fast, and pretty small compared to the 60mm.
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
I have considered the 85 as well, however I had the 50 and the 60 in mind because I will be working with a DX camera, and I want a medium tele. The 85 might be too long for me, which is why I had planned to wait on that for another time, perhaps if I upgrade to an FX camera.
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
I looked the 85 up however, and I do like the results. It would be like a 135mm almost I suppose.
hans voralberg
Veteran
127.5mm to be exact, and it's just a matter of one or two step back if the frame is too tight, so I don't think you'll have much of a problem.
robbo
Robbo
Yes, you're right. From memory, I think it was at f11. I suppose the OP would really be best off if he had both lenses. Not all subjects appreciate 'realism'. Perhaps I should add that I sold the 50/1.8 to help towards a 50/1.4G, which, although not that fast at focussing, is much more reliable at getting focus with moving subjects and gives better results alround with a D700 I think.
Joe- there are SO many good Nikkor lenses, it's hard to find a poor one.
In the AF line-up, for work I have one of each AF-Micro made except the old 55/2.8 AF-Nikkor. I use the 60/2.8 most, but also have the 105/2.8 AF-Micro-Nikkor, 200/4 AF-Micro-Nikkor, and 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom. I use the 60/2.8 on the DX format camera almost exclusively.
At home- the 35~70 and the 35~80 are good, and are almost the size of a normal lens. The used price of the 28~70 is not much more than either these days, but originally was 3x either of them.
In the AF line-up, for work I have one of each AF-Micro made except the old 55/2.8 AF-Nikkor. I use the 60/2.8 most, but also have the 105/2.8 AF-Micro-Nikkor, 200/4 AF-Micro-Nikkor, and 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom. I use the 60/2.8 on the DX format camera almost exclusively.
At home- the 35~70 and the 35~80 are good, and are almost the size of a normal lens. The used price of the 28~70 is not much more than either these days, but originally was 3x either of them.
Last edited:
not_in_good_order
Well-known
I think the 50 1.8 AF D is a solid lens. Here are a couple of sample images (click an image to see a higher resolution version)
f/2.8ish, shutter speed unknown probably 1/125th on Kodak Elite Chrome 100:
f/5.6 1/80th D700 ISO 500:
f/2.8ish, shutter speed unknown probably 1/125th on Kodak Elite Chrome 100:
f/5.6 1/80th D700 ISO 500: