Product Description
Nik 50mm F14g Sic Sw Prime Nikkor Lens , Deals Amaz Basics Backpack Slr Cameras, S Y Dcr Sx45 Handycam Camcorder , Zoom Q3 Handy Video Recorder , S Y Hdrcx130 Handycam Camcorder , Manufacturer's Description
Ideal 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. Fast f/1.4 prime NIKKOR lens Perfect for low-light conditions, general and travel photography. Normal angle of view on FX-format cameras Classic, normal angle of view when used on a Nikon FX-format digital SLR or 35mm film camera. Ideal portrait lens on DX-format cameras An ideal portrait lens when used on a Nikon DX-format digital SLR, approximating the angle of view similar to that of a 75mm lens on a Nikon FX-format digital SLR or a 35mm film camera. Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) Enhances light transmission efficiency and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare. Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) Enables fast, accurate, and quiet autofocus. Close focusing to 1.5 feet For extended versatility. Rounded 9-blade diaphragm Renders more natural appearance of out-of-focus image elements.
This review is from: Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (Camera)
Through a rather unique set of coincidences I actually wound up owning two of these lenses at the same time: one that I'd purchased brand-new from B&H, the other a used sample that had been back to Nikon for calibration and found to be within specification. This gave me the fortunate opportunity to test and shoot with two lenses to ensure that the results I was getting were representative of the design and not the result of a particularly good or bad sample.
I did find some differences between the two. More on that later.
I can pronounce the lens unsurprisingly competent on all major counts. I don't think this lens is going to compete with the high-end lenses from the niche manufacturers like Zeiss for ultimate crispness and contrast at large apertures, and it doesn't raise the bar in that regard, necessarily, in comparison to its predecessors - but it is a capable lens that can be used with confidence all the way to its maximum aperture. It is approximately as sharp at f/2.8 as Nikon's best zooms at that aperture, which in the case of Nikon's pro zooms is quite a high standard. It is increasingly fuzzy as f/1.4 is approached, but not, unlike some other lenses I've used, to such a degree that it becomes nearly unusable. It's f/1.4 center acuity is a good match for the pixel pitch of a D700 or D40, and it looks quite sharp on those bodies, but not perfect. On a higher-resolution sensor such as a 12mp DX body or of course a D3X, the sensor is out-resolving the lens by a significant margin and much more sharpness could be used. For the special purposes for which f/1.4 will be used, however, it is more than acceptable. In the other direction, at f/5.6 is has reached maximum sharpness and is slightly sharper than it is at f/2.8: again, quite excellent.
If I seem slightly disappointed in its large-aperture performance, it is because so many of Nikon's recent lenses have been standouts. Nikon's consumer zooms of recent years, the 35mm f/1.8G, the recent fixed-length macro lenses, and almost all Nikon pro zooms for at least a decade now, have been genuinely outstanding lenses in terms of image quality, even near max aperture. I can't quite say that the 50/1.4G is equal to the best of them, but it is good enough that in most ways any differences amount to useless hair-splitting. It is, however, quite possible to nitpick this lens' image quality as it approaches f/1.4, and if you intend to shoot detailed subjects with this lens and then display the results in large size, it will be best to have some discipline as to what apertures you shoot at.
On the more important point of practical real-world photography, these differences really don't matter, most of the time. What is likely to matter much more is the lens' usability, the quality of its focusing system, the coatings that improve contrast and reduce flare: and in all these areas this lens is pure, modern, AF-S Nikon - which is to say excellent. I can point the lens so that direct sunlight grazes its front element, or include the sun in the frame, and the most I'll get is a few subtle ghosts and a small reduction in contrast. It focuses with spot-on accuracy every time, even at f/1.4, a feat that eludes lesser lenses. It is also contrasty, although I will need more experience with the lens before I come to a final opinion on whether it is quite the equal of the best Nikkors on that count, especially near wide open. Differences in color rendition and contrast between lenses are subtle enough that they take time to fully appreciate.
If Nikon got the major points right with this lens - and they did - I still don't think they quite put everything they could into it. It is, for example, already somewhat notorious for slow focusing. The argument has been made that slow focusing might be a necessary trade-off, in an f/1.4 lens, for accuracy: but I don't really buy that argument. The pro zooms, for example, have massive, powerful focusing motors that snap into focus almost instantly, yet they manage perfect focus as well, even at much longer focal lengths where the challenge at f/2.8 is far greater than it is at f/1.4 and 50mm. I suspect the difference is mainly a matter of cost control. In addition - and I know a lot of people will disagree with me here - I think a lens like this could use VR. I realize that the old school would rather make their images sharp with careful planning and good shot discipline than with a gimmick like VR, and yet I grew up shooting film cameras at ISO 64 myself, and I love what VR can do for a lens' versatility. If VR is so useful on my slow 16-85mm VR zoom, and if it has been included on the new FX 16-35mm f/4 zoom, imagine how useful it would be to be able to shoot an f/1.4 lens, hand-held, at 1/4" shutter speeds - especially at the high ISOs today's DSLRs are capable of. It would immediately become an unmatched tool for low-light photography, and I would be happy to pay extra for such a capability. Also, even though it is a brand-new design it lacks Nikon's premium "nano-coating," which is being applied to most of today's top lenses. I suspect that is another cost-control measure, which undoubtedly causes some diminishment in performance compared to what it could have been.
The point is that the 50/1.4G, like anything else, has been built to a price, and although it is not an inexpensive lens it is priced moderately when taking into account its FX optics and full AF-S feature set. It seems likely to me that Nikon has made the decision quite consciously to make this a competent, solid-performing lens, representing an update and a modest improvement in overall performance in comparison to its predecessors, rather than to hit it out of the park. That's good enough: it's a fine lens, and I recommend it. I give it four stars on the basis that it gets every important aspect of lens performance right, carries the very useful technical advance of AF-S focusing, and has no flaws of any real consequence.
Notes:
- Sample variability: I'm confident that I received two good samples of this lens: one had been specifically accounted for as such by Nikon while the other one, brand-new, was even better. The lesson here is that sample variability does exist. The better of these two lenses is noticeably, but slightly, sharper than the other one at each aperture from f/1.4 through f/5.6. It also seems slightly contrastier, which is a logical complement to the higher sharpness. The difference is not large. Compared to some lenses, in which I've noticed large variations between samples, it is relatively insignificant.
- Vs. zoom lenses: Years ago, prime lenses were universally better in terms of image quality than zoom lenses. That is no longer the case. In comparing this lens with my 16-85mm VR DX zoom, an excellent lens that I use as a reference for such purposes, it seems to my eyes that the zoom has a slight advantage in sharpness at f/5.6, which is pretty close to wide open for that lens. The zoom is also at least as contrasty as the prime. This brings me to reiterate something I mention in most of my reviews of prime lenses: the advantage of a prime over a zoom today is not one of sharpness or of overall image quality at all, but of control over depth of field and of low-light applicability. The zoom is versatile in ways that the prime is not, but on the other hand the prime can do things that the zoom lens can not do. For portraiture, still-life subjects and the like, the 50/1.4 gives a critical dimension of artistic control, and for low-light shooting of moving subjects, it is about as good as lenses get (with the slow focusing as a caveat to the latter). For everyday shooting, for landscapes, for low-light photography of non-moving subjects; it has no advantage aside from its compact size and relative simplicity. The same comments would apply equally well in comparison with any of Nikon's recent pro midrange zooms. The corollary to this line of reasoning is that performance at wide apertures is the single distinguishing quality of an excellent fixed-focal-length lens: without that quality any number of excellent zoom lenses can do pretty much the same job.
- Vs. Nikon 50mm AF and AF-D f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses: These lenses are among the worst for sample variability, in my experience. I happen to have a couple of good samples of the f/1.8 on hand at the moment as well as an average sample of the f/1.4D, and the differences in sharpness are very small between those and the f/1.4G, except that the f/1.4D is poorer near f/1.4 (I have seen some that were better). I have separately reviewed the f/1.8D as a three-star lens, primarily because they are so variable and often quite mediocre at wide apertures, and I prefer the newer lens for its AF-S focusing and handling improvements over the old lenses. However, if you get a good sample of one of the older lenses, there is very little to choose from between them and the newer lens in terms of overall image quality. Let your needs and your willingness to spend the extra cash be your guide: if the cost difference is of significant consequence, find a good AF or AF-D sample in your chosen flavor and be confident that your images will in practical terms be the equal of those you'd make with the newer lens.
- Vs Nikon 35mm f/1.8G: This is mostly academic since these lenses are of different focal lengths and designed for different formats, but it is interesting to me as a matter of pure curiosity since these lenses are of such similar vintage and apparent design. The 35mm doesn't have the focus distance scale that the 50mm has, but it is a sweet little inexpensive lens with great performance. In terms of image quality my feeling is that the 35mm has come out being the better of the two by a slight margin. Probably because it's designed with a smaller image circle for DX, and because it doesn't need to open up all the way to f/1.4, it manages to lose less acuity as it approaches max aperture. At f/1.8 through f/2.8 the 35mm is distinctly sharper than the 50mm. The 35mm is remarkably sharp wide open and I'd happily use it at f/1.8 any time, whereas with the 50mm I'd prefer to stop it down beyond that unless I have a good reason not to. The 50mm is good enough at f/1.8 and below, but the 35mm is better than good enough. The 35mm remains my easy pick as the one truly no-brainer prime lens that any DX shooter should have.
- Filters: This lens has a 58mm filter ring, which is unusual for Nikon. If you're looking for a reason other than price to stay with the older lenses, their standard 52mm filter sizes would be a good one. As it is, buying this lens either means buying a spectrum of new filters to use with it, or resigning oneself to using a step-up ring, possibly to 67mm, which precludes the use of a lens hood. This isn't a new dilemma but it certainly doesn't make things any easier.
- Bokeh: I've probably saved this for last because I know, unfortunately, that I have little that is positive or useful to say about it. This lens doesn't have good bokeh. It's not awful; not as bad as some - but depending on what's in the background, if you're shooting close subjects at large apertures you might wind up with some unpleasant out of focus elements in your frame. Personally, with a lens like this, I prefer not to try to throw the background way out of focus: longer lenses are far better for that purpose. A subtle degree of background blur, one that allows you to emphasize the subject while still placing it in a recognizable environment, is my preference - and for that type of photography the quality of the blur is not usually all that important. So for me, this lens' bokeh is moderately poor, but still acceptable. There are times when it can catch you off-guard, though; tree branches and grass being two of the things that can take on quite a distracting look in certain instances. Another special case comes into play when using the lens to photograph close-up subjects, in which case the background will be well out of focus. That type of use is consequently not this lens' forte.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น