It‘s nice to see manufacturers offer lenses for non pro custumers, who just want to have a fast lens, without shelling out a lot of money. Most photographers do not need clinical sharpness or lightning fast focus to take casual photos that look good.
@@DustinAbbottTWIIt would be nice to see a return of these more budget minded offerings, that have enough trickle down technology to be a competent performer without loosing all character. I remember that Nikon and Canon used to have quite a lot of SLR and DSLR lenses that would fit the description, but since the move to mirrorless we kind of lost the midrange, and in some cases even the lower end. Thankfully third party offerings are stronger than ever and fill in the gaps, at least for Sony and Nikon. Looking at you Canon 👀
The price vs the 1.8 is only 30.00 difference in cost. For the half stop, would not the 1.8 be a better deal. It's 529.00 for the 1.8 o n Nikon today. I shoot mostly cityscape and landscape, and occasionally astrophotography. I think for the sale the 1.8 may be better. Every review says this has character and not as clinical as the 1.8s. What say you regarding this Dustin. Excellent review as always.
Nikon doesn't allow Sigma into their system yet, but they themselves fill the mid-range segment quite well. 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 may be a tough choice for a buyer, as these lenses are so close in price. But this is much better than Canon’s attitude towards the middle segment - ignoring and avoiding. Canon should stop being greedy on all fronts and either open the way for Sigma, or take the mid-range segment seriously themselves, like Nikon is doing. If I had the choice that Nikon provides, instead of the choice between the $200 50 1.8 which is too weak for my needs and the 50 1.4 which is beyond my budget, I wouldn't say a word about the closed bayonet mount.
This line of lenses is one of the strongest appeals of the Z-System to me right now, hope it will also feature an 85mm next because there you really don't care too much about corner sharpness. And honestly, it's crazy that they are the only first-party manufacturer (!) who's even thought of this since the DSLR days, I'm still surprised Canon hasn't released a followup to their quite popular non-L EF 50/1.4...
I don't get Nikon's lens strategy. I feel it should've went 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2 in terms of quality for the primes. With Nikon, the 1.8 primes are better than the 1.4 primes.
This episode is sponsored by Fantom Tracker. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN20 for 20% off
It’s not bad like you said enough, have a good weekend!
It‘s nice to see manufacturers offer lenses for non pro custumers, who just want to have a fast lens, without shelling out a lot of money. Most photographers do not need clinical sharpness or lightning fast focus to take casual photos that look good.
100%. This is the kind of lens that almost never gets made these days.
@@DustinAbbottTWIIt would be nice to see a return of these more budget minded offerings, that have enough trickle down technology to be a competent performer without loosing all character. I remember that Nikon and Canon used to have quite a lot of SLR and DSLR lenses that would fit the description, but since the move to mirrorless we kind of lost the midrange, and in some cases even the lower end. Thankfully third party offerings are stronger than ever and fill in the gaps, at least for Sony and Nikon. Looking at you Canon 👀
Exactly.
The price vs the 1.8 is only 30.00 difference in cost. For the half stop, would not the 1.8 be a better deal.
It's 529.00 for the 1.8 o
n Nikon today.
I shoot mostly cityscape and landscape, and occasionally astrophotography. I think for the sale the 1.8 may be better.
Every review says this has character and not as clinical as the 1.8s.
What say you regarding this Dustin.
Excellent review as always.
I haven't test the 1.8 S lens, but I did buy the 50mm F1.4. I quite like it, and I really want F1.4 (at least) at 50mm.
Nikon doesn't allow Sigma into their system yet, but they themselves fill the mid-range segment quite well. 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 may be a tough choice for a buyer, as these lenses are so close in price. But this is much better than Canon’s attitude towards the middle segment - ignoring and avoiding.
Canon should stop being greedy on all fronts and either open the way for Sigma, or take the mid-range segment seriously themselves, like Nikon is doing.
If I had the choice that Nikon provides, instead of the choice between the $200 50 1.8 which is too weak for my needs and the 50 1.4 which is beyond my budget, I wouldn't say a word about the closed bayonet mount.
That's very fair. Agreed.
A really thorough and detailed review with all the information one might need when deciding to buy this lens or not. The best, thank you for this.
You're welcome.
Awesome review as always. Now if only I could choose between this or the new 35mm 1.4!
Fair enough.
If Sony had first party 1.4 at this price and quality, there would be many, many happy campers.
Agreed.
This line of lenses is one of the strongest appeals of the Z-System to me right now, hope it will also feature an 85mm next because there you really don't care too much about corner sharpness. And honestly, it's crazy that they are the only first-party manufacturer (!) who's even thought of this since the DSLR days, I'm still surprised Canon hasn't released a followup to their quite popular non-L EF 50/1.4...
I agree completely. This is the type of lens that might actually put pressure on a third party brand like Sigma rather than the other way around.
I don't get Nikon's lens strategy. I feel it should've went 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2 in terms of quality for the primes. With Nikon, the 1.8 primes are better than the 1.4 primes.
It's definitely a different approach.