for travel, event, environmental and general photography in a wide variety of conditions, with superb optical formula and an ultra-fast f/1.4 maximum aperture

List Price: $582.00

Price: $489.88 & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping.

You Save: $92.12 (16%)

In Stock.

Go to —> Product description

Lens nikkor Reviews

Mixed feelings, December 22, 2008
By Tom Iancu “from east” (Bucharest)

Intro
I was eagerly expecting this upgrade from Nikon camera lenses since I have not been very pleased by the old AF-D version. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens was a performant lens with careful handling and focusing of static or relatively static subjects. However, for action shooting AF with the D version was lacking the kind of snap needed for those “razor sharp” details. Moreover, very prone to flare and coma and with somewhat low contrast rendition of images, the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D was never my lens of choice even for portraiture. During 2007 I got a Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO Lanthar (in Nikon mount), manual focus, that gave me the pleasure of portraiture as I wanted to be (really, for the money that lens is awesome).
However, having a better focusing less flare-prone, high contrast 50mm prime was tempting and, as rumours about an AF-S version started to appear, I decided to sell my old f/1.4 and get the new AF-S version.
However, even this upgrade did not entirely match my expectations. I try to detail below some of my findings.

Subject isolation, sharpness, DOF and bokeh
One of the reasons of getting a large aperture lens is isolation of subjects. Subject sharpness, smooth transitions on D0F interval and pleasant bokeh (see below) is the triad that, usually, influence purchase of such lenses. I have another one: ease of use and reduced weight. The third: getting a prime that has usable AF on D40/D40x/D60 (yes this can be used). Moreover, I am more and more tempted to use fixed focals for general photography and walkaround, thus I lack a performant 35mm prime that will act as a normal focal for my D300 to use most of the time (like back in the old days of film when I was less lazy and spoiled by zooms).
The new 50mm f/1.4 does an excellent job at isolating the subject and sometimes you have to take a lot of care about focusing exactly on those portions of the image that you want to be sharp since even slight deviations might defocus quite severely. The custom stop difference for DOF blurring between a DX and FX is about one stop, which means that a f/1.4 on DX achieves the kind of DOF that you will get with a f/2.0 lens on a FX. However, those of you who wish to get that “magic, almost 3D look of images” should keep in mind that this subjective perception of the image is a combination of subject isolation and peripheral perception of the eye of the blurred background - thus, the higher the quality of the bokeh, the better the “3D” look of the image.
Unfortunately, the extreme sharpness of this lens - even wide open, at f/1.4 - comes at a price, a bokeh which, in my opinion, is not so pleasant. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM produces a better looking (smoother, with no harsh artifacts due to diffraction on aperture rim) bokeh, but with lower sharpness overall. In the end, all comes to your personal preference: sharpness or excellent bokeh ? You cannot have both as a consequence of optical constraints. Nikon tried to launch a rasor-sharp wide opened prime (which it is), with good DOF capabilities, within an optical formula and glass specs that do not generate a tremendous amount of smooth blurring of the background (bokeh). Please remember that depth of field only gives an estimate of blurring of a subject which is in the focus interval, i.e. how blurred the image will be just outside the DOF interval. DOF does not correlate with the DEGREE of blurring of objects placed at SIGNIFICANT distance behind the subject in focus. If the background is far enough (which translates: outside the depth of field) and the subject if close (inside the hyperfocal distance) the DEGREE of blurring is related to the absolute physical size of the lens aperture. That’s why the bokeh is better with large diameter glass and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has “better” bokeh (smoother)than the 50mm AF-S. A basic rule of thumb (that you might consider in your “bokeh-oriented” purchases) when comparing lenses of same focal distance is that the quality of bokeh is directly proportional with the result of: (glass frontal element diameter)/(aperture value F). For example, for a 50mm f/1.4 with a 25mm frontal element that proportion will yield apx. 18; for a 50mm f/1.4 lens with a 50mm frontal element, the result would be apx. 35. You would expect a doubling of of the blur with such large glass.
However, large frontal element and better blur comes at the price of heavy optics and more aberration-prone lens which translate in lower sharpness and reduced microcontrast. The 50mm f/1.4 AF-S Nikkor excels at sharpness and microcontrast (which is not the case of Sigma), thus you will have to choose based on your personal shooting preferences, which lens to pick in the end. Maybe a Zeiss ?

