Nikon 50mm f1.4D or f1.4G

[boyfalldown]

I showed you a citation from a text and provided a refference to it.

Is it so unusual for this forum? Can you imagine what will happend if I put all the texts from cited sources here?

sigh, you have, but your comment about it appears to make no sense - it was this I asked you to explain.

Repeatedly referring to one wrong review does not help your argument any. My (and others) point still stands - you either have a poor copy of this lens, or the problems you see are user error.

I'd love to know what a blur unit is?

Hugh

 

[StingerNikon]

You remain utterly obsessed with sharpness at the expense of every other aspect of lens performance. That's why people are answering you the way they are. You also seem obsessed with shooting everything at f1.4 - that landscape shot being an example. No need for it and it shows a lack of understanding and technique, again.

Frankly, any test that starts to refer to blur units switches me off. It tells us nothing about how a lens renders images in real life.

Oh, and a shutter speed of 1/30s will not magically make subject motion vanish on FF. If you're shooting people at that shutter speed you're asking for trouble.

Yeap. I'm focused on the lens performance in terms of sharpness because it was a part my recommendation to the author of the topic and I’m still very confident about it. I'm not going to discuss any other aspects of the lens performance, at least here.

By the way - this topic is not about me or my techniques - it's about lenses. I described my point of view and confirmed it with evidences (Example photos, tests of 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4G which I did by myself, tests made by 3rd party).

So if you still want to proof that AF-S 50mm G is sharp at f/1.4 - do your own test and attach originals in NEF or RAW format. So other can see it. Otherwise I don't see any other points to continue this discussion.

 

[Radiohead]

Yeap. I'm focused on the lens performance in terms of sharpness because it was a part my recommendation to the author of the topic and I’m still very confident about it. I'm not going to discuss any other aspects of the lens performance, at least here.

It's like pulling teeth this.

The OP asked:


Having browsed the web looking for the answer, I'm looking to buy either of these lenses. Naturally I would just go out and buy the latest model, but I have read that it focuses slower than the older f1.4D and there's the price difference to factor in as well.

I have a D300 and this will be the main camera used with this type of lens. What should I look out for with either lens in terms of use? The latest Digital Camera magazine gave the newer G model rave reviews(they did comment on the slower focusing as well in comparison to the older version)

You answered:

D version is sharper if you use it wide open (f/1.4, f/2.0), G - has better "background blur" but it is sharp starting only from f/2.8 and It is very sharp at f/3.5.

Now, it's a flat-out lie that the G is only sharp from f2.8, and I popped an available light shot up at f2 for you to see. One where the correct focus point was used, by the way - on the eye.

So tell us why you aren't prepared to discuss any other aspect of the lens' performance? It's a pretty weak response you've just offered.

By the way - this topic is not about me or my techniques - it's about lenses. I described my point of view and confirmed it with evidences (Example photos, tests of 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4G which I did by myself, tests made by 3rd party).

No, actually it is about your technique. It's much easier to blame the lens though, isn't it?

So if you still want to proof that AF-S 50mm G is sharp at f/1.4 - do your own test and attach originals in NEF or RAW format. So other can see it. Otherwise I don't see any other points to continue this discussion.

I don't need proof. I already know it to be true. I use it every week, at that aperture and others, for a living. Is the lens sharper at f2 than f1.4? Yes, as with every other f1.4 lens. Is the lens sharp enough to use at f1.4? Yes. Is the G sharper wide open than the D? Yes. Are there any areas where the D is a better lens? No.

These are very different questions.

You need to go away, look at your technique & eye, refine your arguments, and focus on all aspects of a lens' performance rather than obsess about one.

 

[boyfalldown]

Yeap. I'm focused on the lens performance in terms of sharpness because it was a part my recommendation to the author of the topic and I’m still very confident about it. I'm not going to discuss any other aspects of the lens performance, at least here.

By the way - this topic is not about me or my techniques - it's about lenses. I described my point of view and confirmed it with evidences (Example photos, tests of 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4G which I did by myself, tests made by 3rd party).

So if you still want to proof that AF-S 50mm G is sharp at f/1.4 - do your own test and attach originals in NEF or RAW format. So other can see it. Otherwise I don't see any other points to continue this discussion.

but you haven't shown anything - all your tests were flawed and heres another photo showing this lens is sharp at 1.4 Exif is intact and the only processing done is a RAW to JPEG conversion, no sharpening, nothing.

start to think about what your saying abit and instead of being so defensive you may learn something. That review you keep quoting is a big steaming heap of poo

Hugh

 

[dod]

I love threads which get involved in pixel peeping, refer to pixel peeping, indulge in pixel peeping. They're so irrelevant to the real world

So, to continue here's a 100% crop from a G on a D3, no processing other than convert to jpg Focus was on the eye, I can't imagine needing any more sharpness :shrug:

 

[Tyke Tiler]

So, to continue here's a 100% crop from a G on a D3, no processing other than convert to jpg Focus was on the eye, I can't imagine needing any more sharpness :shrug:

Ah, but according to slrgear Dod.......

 

[Davec223]

Yeap. I'm focused on the lens performance in terms of sharpness because it was a part my recommendation to the author of the topic and I’m still very confident about it. I'm not going to discuss any other aspects of the lens performance, at least here.

By the way - this topic is not about me or my techniques - it's about lenses. I described my point of view and confirmed it with evidences (Example photos, tests of 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4G which I did by myself, tests made by 3rd party).

So if you still want to proof that AF-S 50mm G is sharp at f/1.4 - do your own test and attach originals in NEF or RAW format. So other can see it. Otherwise I don't see any other points to continue this discussion.

Several points from this post, you are not willing to discuss or consider other area of lens performance, which is daft, are you saying that sharpness is the be all and end all of it? (from what you have put in this thread I believe this is the case IMHO) So if a lens had chronic CA poor bokeh little contrast but was the sharpest lens made you would be happy with it?

Secondally techneque has everything to do with it, you have posted photos that in my opinion are out of focus and the ten pound note shot looks to have a different exposure, therefore is worth nothing in comparison as it is straight away at disadvantage. You have also posted a landscape photo shot at f1.4, which again shows little knowledge of the subject again IMHO.

Thirdly you said early that your lens is not sharp until f3.5 iirc, you have had other users of the same lens suggest you gave a faulty lens which you say it isn't although you have posted oof photos, which then leads me back to my second point. Everyone who has disagreed with you and even posted photos to back up there posts you have told they are wrong, even ignoring my earlier post saying that no lens is at it's sharpest wide open.

Just my observations.

 

[StingerNikon]

Thirdly you said early that your lens is not sharp until f3.5 iirc, you have had other users of the same lens suggest you gave a faulty lens which you say it isn't although you have posted oof photos, which then leads me back to my second point. Everyone who has disagreed with you and even posted photos to back up there posts you have told they are wrong, even ignoring my earlier post saying that no lens is at it's sharpest wide open.

Just my observations.

This is a photo with 50mm G at f/3.5 100% crop. No Photoshop.
rendered from NEF with Standart settings.

Compare it with photos above at f/1.4 and you can see what I meant by it is sharp at f/3.5 and not sharp at f/1.4

ANd don't start to explain me about DOF. If you think so just take photos of a text with small font size or for example 10 pounds note at f/1.4 and f/3.5 and you will see exaclty the same difference in details. Good luck to you all.

Several points from this post, you are not willing to discuss or consider other area of lens performance, which is daft, are you saying that sharpness is the be all and end all of it? (from what you have put in this thread I believe this is the case IMHO) So if a lens had chronic CA poor bokeh little contrast but was the sharpest lens made you would be happy with it?

I just dont' want to jump to another areas of the lens performance have seen how personally some others react to my arguments. Thanks. Maybe next time )))

start to think about what your saying abit and instead of being so defensive you may learn something

I think this applys even more to everyone who is telling me that I am wrong instead of to be constructive and do a test.

P.S. If you don't see a difference in sharpness between f/1.4 and f/3.5 I can't explain you more.

 

[Davec223]

I am going to say it for a third time and maybe you will acknowledge it if I put it in it's own post.


No lens is at it's sharpest wide open, they all need to be stopped down approx 2 stops to get the best sharpness from them. However having said this, I find that the images I have got at f1.4 are fine and totally useable.

ok the following one I have processed more but again totally useable

as I have said both images shot at f1.4 and were quick grab shots, snaps if you like, in the real world they are both totally exceptable IMHO

 

[boyfalldown]

:bang:

This is a photo with 50mm G at f/3.5 100% crop. No Photoshop.
rendered from NEF with Standart settings.

Compare it with photos above at f/1.4 and you can see what I meant by it is sharp at f/3.5 and not sharp at f/1.4

ANd don't start to explain me about DOF. If you think so just take photos of a text with small font size or for example 10 pounds note at f/1.4 and f/3.5 and you will see exaclty the same difference in details. Good luck to you all.

I just dont' want to jump to another areas of the lens performance have seen how personally some others react to my arguments. Thanks. Maybe next time )))


I think this applys even more to everyone who is telling me that I am wrong instead of to be constructive and do a test.

P.S. If you don't see a difference in sharpness between f/1.4 and f/3.5 I can't explain you more.

