[LeeRunge]

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/3

The difference with the Sigma 1.4 Art lens is far less dramatic, though, and non-existent in the corners. It's only at 2.8 and 4 that the centre takes on a level of its own. Whether that translates into the real world is something that remains to be seen.

Also, these tests don't check for sharpness at infinity - they check for the distance of a test card.

I’m curious what the newer higher end lenses will bring. The 1.8s are basically midrange glass that offer a lot of value for the dollar. From all the tests I’ve seen they leave the F mount glass behind until you stop down a bunch. Including some extremely expensive glass.

I don’t have the 50mm (I have the f mount 50g). But I do have the 35/85 and a 24-200.
I’m very happy with all of them. The super zoom is the best I’ve had for sharpness.

It’s pretty great that they weather sealed them all as well, and not the rubber gasket at the end type either but actual weather sealing like Pentax does.

[Smolk]

Interestingly, the Pentax DFA 50mm seems to have far less of a difference between the centre and the edges. This is a different test so only partially comparable, but the differences should hold up:

HD Pentax-D FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW Lens Review - Performance | ePHOTOzine

The even distribution of sharpness appears to be quite a feat of this Pentax lens. I wonder whether the Tokina version of this lens for Nikon has ever been tested against the Nikon.
Of course, the Pentax lens is more expensive, but I'd also expect it to be the one I'd rather have.

[normhead]

Whether that translates into the real world is something that remains to be seen.

And really, all that matters.

[mee]

Interestingly, the Pentax DFA 50mm seems to have far less of a difference between the centre and the edges. This is a different test so only partially comparable, but the differences should hold up:

HD Pentax-D FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW Lens Review - Performance | ePHOTOzine

The even distribution of sharpness appears to be quite a feat of this Pentax lens. I wonder whether the Tokina version of this lens for Nikon has ever been tested against the Nikon.
Of course, the Pentax lens is more expensive, but I'd also expect it to be the one I'd rather have.

It's all moot if you're set on one system or the other though.

That said the 50 1.2 is the 'competition' for this DFA lens. Even though its a stop faster. So it's difficult to compare.


Heres the pentax lens:


here is the nikon lens:



It looks like the Nikon is sharper on the edges than the Pentax is in the corner. But, again, none of this matters if you're deadset on using Nikon or Pentax as someone is more likely to use native lenses on the Nikon and one also cannot use the Nikon on the Pentax. Two different systems.

[sundown]

There's a certain point in a life of photography where sharpness starts to lose its meaning, I think. Especially after examining these charts in the past years and when talking about anything above 2800-3000 on full frame.

But if we go back to the topic, I'd rather have distortion and vignetting corrections in compassion to some other horrible stuff that may go wrong in a lens due to design (mis)choices (which often times can come down to personal preferences too, whether you like some weak lens characteristics or not) which you can't correct in post.

[automorphism]

Links?

Photographylife did an Imatest:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/3
Compared it to the 50mm f/1.8G, Sigma Art 50, and the Z bested both of them at matching apertures. According to Nasim at that website it was the second best lens they ever tested. If you also go to Lenstip.com, you can look at reviews for many different fast fifties and I have not seen one that can operate on the 50mm 1.8 S wide open. For example, if you divide the wide open performance by the maximum performance, you get percentage of maximum performance:

Nikon 50 Z: 84.3
Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 (measured at 1.8 to be fair): 82.22
Nikon 50 G: 65.1
Pentax DA 50: 57.6
Sigma Art 50: 72.9


Calculated from data taken at Lenstip. Now, I know this number can be a little misleading, since these lenses have different maximum performances. However, I think it's fair to say that they are all pretty good at f/4 or f/5.6. ALSO, the Nikon Z 50mm has one of the highest absolute performance numbers as well. My point of this calculation is that the Nikon Z 50 is actually amazing wide open, whereas the others are just so-so.

There is other data around if you want to be more thorough but I believe we can conclude that the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 S is one of the top, if not the top 50mm f/1.7-f/1.8 lenses out there. And this isn't just academic ... a lot of shots wide open with older 50mm f/1.8 lenses just aren't that sharp and kind of disappointing under many conditions, whereas the Nikon actually shines.

[Kunzite]

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/3

The difference with the Sigma 1.4 Art lens is far less dramatic, though, and non-existent in the corners. It's only at 2.8 and 4 that the centre takes on a level of its own. Whether that translates into the real world is something that remains to be seen.

Also, these tests don't check for sharpness at infinity - they check for the distance of a test card.

That isn't at all impressive. Oh, it's sharper than the older G... so what?
Its performance is also remarkably non-uniform, with an excellent center but quite poor corners which never catch up. Even the mid values are much lower than the center, and you might have something there.

What is interesting is the Sigma Art's similarly non-uniform performance. I thought it was better than that.
Of course, perhaps the test is flawed and the Nikon is better than it appears.

[Smolk]

It looks like the Nikon is sharper on the edges than the Pentax is in the corner.

You probably mean ‘center’ rather than ‘corner’.
Of course, that Nikon lens is twice the cost of the Pentax, hence as comparable as a kit lens is to a star lens, but it is amazingly sharp.

Something else: now that lens design is computed at a high level, is retrofocus really the disadvantage it once was ?

[mee]

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/3

The difference with the Sigma 1.4 Art lens is far less dramatic, though, and non-existent in the corners. It's only at 2.8 and 4 that the centre takes on a level of its own. Whether that translates into the real world is something that remains to be seen.

Also, these tests don't check for sharpness at infinity - they check for the distance of a test card.

That's really impressive performance out of a 2.99 x 3.41" / 76 x 86.5 mm and 14.64 oz / 415 g sized lens priced at 500 USD.

I'd rather have the Nikon lens if all of them worked on any camera. It doesn't matter how well a lens performs if its so cumbersome that I don't want to use it. The S lens isn't so bulky and is wonderfully sharp and pleasing. Definitely a winner.

[mee]

You probably mean ‘center’ rather than ‘corner’.
Of course, that Nikon lens is twice the cost of the Pentax, hence as comparable as a kit lens is to a star lens, but it is amazingly sharp.

Something else: now that lens design is computed at a high level, is retrofocus really the disadvantage it once was ?

Ah yes good catch. I did mean center not corner. Nikon is in another higher level above the Pentax lens. Also, like you said another level in price. But that's it, as far as I'm concerned in image quality.


But like I said, I wouldn't want to use the 1.4 or the 1.2 lenses due to size and weight. That little S 1.8 is goldilocks 50mm imo.

[Kunzite]

You probably mean ‘center’ rather than ‘corner’.
Of course, that Nikon lens is twice the cost of the Pentax, hence as comparable as a kit lens is to a star lens, but it is amazingly sharp.

Something else: now that lens design is computed at a high level, is retrofocus really the disadvantage it once was ?

You cannot compare directly values across systems. The Nikon was tested on the 45.7MP Z7, and then Imatest is very sensitive to parameters like sharpening.

IMHO, no matter how good a lens, it won't reach 3500lw/ph on a K-1 II (tested with Ephotozine's methodology). We're actually seeing this with the D FA* 50mm.
More interesting is the shape of the chart; as you can see the D FA* is pretty much maxed out from wide open, and starts softening after f/8 because of diffraction. That's almost too good to be true.

[beholder3]

Photographylife did an Imatest:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/3
Compared it to the 50mm f/1.8G, Sigma Art 50, and the Z bested both of them at matching apertures. According to Nasim at that website it was the second best lens they ever tested.

All semi-proper test sites stress that noobs must not ever compare numbers between cameras...
Still they seem to lack the reading skills for these warnings.

No need for numbers anyway.

The Nikon Z looks pretty bad (low contrasts, false colors/CA, bad vignetting) compared to the Pentax DFA* 50 DSLR lens at a comparable setting of F2:

Tokina 50mm f/1.4 FF Opera Lens Image Quality

Even if we are extremely nice towards the Nikon Z lens, the only thing which can be derived is that Nikon has at last started putting some effort in newer lens design.
For a new price of 550 EUR for a slow lens in 2020 versus 200 EUR for the old one - or >250% of the price, the improvements are not only to be expected at minimum, but rather meh.

If one switches the above review comparison to the old Nikon G lens then x2.5 price is even more questionable.

[Rondec]

You cannot compare directly values across systems. The Nikon was tested on the 45.7MP Z7, and then Imatest is very sensitive to parameters like sharpening.

IMHO, no matter how good a lens, it won't reach 3500lw/ph on a K-1 II (tested with Ephotozine's methodology). We're actually seeing this with the D FA* 50mm.
More interesting is the shape of the chart; as you can see the D FA* is pretty much maxed out from wide open, and starts softening after f/8 because of diffraction. That's almost too good to be true.

Exactly. The question is where does peak performance come and with the Nikon it isn't till f4 and with the Pentax f1.4 is about the same as f4 across the frame. The numbers cannot be compared across systems. Even if you have two different 24 megapixel cameras from different brands, you can't really compare them because of differences of AA filters and other processing beneath the surface.

I'm not sure why people are talking glowingly about the Z 50mm f1.8 because while it seems to have nice sharpness it certainly does not have corner performance to write home about.

[house]

In Sweden the 50S cost less than the FA50f1.4. So if you are comparing the 50S it should be to the FA50 (price differences obviously vary but is it comparable to the DFA*50 anywhere?). Edit: the Nikon AF-S 50/1,8 G with af motor etc costs half of the FA50. Comparisons with the FA43 could also be done price and performance?

Beholder if you complain about Nikons efforts what are your words about the Pentax lineup? The FA 50 was released in 1991. Nikon mirrorless being only a few years old has a *much* better lineup than Pentax already. It makes no sense to talk down other brands on issues where they are doing much better.

[beholder3]

Beholder if you complain about Nikons efforts what are your words about the Pentax lineup? The FA 50 was released in 1991. Nikon mirrorless being only a few years old has a *much* better lineup than Pentax already. It makes no sense to talk down other brands on issues where they are doing much better.

No need to get defensive and try to make Nikon look better than it is. I just laugh about people who spend big on a pig with lipstick on.
You are certainly free to imagine and believe anything you want. Lomography has fans as well.

By the way this thread is just about the Nikon Z 14-30 and its covering up of lens design problems via software.