Color accuracy
The lens is on the cool side and this means that colors will be perceived by your eyes as more natural. Remember that what our brain interpretes as pure white (and make you think “this is white”) is something that has quite a lot of blue in it. This is why, in bygone days, they were adding blueish bleaching stuff when doing laundry: the sensation of perfect white.
However, this slight tendency to the cold side has a consequence when shooting with flash: try to compensate a bit the color temp and make it a bit warmer, otherwise soome magenta casts will appear especially in shadows.
Under natural light the color and contrast are almost perfect with well defined hues and very good to excellent separation of colors (something which the old 50mm AF-D did not display) and a wonderful, absolutely wonderful microcontrast.
Used under overcast, the nikon camera lens reviews will retrieve images that have a slightly dramatic, “journalism-like” look, with deep blues and blacks (excellent as density for printing) and well defined details.
The color rendition does not change with aperture values, just your perception of better contrast will increase as the aperture narrows (due to increased sharpness per field).
Due to the relative small glass element diameters, the lens behaves like a planar, thus very low distorsion (close to absent) at the minimum shooting distance can be observed making it ideal for closeups. This is more obvious on DX format.
No vignetting observed by me, both on DX and FX.

Build
The lens uses plastic, but a very good quality one. Is bigger and heavier than the old AF-D (weight: 8.1 oz (230g) AF-D vs. 10.2 oz (290g) AF-S; length: 2.0 inch (50mm) AF-D vs. 2.1 inch (54.2mm) AF-S; diameter: 2.6 inch (66mm) AF-D vs. 2.9 inch (73.5mm) AF-S), but not as heavy as the Sigma (18.3oz (520g); 3.33in x 2.69in (84.5 mm × 68.2 mm) );
The focusing ring is acceptable damped but not for precision MF, in my opinion.

Overall rating and conclusions
Yes, I recommend buying this lens due to its exceptional sharpness wide open, color rendition contrast and compactness. Moreover, owners of D40/D40x/D60 finally have a cool prime they can use on their AF crippled cameras (no internal motor) which - I believe - is the primary reason this lens was launched on the market.

However, bokeh lovers should look elsewhere, in my opinion, or carefully select scenes and compositions if they are looking for the ultimate blurring of the background. If I’d had enough to invest I would take both: the Sigma for the bokeh and more poetry in my images, the AF-S for studio shooting, sharpness and subject isolation.

The choice is yours.

Highly recommended.

Dec 22, 2008 (I made myself a birthday present)
Good lens at $440, and the only available-light option for D40., January 23, 2009
By Benjamin W. Pearre (Boulder, CO, USA)

I wouldn’t pay much more than list price for this lens–it’s good, but not magical. It is fairly sharp at wide aperture, with great ergonomics. In most respects it does just what you would expect, perfectly, so I will waste no time on strengths.

Weaknesses/surprises:

* Autofocus isn’t as snappy as on most of Nikon’s professional stuff. It feels like their amateur lenses. On the other hand, the lens is fast enough that autofocus works even without the focus-assist light in very dimly lit rooms, so your subjects aren’t disturbed.

* Shooting into high-contrast scenes wide open, expect significant purple fringes. Stop down to f/2 or so and they go away. This is to be expected with fast lenses, I believe, but Nikon hasn’t magically solved it.

* Bokeh kind of sucks. Still better than any zoom I’ve used (18-55 VR and non, 18-200, 17-35), but nowhere near as good as some fixies I’ve seen. Points of light behind the subject look like sharp-edged cookies (not donuts, but not Gaussians).

* No VR. What was Nikon thinking?