FFS - nobody has ever said there will not be a difference between 1.4 and 3.5 - every lens works best stopped down slightly. You've continually argued that the lens is unacceptably soft at 1.4 and repeatedly quoted one carp review as the reason for saying this. All your examples to support your arguements have been out of focus and oversharpened in PP, except for the ten pound notes where the exposure was different. :bang:

Have a good look at your copy of this lens, you've either a poor copy or can't use it properly.

Numerous people have explained why your wrong on this, and have posted both explanations and examples why, yet you still persist in this, why?

And you still haven't explained what a blur unit is, but you have got really rather defensive.

 

[Radiohead]

This is a photo with 50mm G at f/3.5 100% crop. No Photoshop.
rendered from NEF with Standart settings.

Compare it with photos above at f/1.4 and you can see what I meant by it is sharp at f/3.5 and not sharp at f/1.4

ANd don't start to explain me about DOF. If you think so just take photos of a text with small font size or for example 10 pounds note at f/1.4 and f/3.5 and you will see exaclty the same difference in details. Good luck to you all.

I just dont' want to jump to another areas of the lens performance have seen how personally some others react to my arguments. Thanks. Maybe next time )))


I think this applys even more to everyone who is telling me that I am wrong instead of to be constructive and do a test.

P.S. If you don't see a difference in sharpness between f/1.4 and f/3.5 I can't explain you more.

You really have no idea do you.

Here's some more at f2 for you:

Still saying it's not sharp until f3.5?

 

[Naboo32]

Is this thread still going ?

(Where's the "flogging a dead horse" smilie when you need it most)?

[/TROLL]

 

[robrevens]

This is a test I did Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 vs Nikon AF-S G 50mm f/1.4

Both at f/1.8

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4297944964_da352acbb5_b_d.jpg

You may want to remove those images pronto.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/reproducing_banknotes.htm

Under section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 it is a criminal offence for any person, without the prior consent in writing of the Bank of England, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any Bank of England banknote or any part of a Bank of England banknote.

 

[r1andy]

Holly **** , they r sharp for f2 and lovely lookin.

i cannot get this from the sigma at f2, i have to go to f2.8.

class

 

[Naboo32]

You may want to remove those images pronto.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/reproducing_banknotes.htm

It's also a crime to "deface" them, I believe :|. I'm not sure that Queenie would be too chuffed to be referred to as "Natasha Hanky" .

 

[AndrewAlexander]

Hi there, I'm Andrew, and I wrote the SLRgear review that no one cares about. I stumbled upon this thread looking for something else, and thought I'd chime in on a few points.

People have been asking about Blur Units. We use a software program called DxO Analyzer to produce our results, made by the same folks who created DxO Optics. They came up with the Blur Unit (or more properly, "BxU", or Blur Experience Unit). Here's an excerpt from an article describing our testing process:

"BxUs are a mathematical measurement that correlates very well with human perceptions of image sharpness. One BxU roughly corresponds to a "blur more" operation in Photoshop."

With that out of the way, I should underline that it isn't a great unit of measurement, and it's widely misconstrued, but it's the only one we have. We go through a great deal of effort to get what we think are the most accurate results for a given sample of a lens, but even then, it's important to note that you're not likely to get the same accuracy we are. Focusing systems are surprisingly inaccurate, you're likely not using a rock-solid tripod, and your subject may be moving.

To the original poster, I would actually suggest the 35mm f/1.8 DX, which provides an equivalent field of view of around 52mm on the D300's sensor, which I'm assuming is a factor in the equation (the 50mm would offer a 75mm equivalent field of view). If sharpness is what you're after, the 35mm is actually sharper than the 50mm at f/2 (assuming you put any stock in our testing), but as has been stated, as you stop any of the three lenses down, they reach a point where they're all very sharp. Re the 35mm f/1.8, if you're ever interested in moving to a full-frame camera, it actually works surprisingly well on an FX body (there's just a bit of vignetting when the lens is focused at infinity).

I appreciate the point that has been raised concerning shooting in the real world, compared to shooting test charts, which is why we have a standard test scene that we have shot to accompany all of our reviews. This gives you additional information concerning how a lens renders out-of-focus elements, colour rendition, and what those blur units actually mean. The fact is that 3-4 blur units isn't unacceptable, in fact, it's fairly sharp.

If anyone has any questions concerning our tests, I'm happy to answer them, and you can email me through this forum.

Best regards,

Andrew Alexander

 

[Radiohead]

Thanks for that Andrew - I wonder how you found this though

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Hi there, I'm Andrew, and I wrote the SLRgear review that no one cares about.

On the contrary Andrew, (as you well know), someone implicitly cares about your review, so much so that they are clinging to it as an excuse for poor technique. :|

 

[Tyke Tiler]

...Re the 35mm f/1.8, if you're ever interested in moving to a full-frame camera, it actually works surprisingly well on an FX body (there's just a bit of vignetting when the lens is focused at infinity).

I agree that it 'works' but in FX, shooting wide open is the only feasible application unless you intend on major cropping:

Above image found here:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Tva8

Examples wide open can be found here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/749669

Not really the best laid plan to buy if your intending to use the 35mm DX on a FX body in general application.

 

[StingerNikon]

Hi there, I'm Andrew, and I wrote the SLRgear review...

Hi, thank you for your reply.

Is there a chance to see on SLRgear a test and review of Nikon AF and AF-S 300mm/4 in the nearest future?

Regards,
Konstantin.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I stumbled upon this thread looking for something else.....

Thanks for that Andrew - I wonder how you found this though

Hi, thank you for your reply.

Rumbled

 

[AndrewAlexander]

@StingerNikon - we're kind of at the mercy of what Nikon can supply to us, though we have started up a good relationship with a lens rentals outfit, so I'll put that one on the list. We like primes 'cos they're quick to test, compared to zooms.

@Radiohead - I just googled the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G. We're going to be publishing an article in February that compares the testing results of five samples of the lens, to see if sample variation is a factor. We get criticized all the time for just testing one copy, so this should perhaps help in that regard.

@Tomas - I agree the 35mm f/1.8 isn't perfect on FX, but it's better than some lenses where there is sever vignetting. Again, that was for the benefit of the OP, who was wondering about the lens for the D300.

A.

 

[Radiohead]

@Radiohead - I just googled the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G. We're going to be publishing an article in February that compares the testing results of five samples of the lens, to see if sample variation is a factor. We get criticized all the time for just testing one copy, so this should perhaps help in that regard.

Oh right, it's just that if I google that I don't see anything for Talk Photography until I add that to the end of the search. Which would be a hell of a coincidence.

Odd. I suppose it's possible that StingerNikon alerted you? Who knows. It matters not as it doesn't change anything.

 

[StingerNikon]

Oh right, it's just that if I google that I don't see anything for Talk Photography until I add that to the end of the search. Which would be a hell of a coincidence.

Odd. I suppose it's possible that StingerNikon alerted you? Who knows. It matters not as it doesn't change anything.

Who knows...Who knows...

 

[Radiohead]

Nervous laugh there.....?

 

[StingerNikon]

Nervous laugh there.....?

The thing is even I wasn't shure that it was posted by real AndrewAlexander.

But According to the information he posted here It is more likely that he is real.

 

[Radiohead]

Of course you weren't.

Which, as I said, changes nothing.

 

[StingerNikon]

Summary:

1. I supported my comment regarding the lens sharpness with enough evidence. ("D version is sharper if you use it wide open (f/1.4, f/2.0), G - has better "background blur" but it is sharp starting only from f/2.8 and It is very sharp at f/3.5.")
2. Nobody showed their 100% cropped and sharp images at f/1.4 (two crops which I saw is not sharp enough in my opinion).
there are examples of some nice photos at f/2 but f/2 is not the same as f/1.4 and these are not 100% crop or original Raw/NEF photos.
3. Some people agreed that the lens is not sharp wide open and it improves at f/2, f/2.8
4. Nobody has any more questions to Andrew about tests which he made and how accurate they are.

Conclusion : I supported my point of view. All the claims about my "techniques", "ten people telling that you are ill", "he has no point"... are irrelevant.

Recommendations
So far tests which I saw at SLRgear http://www.slrgear.com/ are very useful and I'm strongly recommend to read them to those who are considering to buy a new lens because you can see in advance what results in terms of sharpness you may expect with a lens at different apertures and if it is a zoom-lens even at different zoom ranges (mm).

Additional thank you to AndrewAlexander for provided information.

 

[Radiohead]

Summary:

1. I supported my comment regarding the lens sharpness with enough evidence. ("D version is sharper if you use it wide open (f/1.4, f/2.0), G - has better "background blur" but it is sharp starting only from f/2.8 and It is very sharp at f/3.5.")
2. Nobody showed their 100% cropped and sharp images at f/1.4 (two crops which I saw is not sharp enough in my opinion).
there are examples of some nice photos at f/2 but f/2 is not the same as f/1.4 and these are not 100% crop or original Raw/NEF photos.
3. Some people agreed that the lens is not sharp wide open and it improves at f/2, f/2.8
4. Nobody has any more questions to Andrew about tests which he made and how accurate they are.

