Was expecting a tad sharper......

[kalibre]

Hi,

Received my Nikkor 50mm 1.8D today and couldn't wait to have a play. After loads of people saying it's tack sharp I must admit I was a little dissapointed with the sharpness both wide open and slightly stopped down.

Feel free to manage my expectations on this one, but I just want to make sure that the lens isn't at fault.

The following test was of an A4 resolution card, but printed on an inkjet, so ignore the quality of the subject. Shot's were at 1.8, 2.8 and 5.6, Tripod and with MF unchanged.

Any thoughts or am I expecting too much?

 

[TrevDR]

Kalibre, Could you try a couple of shots around f1/11 f/16 please.

Most lenses have a spot where they work at their best and this is normally around the above figure

 

[theory]

I found the sweet spot for the 1.8 was f5.6. If the above shot was wide open then thats fair imo.

 

[kalibre]

Cheers for the response guys. TrevDR: At the above 5.6 I'm happy with the sharpness and at 11 and 16 it's just as good. It was more of a concern at the wider stops, and from what Theory says this may be as good as it gets.

Here is a 'real world' example if it helps. Both shots are focused on the writing (the up-side-down 0.38 bit), with shots once again at 1.8 and 2.8:

I'm quite happy with the above shot @ 2.8 but didn't think the 1.8 would be that bad......

 

[devitt]

I too prefer mine at around f5-f8

 

[lukewoodford]

Cheers for the response guys. TrevDR: At the above 5.6 I'm happy with the sharpness and at 11 and 16 it's just as good. It was more of a concern at the wider stops, and from what Theory says this may be as good as it gets.

Here is a 'real world' example if it helps. Both shots are focused on the writing (the up-side-down 0.38 bit), with shots once again at 1.8 and 2.8:

I'm quite happy with the above shot @ 2.8 but didn't think the 1.8 would be that bad......

Its funny, that was the problem with my 50 1.4, with everyone raving about them i think i was expecting too much.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I think people buy these lenses thinking they will be tack-sharp wide open and then are disappointed when it's not...

 

[lukewoodford]

I think people buy these lenses thinking they will be tack-sharp wide open and then are disappointed when it's not...

Yep thats me! To be fair people did go on and on about how good these lenses are. Im going to go out and have a play with mine now stopped down a bit

 

[V8burble]

I think you need to put this into context. It is rave worthy for a lens that you can get hold of for £50-75 to give results like it does. Wide open it is not best, but with an unsharp mask in PP it is still great for the money

 

[lukewoodford]

I think you need to put this into context. It is rave worthy for a lens that you can get hold of for £50-75 to give results like it does. Wide open it is not best, but with an unsharp mask in PP it is still great for the money

For everyone who didnt get the point I was making in my "MONEY NO OBJECT" thread. The above statement is it. I may have the 1.4 but this was my point

 

[theory]

Very good in low light though, and it will be sharper than slower lenses without stopping down as much (usually anyway).

 

[lukewoodford]

Very good in low light though, and it will be sharper than slower lenses without stopping down as much (usually anyway).

I totally agree and it is great value for money. For gig photography its a god send.

 

[theory]

But what I really mean is that the 50mm 1.8 will shine at f/5.6, where as the 1.4 will shine at f/4 (the ones I've used have anyway)... Zeiss lenses are known for their sharpness wide open though *hint hint* (alas, they are not known for their AF!)

 

[kalibre]

I've had a couple of hours to play around with it somemore and I am very pleased with it.

Interestingly it seems proportionally sharper at 1.4 as the subject gets further away. The above examples were all near the minimum focus distances.

Thanks for all the replies, and like others have said, I can't knock it for £70.