* 58mm filter thread. Budget for new filters, or a step-up ring.

THIS IS NO LONGER Nikon’s only fast lens that will autofocus on the D40 series! In March 2009 Nikon releases a 35mm f/1.8 AF-S for $200. Similar optics, same instant manual focus, slightly slower, slightly wider, DX (ie. smaller, lighter, doesn’t work with film or FX), and much cheaper. One of those two is necessary for anyone shooting moving targets in available light on one of those cameras. If your camera has a drive motor and you don’t care about instant focus override, or if you only shoot stationary subjects, I’d also consider the older 50mm f/1.4D at $300, or f/1.8 at $110.

On DX cameras, it is a medium telephoto, and is thus only slightly useful for indoor use–don’t expect group portraits unless you have a lot of space. On FX (D700 etc; this is an FX lens) it would be better. This sounds obvious, but make sure that you’ll be happy shooting at 50mm.

Meanwhile, it does what it does, and it does it well.

Just because I’m shocked at the greed of Amazon’s partner, I’ll say again: the lens lists for $440, which is already somewhat expensive for what it is. As of this writing, Amazon’s partner Action Packaged, Inc. offers it for $965+$30s&h. Try Ritz Camera.
Nothing beats a fast prime lens., April 29, 2009
By M. Jewell (Idaho)

I always used to have a 50mm f/1.4 on my old film SLRs. But then I started getting seduced by the “zoom” phenomenon. And when I first went digital, I got a 12x zoom point and shoot. Yes, a super zoom is fun. But my pictures never seemed as good as the ones I took with that old 50mm f/1.4. So when I finally decided to go back to my photo roots and get a digital SLR I got the Nikon D60. It came with the kit lens (18-55 zoom) for almost nothing over just the body alone but I splurged (It cost about the same as the D60/lens kit) and got this lens too hoping I’d like it as much as my old ones and could get back to basics with it. I’ve had it now for a few weeks and haven’t put the 18-55 zoom on the camera yet! This lens works so well with the D60 especially in aperature priority mode. I usually set it to wide open or maybe f/2.8 to get that fantastic subject isolating small depth of field and beautiful bokeh (cool new photo word). And when the light is dim, I can still take great shots using available light which is almost always nicer than flash. The D60’s “Auto ISO” makes this even better. And the manual focus and Auto Focus override works so well it completely solves any problems where the fast and quiet Auto Focus can sometimes get fooled. What a fun lens! I’ve taken more great photos of people and scenery in the last three weeks than I did in the 5 years before that. I LOVE this lens and camera combo. (See my separate D60 review.)
Love this lens.!!!!!!!!!, February 23, 2009
By Charles Badua “Charles” (Seattle)

I own a Nikon d700 and had a D300 before that. The lens worked beautifully on both. What swayed me to buy it is the fact that it is sharp and contrasty wide open at 1.4. The competitors and older version is not.

I read many reviews before buying it, people saying the good things and bad things about it. Most complaints seem to be about its focus speed and bokeh. I think the Bokeh is beautiful, I tried it against the Sigma and the older D version. I found the Sigma to be less sharp and the older D version to be way less sharp and contrasty. As far as focus speed, it’s fast enough, not bad enough that I notice it. I will update my firmware with my d700, supposedly it supposed to help in focus speed, but this was never a complaint anyways.

On the argument of saving money and getting a 50mm 1.8. I have one and honestly would not go back, I definitely prefer the 1.4, I love the shallow depth of field, and the extra stop basically allows me to shoot in almost pitch black dark with my d700. It seems to render colors more naturally as well, my 50mm 1.8D always seems a little warm which I have to fix in post process or use a custom White Balance. Don’t get me wrong, the 50mm 1.8 is the best bang for your buck, I keep mine as a back up, but the 50mm 1.4g is better. I’m not wealthy so I don’t try to buy the most expensive gear, I’d rather buy the cheapest if it works, but once I tested it, I had to have it.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites