The new NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S

[jsrockit]

Is the cost around $800? Isn't the 50/1.8G the best bargain Nikkor so far?

About $599... but how is it a bargain compared to the $250 50mm 1.8g?

 

[karateisland]

About $599... but how is it a bargain compared to the $250 50mm 1.8g?

Not in that comparison, maybe, but given what I've seen of its performance online, its price compares favorably to a lot of the latest-gen 50s for other full-frame systems.



Though I get your point, we're certainly not talking Fuji prices.

 

[jsrockit]

I guess... I`m just of the opinion that most of these modern lenses are good enough for photography. I can`t get into pixel peeping.

 

[raid]

About $599... but how is it a bargain compared to the $250 50mm 1.8g?

The 50/1.8 g Nikkor will haunt Nikon for its low cost and amazing performance.

 

[jsrockit]

The 50/1.8 g Nikkor will haunt Nikon for its low cost and amazing performance.

I`m even a fan of the $100 50mm 1.8D!

 

[Reinvention]

Here's a picture made with the 50 mm S:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/159377634@N06/46411870772/in/dateposted/

It looks ok to me.

 

[Dante_Stella]

The MTF is unreal.

 

[Freakscene]

The MTF is unreal.

I noticed that. Although Nikon MTF charts show only 10 and 30 lp/mm, whereas Leica’s charts show 5, 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm, and the only chart I can find for the Nikkor is for f1.8, whereas Leica shows MTF at f2, 2.8 and 5.6, it looks like the Nikkor performs similarly to the Leica APO Summicron ASPH, except the tangential and sagittal traces are more even...incredible.

Marty

 

[newsgrunt]

...except the tangential and saggital traces are more even...incredible...

ok, gonna admit it, I need someone to translate this for me 😉

 

[Archlich]

ok, gonna admit it, I need someone to translate this for me 😉

Means it's an extremely well corrected lens even wide open. Good bokeh (some may disagree). At 415 grams it's also one of the (if not the) cheapest, lightest choice if you need this level of performance. Expect other lenses to either weight more than 2 lbs or cost over $6,000, or both.

If you don't have a 40+ MP sensor to cater to though, the older, cheaper, lighter (not quite so though with the adapter) traditional (Double Gauss derived) 50/1.8G and 50/1.8D would totally serve.

 

[Archlich]

About $599... but how is it a bargain compared to the $250 50mm 1.8g?

Nikon really should have made the new lens f/1.7, f/1.9 or f/2 something and apply lots of magic suffixes like "APO" and "Nano" so people don't automatically assume that it's another stereotypical, "basic" 50/1.8 lenses.

They also let go of the golden ring, and only modestly mentioned during an interview and in a corner of their website that the "S" suffix of the new lenses means premium for the Z cameras.

It was a marketing embarrassment.

 

[Huss]

When I can see my nose hairs' hairs in selfies using my Sigma Art lenses on my Z7, I think I'm good.

I also have the 'old' 50 1.8G, and while it is very nice, it does not compare to the new stuff from Sigma and Nikon S/Z. It is great on my F6, as film cannot resolve what the other lenses can offer.

But... if pics matter more than peeping, then the 50 1.8G is still just fine. As are most lenses.

 

[Contarama]

I`m even a fan of the $100 50mm 1.8D!

Yeah...I prefer that one myself 🙂

 

[Huss]

The D is a great lens, with less distortion than the G. Problem is Nikon designed the FTZ adapter so that only G lenses can autofocus with it.

 

[Photon42]

I have only used the 35S so far and I like it very much. Seems like there are some interesting lenses coming our way. Weight in my eyes is nothing to talk about. Size - well. Maybe the pill to swallow.
I wonder whether the 35 and 50 have similar sizes due to some production simplification. Leica did that with their f2 fix focus line-up for the SL.

 

[Freakscene]

ok, gonna admit it, I need someone to translate this for me 😉

This explains it: https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/depth-of-field-and-manual-focusing

For all the love the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 G and D lenses get, despite good sharpness, they have horrible tonality, especially in skin tones typical of caucasian skin (Zone vi-viii) - shoot the same subject on the same roll of film or on the same sensor with one of them and a Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar with the same exposure and look at the difference. This seems to come from poor resolution of detail in highlights (and yes, I have both, two of the D actually, and have used them a lot).

The S lenses don’t really interest me because I can’t use them on film, but I really hope they perform as well as the claims that are made for them. And I may end up using them for work nonetheless.

Marty