Conclusion : I supported my point of view. All the claims about my "techniques", "ten people telling that you are ill", "he has no point"... are irrelevant.

Recommendations
So far tests which I saw at SLRgear http://www.slrgear.com/ are very useful and I'm strongly recommend to read them to those who are considering to buy a new lens because you can see in advance what results in terms of sharpness you may expect with a lens at different apertures and if it is a zoom-lens even at different zoom ranges (mm).

Additional thank you to AndrewAlexander for provided information.

Summary:

1. The OP asked about the D versus the G. You offered one, misguided and ill-informed, opinion regarding sharpness and refused to enter a discussion regarding any other aspect of either lens performance. You therefore derailed the thread by obsessing, wrongly, about that one aspect when anyone but a complete beginner knows that sharpness alone is a poor judge of lens quality. You have shown NO evidence whatsoever that the lens only becomes sharp at f2.8. None.

2. 100% crops are utterly irrelevant with regard to real-world use. Spend more time looking at a lens' use rather than judging test charts.

3. Every single lens ever made becomes sharper as you stop down from wide open to a smaller aperture. This, therefore, tells us nothing whatsoever about the specifics of the D vs G debate.

4. I have no questions because they tell me nothing about how a lens will perform in the real-world. They tell me nothing about how a lens will render skin, about how the in-focus to out-of-focus area is renders, about how the lens draws, about field curvature.

Conclusion: you have boxed yourself into a very small corner with a combination of lack of knowledge, a refusal to enter a proper discussion about either lens beyond that of sharpness, and a willingness to blame poor technique on a lens. Your refusal to accept this reduces any credibility you had to zero.

Recommendations: to anyone wishing to see how a lens performs know this. Test charts will tell you little. You are far better asking those who use the lens day in, day out. Photography doesn't take place in front of test charts, or with blur units.

Oh, and since you're so into your tests, here's one I'm sure you've seen:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/

They conclude:

'The AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.4G was, at its introduction, hailed by Nikon as 'redefining the standard lens concept'. It turns out that in many ways that was no idle boast - in almost all respects the lens is clearly improved over its predecessor, the AF-Nikkor 50mm F1.4D. It's sharper wide open, and provides much more even performance across the frame (especially on FX), with notably better corner sharpness at large and intermediate apertures. Both barrel distortion and vignetting are also lower, and the rendition of out-of-focus backgrounds is improved due to the circular aperture. The typical foibles of this type of fast prime - blue color-blur from residual spherical aberration, and color fringing in out-of-focus regions due to longitudinal chromatic aberration - are present, but not especially intrusive, and appear reduced compared to the older lens. As usual, they are also only visible at large apertures. The lens is somewhat susceptible to flare when shooting into the light, but this is far from unusual with fast primes. Overall in terms of optics, the 50mm F1.4G is sufficiently better than its predecessor (especially at large apertures) to make upgrading well worth considering.'

 

[Davec223]

Summary:

1. The OP asked about the D versus the G. You offered one, misguided and ill-informed, opinion regarding sharpness and refused to enter a discussion regarding any other aspect of either lens performance. You therefore derailed the thread by obsessing, wrongly, about that one aspect when anyone but a complete beginner knows that sharpness alone is a poor judge of lens quality. You have shown NO evidence whatsoever that the lens only becomes sharp at f2.8. None.

2. 100% crops are utterly irrelevant with regard to real-world use. Spend more time looking at a lens' use rather than judging test charts.

3. Every single lens ever made becomes sharper as you stop down from wide open to a smaller aperture. This, therefore, tells us nothing whatsoever about the specifics of the D vs G debate.

4. I have no questions because they tell me nothing about how a lens will perform in the real-world. They tell me nothing about how a lens will render skin, about how the in-focus to out-of-focus area is renders, about how the lens draws, about field curvature.

Conclusion: you have boxed yourself into a very small corner with a combination of lack of knowledge, a refusal to enter a proper discussion about either lens beyond that of sharpness, and a willingness to blame poor technique on a lens. Your refusal to accept this reduces any credibility you had to zero.

Recommendations: to anyone wishing to see how a lens performs know this. Test charts will tell you little. You are far better asking those who use the lens day in, day out. Photography doesn't take place in front of test charts, or with blur units.

A very well worded post which I agree with whole heartadly (sp) it is a real shame that some people will not accept suggestions or advice on what is a poor technique but continually blame the lens. Also constantly ignores posts that point out that no lens is at it sharpest wide open. Heh ho there is no helping some people.

 

[poppy6]

This thread was cool

Too much writing for one night after a few glasses of vino though :bang: