Nikon has made something I've been dreaming about for a long time - something as close as possible to the best version of the old-school fifty. I've long wondered what the classic fifty would be like if it were made today. Well, it's not exactly "7 elements in 6 groups", but it's very close in character and price. This lens is practicality itself - decent sharpness wide open in the center, excellent sharpness when stopped down along the field. You don't need more than that. We can dream about Canon doing something like this, but we know they won't.
@@justinburley8659 Maybe it does, but then Nikon also has the 1.8 S for perfect optical quality, still at a good price. With Canon there's nothing between the boring 1.8 STM and the 1.2 L.
@@justinburley8659 But Canon have nothing in-between the 1.8 and the 1.2 L. With Nikon you can at least choose the 1.8 S for perfect optical performance still at a low price.
The image quality is good enough for portraits and events. Edge to edge sharpness isn't so important. I'd rather get this over the f/1.2, and use the spare cash on another lens, or even two lenses.
If only the bokeh would be a bit better. I don't care about sharpness that much, because you don''t see it online on social media, but you do see the bokeh even at 1000x1000 pixels resolution.
This optical performance is really surprisingly good for the price. At 1.4 it has the detail but only lacks a bit of microcontrast, which might be a desirable trait for some portraiture anyway.
@@stefan_becker so you use cameras for social media nothing wrong with that but in those cases 8mp or better is useless if you don't crop, where cameras shine is large prints and careful PP
I've been shooting with this lens for the last couple of weeks, and it's bloody fantastic. It's a little big and heavy for what it is, and the lens hood is one of those petal shaped designs that I instantly throw in the garbage, but otherwise it's excellent.
The way the corner blurs into a mess at 1.4, but becomes so sharp at 2.8 is definitely intentional and by design. It looks similar to the rendering of older lenses from 15, even 30 years ago. I personally know a few friends who like lenses that render images this way. Don't like it? There's the clinically sharp 1.8S.
Thanks Christopher, I've been waiting for your video on this lens to drop. I use the Nikon z 35mm f/1.4 and am absolutely loving it. I am very much hoping they will do an 85 in this line too which will be a must buy for me. Then I will finally retire my Tamron SP VC 85 1.8 that I am still rocking to this day (via an FTZ adapter). The 50 1.4 will be a nice to have at some point.
Nikon seems to be releasing their 1.4 Z primes with the intention of offering an alternative to their 1.8 versions that is both cheaper and prioritizes character over ultimate image quality and sharpness. I think it's a smart decision to allow consumers to choose between these two lines of lenses depending on what aspects are most important to them and their applications.
Also, they seem to be video lenses. They're the only non S lenses to have two rings, and they weigh almost exactly the same and are the same length (=no need to rebalance on a gimbal)
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between this and the F-mount 50mm f/1.4G lens - I'd be willing to bet this version is improved in sharpness but otherwise very similar to the older lens.
How is it that small and compact (relatively) for a full frame f1.4 lens??? Any other f1.4 I've seen have been insanely huge! I wish some reputable brand made one of these for the Sony E mount at the same size or even smaller for the a7c line up.
I purchased this lens and am waiting for it to arrive. Was deciding between this and 50mm 1.8S , ultimately my wife liked the look of 1.4 more, 😅 , so no argument there.
Not going to make a joke about Nikon engineers forgetting about LOCA :) This is the modern version of the older 50mm 1.4 nifty fifty lens. Each generation had pros or cons over the other but it was never a perfect lens. Same hold true here though I would argue that this version will run circles around the DSLR version (but perform poorly if we go by the technical metrics and compare to many element counterparts from different manufacturers or even Nikon's 50mm 1.8 Z) Good old old school design where there are not many higher order aberrations. For the lower level aberrations, you just stop down and it's all good. Given the price point, it's a very good lens. A trivia for Nikon lovers, 50mm 1.8 G lens was the better lens (technically but also on aesthetics in my opinion) when compared to to 50mm 1.4 G lens. The same holds true in the mirrorless variants. Now Nikon, please open up your Z mount for the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world so that people have a choice. I'm sure many would still pick this lens. For comparison, it is similar to Zony 55mm 1.8. The Zony is the better lens (much sharper and contrasty, the Zeiss pop which I don''t believe but see sometimes) but more expensive, onion rings in bokeh (but otherwise smooother) with the same wide open LOCA that will clear up earlier. Also Nikon is faster, without aspheric elements which matter to some.
Nikon does not allow Sigma on their mount, but this is not so critical, since they themselves fill the middle segment perfectly. This is a huge difference from what Canon does. Where Nikon has 2 lines competing with each other for the wallet of a reasonable buyer - Canon has a huge hole.
"Nikon does not allow Sigma on their mount, ..." - false, there are three Z-mount Sigma lenses for DX, since Sigma is one of the companies which officially licensed the mount from Nikon, enabling full compatibility (besides Tamron and Cosina Voigtländer). Of course, they might contractually control what kind of specific lenses Sigma can release, but saying "they do not allow Sigma on their mount" is not true.
@@mandula10 I don't think that there is a contractual control from Nikon regarding what Sigma can release - I just think Sigma doesn't want to (or can't do it). If there were contractual control in place I would point at the flood of lenses from the Chinese manufacturers for Nikon Z and would find a way to relax the restrictions to at least get their I-series approved. Another weird thing is that they stopped after releasing the Sigma APS-C trio and didn't release any additional APS-C lenses for Nikon Z like for example the Sigma 23mm 1.4, 18-50mm 2.8 or 11-20mm 2.8. They did say the sale of those lenses were not good. Surely Nikon wouldn't mind those lenses considering there just isn't many APS-C lenses for Nikon Z. Sigma also needs to release lenses for the L-mount, (compared to Tamron) so they already have to deal with one more mount. They also said that they have their hands full just releasing the lenses for E-mount, which doesn't sound to me that they would be in a rush to release lenses for other mounts. Then there is the Canon opening up - unfortunately I think Sigma would rather bet on Canon RF than Nikon Z, which is why they released practically their whole APS-C lineup for the Canon from the get go (no "touching the market and then we'll see" talk like they did when releasing the lenses for Nikon Z).
@@mandula10Everyone already knows that the APS-C lenses exist, but when people say "3rd party lenses from brand X aren't allowed" it's already implied that it's about full frame since that's where it counts most importantly.
Please, also review the new Panasonic lenses, such as, the: Panasonic Lumix S 28-200mm f/4-7.1 MACRO O.I.S. Panasonic Lumix S 18-40mm f/4.5-6.3 Panasonic Lumix S 14-28 Ultra Wide Angle Panasonic Lumix S 100mm f/2.8 Macro Panasonic Lumix S 85mm f/1.8 Panasonic Lumix S 50mm f/1.8 Lens Panasonic Lumix S 35mm f/1.8 Panasonic Lumix S 24mm f/1.8 Panasonic Lumix S 18mm f/1.8 Ultra-Wide-Angle
I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 over this any day of the week. Sharpness actually seems alright, but having to deal with these chromatic aberrations isn't worth the slight edge you get in terms of price and DOF, in my opinion.
I also wouldn't mind the sharpness. But from f1.4 I'd expect very smooth bokeh which is not this case. That's why I'd the 50mm f1.8 S instead of this one too.
I bought this lens for video but for photography compared to my 50mm 1.4 SIGMA ART that I bought used for $350 this new Z lens somewhat disappointing, sharpness is there wide open but you really have to post process it to even match the SIGMA. If you don't dabble much on video just better get the used Sigma, much cheaper too. I just recommend adapted Sigma Art for new Z system owners, these lenses just offers better bang for your buck and i feel like this 50mm Z is a bit overpriced by about $100
@@rhalfik I have never tried a spherical aberration control lens, but it sounds interesting. The old Nikon 58mm f/1.4 f-mount is not the sharpest wide open, but I'm not looking for ultimate sharpness, when I shoot portraits
50mm on full-frame isn't my first choice as it isn't a focal length for me. I do have the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4 and I am very pleased with it. These lenses have character and are a great addition to the Z line up. I hope they do a 85mm f/1.4 - with old-school softness on the edges wide open and sharpening up as you stop down, would make an ideal portrait lens. Old school character with modern AF and handling.
Hm, I get there is a market (and application) for these new decent enough 1.4f-lenses from Nikon but I'd much rather pay the additional 100 bucks for the much better overall 1.8f version of this.
The optical performance is similar to the old Af-s 50mm f1.8g, which is the same overall perfect sharpness starting from stop down to F2.8. If you didn't have the old lens, get the new one, otherwise there is no point to buy another one.
I'm really annoyed because I miss my Voigtlander 50mm f/2 and the 1.8 S is as close to an AF version of that lens as Nikon has on its mount. But _this_ thing is basically a modern AF version of the 50s from the 1970s, which I do actually have one of. So now I really don't know if I want to stick with character for my main lens or go for optical "perfection" and use the real thing for when I want the vintage look.
Disagree. From an optics standpoint, this smokes the lenses I have from the 70s wide open while still retaining some of that character. I recently mounted my Canon 50mm 1.4 and Minolta 55mm 1.7 and they are cool, but far from sharp wide open
@@freebird61885 I'm being metaphorical. Of course the optics blow an actual vintage lens out of the water, but there aren't many cases where you can get the character of a lens from back then _with autofocus_ even if it seems like it's put in this one intentionally. Still though, I love that Nikon did it. We need this sort of thing.
Nikon's way to avoid people buying sigma's lense to get affordable F1.4 :) And with some characters and if i may speculate considering they used the same body for the 35 and 50 i'm wondering if nikon isn't trying to do a panasonic with a full release of video lense of the same size with low focus breathing but this time at 1.4 instead of 1.8 :) Let's hope they also do a 85mm :)
An used Sigma 50 f1.4 Art for DSLR cost 20/30% less, yes needs adapter and is bigger and heavier, but it's ten times better then this mess. Especially the LCA is a total disaster, and corner sharpness at f1.4 is barely acceptable just due to the price, but at f2 needs to be MUCH better then that, it seems they deliberately designed it to be good just from f2.8 which is rather offensive.
These non S line is the job of third parties. An S line 1.4 lenses can coexist along with these to cater different market groups. Nikon is making grt hybrid bodies but nikon lacks hybrid lenses. A good ecosystem is needed for someone to really get into a brand. DearNikon pls make high quality 1.4 S line primes with a optimum balance of quality, charecter, weight n price affordability of set of highquality primes n ease of using them on field is imp for hybrid shooters especially event shooters .
Looks like there are too many compromises. The 1.4 out of focus areas are edgy with fringed bokeh so I guess that is the 'character' of this lens. Same issue with the 1.8 version but very sharp, but on the used market that one is cheaper! The 1.2 is great but very big, heavy and often overkill. I was hoping for a 1.4 S lens which would mean I'd only need that one. 🥲
Looking at Chris' own review of the Nikon Z 50 f1.8 S a few years back as a comparison this new lens is clearly a step down in image quality. The poor central sharpness and noticeable CAs at the widest aperture and pronounced comatic flare are particularly of note. If your typical shooting scenes don't have light sources in the frame or don't require you to shoot at the widest apetures then it would be fine.
Honestly I don't understand Nikons product strategy. Shouldn't an f1.4 lens be better than an f1.8 lens? But the bokeh and longitudinal ca of this f1.4. lens is (at least for me) not acceptable. And no it's not "retro/vintage" look. If I want a nice, romantic "retro/vintage" lens, I use my Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 Nokton.
No, a f/1.4 lens doesn't need to be better than an f/1.8 lens. Lenses with smaller apertures are easier to correct for optical aberrations, with this and the f/1.8 S being in the same price ballpark it you can use that budget to either better correct a design or give a larger aperture, not both. Of course, it could have been better than the f/1.8 but then it would have been more expensive and worthy of being part of the S series (which Nikon didn't seem to want). This is Nikon repeating what they have done with some of their zooms: you get both f/4 S and f/2.8 non-S versions at similar prices with just different tradeoffs, you pick the one you like the most.
@@mbravos If you ask me, Nikon failed completely with their 50mm lens strategy. The 50mm f1.2 is huge, heavy, expensive and has a slow, noisy autofocus. That it can be done a lot better can be seen with the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM or the Sigma 50mm f1.2 for E mount (and several other fast 50mm lenses for Sony E mount). The Nikon 50mm f1.8 S is optically nice, but a bit slow. And the 50mm f1.4 is a bit faster, but not that great optically. So I'll keep using the 50mm f1.8 S, because it's in my opinion the best of the bunch. But I'm not happy with it.
@@stefan_becker Here is a tip: Start thinking outside the box instead of being stuck on old definitions of how some things should or shouldn't be. But about the 1.2 being too large and heavy, you're damn right. The Sigma needs to be allowed to come to Z.
@@fotografalexandernikolis I have lots of vintage glass by Zeiss, Leica, Pentax, Canon, Minolta, Nikon (and more) that I can use, if I want to. I simply don't need another new one.
@@fotografalexandernikolis I already have lots of vintage glass by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Zeiss, Leica (and what not). Simply don't need another one.
I'm not into Nikon, but when I read about this lens and the price, I wondered whether they took an older f/1.4 design and adapted it to their Z mount. This reminds me pretty much of using the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 adapted onto my EOS RP. Note also that it's even cheaper than the highly esteemed Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.
It's pretty damn easy to find that this optical design hasn't been used in any previous Nikon 50 1.4. I mean which one would you even suggest that it could be in that case?
@@fotografalexandernikolis I did so because it certainly would be cheaper by saving them a lot of the engineering cost and this would possibly have been the easiest way to keep the price down that low. Still, thanks a lot for these answers. As I mentioned, I'm not a Nikon user, so I don't know anything about the strategy behind their engineering.
Because being ultra sharp with low distortion is not the only goal of a camera lens, this lens will produce far more pleasing images for portraits than any of the S lenses because optical imperfections and softness are more flattering than sheer ultrasharp ultra corrected photos
no suprise there Nikon DSLR 50mm 1.4 G was optically worse than the 50mm 1.8G. There was also the 58mm 1.4 G lens which was an overly expensive character lens that had a specific look but would technically still be weaker than 1.8G.
Is it just me or do modern lens designs all look bland and boring? Lenses used to have distinctive looks between manufacturers; now they are all black canisters :(
Terrible lens. Rf 50 mm 1.8 is sharper and has much less chromatic aberration and cost 200$ and weight 160g. Shame for Nikon. I personally have rf 50 mm 1.2 L with my Canon R5 mark 2 and R6 mark 2 as second camera.
I wanted a nice portrait lens for my Z50, so I ordered a Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN... Literally the day before the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.4 was announced. So I cancelled it, thinking that for only ~$100 more, the Nikon would be better, at least overall, for sure... Man, was I wrong... I'm so disappointed in this lens. It should've been better, even at this price. To me, the worst part is the chromatic aberrations. They're just unbearable. When people say this is not a professional lens, they're absolutely right. There is so much work to do in software afterward if you want the picture to be "good enough." You just couldn't charge money for a picture straight out of the camera with this lens. I find it hilarious that people say it has a "vintage" vibe to it... Let's just admit it, it has more of a "trash" vibe to it. The only reason I'm keeping it is because I don't want to sell it for less than I bought it, then buy a Sigma 56mm and look at it every time thinking it cost me $250 more than it's worth because of that trash Nikon lens. I throw away most of my pictures and usually keep between 5 and 35 from my outings/jobs, which I edit extensively to create a quality album. Therefore, I can live with this lens, even if I'm disappointed. But if you're the type to keep 200+ pictures (events, weddings, etc.) and only slightly edit them or not at all... Man, you'll be a sad sad photographer with this lens. I'm almost always at f/2.8 to make my pictures look at least half decent.
I use the Viltrox 56mm 1.4 on my Z50. It's a great lens and punches well above its weight. Watch Chris's excellent vid on the Viltrox and compare the two.
Brightness decrease from f1.4 to f2 is half off so having two 1/3 stops from f1.4 to f1.8 should be 66% of halving the brightness, which is 33% darker not 66%. And going just 1/3 stop from f1.4 to f1.6 would be half of 33% decrease which would be 16.67% darker. I've seen this channel make this mistake a few times now. Since working with options means involving physics, photographers should really get their math skills right.
Nikon has made something I've been dreaming about for a long time - something as close as possible to the best version of the old-school fifty. I've long wondered what the classic fifty would be like if it were made today.
Well, it's not exactly "7 elements in 6 groups", but it's very close in character and price.
This lens is practicality itself - decent sharpness wide open in the center, excellent sharpness when stopped down along the field. You don't need more than that.
We can dream about Canon doing something like this, but we know they won't.
My thoughts too. Not too expensive, not too big, not great, not terrible.
I don’t get the Canon comment. The 50 f/1.8 works exactly the same(optically) as this lens
@@justinburley8659 Maybe it does, but then Nikon also has the 1.8 S for perfect optical quality, still at a good price. With Canon there's nothing between the boring 1.8 STM and the 1.2 L.
@@justinburley8659 But Canon have nothing in-between the 1.8 and the 1.2 L. With Nikon you can at least choose the 1.8 S for perfect optical performance still at a low price.
This definitely seems like the spiritual successor to the venerated Canon EF 50mm 1.4.
The image quality is good enough for portraits and events. Edge to edge sharpness isn't so important. I'd rather get this over the f/1.2, and use the spare cash on another lens, or even two lenses.
Exactly. F1.4 is the sweet spot between price and bokeh.
@@KK-fi6ms100%. The 1.2 is just ridiculously large.
If only the bokeh would be a bit better. I don't care about sharpness that much, because you don''t see it online on social media, but you do see the bokeh even at 1000x1000 pixels resolution.
This optical performance is really surprisingly good for the price. At 1.4 it has the detail but only lacks a bit of microcontrast, which might be a desirable trait for some portraiture anyway.
@@stefan_becker so you use cameras for social media nothing wrong with that but in those cases 8mp or better is useless if you don't crop, where cameras shine is large prints and careful PP
I've been shooting with this lens for the last couple of weeks, and it's bloody fantastic. It's a little big and heavy for what it is, and the lens hood is one of those petal shaped designs that I instantly throw in the garbage, but otherwise it's excellent.
The way the corner blurs into a mess at 1.4, but becomes so sharp at 2.8 is definitely intentional and by design. It looks similar to the rendering of older lenses from 15, even 30 years ago. I personally know a few friends who like lenses that render images this way. Don't like it? There's the clinically sharp 1.8S.
Not by design but by being underdesigned.
Thanks Christopher, I've been waiting for your video on this lens to drop. I use the Nikon z 35mm f/1.4 and am absolutely loving it. I am very much hoping they will do an 85 in this line too which will be a must buy for me. Then I will finally retire my Tamron SP VC 85 1.8 that I am still rocking to this day (via an FTZ adapter). The 50 1.4 will be a nice to have at some point.
Nikon seems to be releasing their 1.4 Z primes with the intention of offering an alternative to their 1.8 versions that is both cheaper and prioritizes character over ultimate image quality and sharpness. I think it's a smart decision to allow consumers to choose between these two lines of lenses depending on what aspects are most important to them and their applications.
Also, they seem to be video lenses. They're the only non S lenses to have two rings, and they weigh almost exactly the same and are the same length (=no need to rebalance on a gimbal)
I have the 50/1.8 S and have been waiting on this video to compare...
always great reviews thanks
We need a 28mm!
Love my 28mm 1.8 G lens. Still use it via the FTZ
Yes, please. A small compact 28mm F1.4 with lots of character.
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between this and the F-mount 50mm f/1.4G lens - I'd be willing to bet this version is improved in sharpness but otherwise very similar to the older lens.
Awesome video, can you do a re-review of the Nikkon 24-120 f4s on the new test chart?
I nearly bought one last week - now I wish I had.
How is it that small and compact (relatively) for a full frame f1.4 lens??? Any other f1.4 I've seen have been insanely huge! I wish some reputable brand made one of these for the Sony E mount at the same size or even smaller for the a7c line up.
Instant buy!! It's a character lens on the modern era.
Are you planning a review for the new Xf 16-55mm 2,8 MK II?
I’m sure he’ll be itching to review it when he gets a chance
Probably we'll need to wait until the lens is released for sale.
Since every photographer doesn't have high end camera like z7ii, z8, z9 etc., I would suggest that lens review be done in entry level cameras.
I purchased this lens and am waiting for it to arrive. Was deciding between this and 50mm 1.8S , ultimately my wife liked the look of 1.4 more, 😅 , so no argument there.
Looking forward to your review about new XF16-55mm MK2 and XF500mm :))
Amazing colours!
Is it RAW or JPG?
If he says in camera corrections are turned on, then it's JPG
Give a beginner who has only ever used the kit lens a nifty fifty, and watch their minds blow😂
The LOCA is LOCO
Not going to make a joke about Nikon engineers forgetting about LOCA :) This is the modern version of the older 50mm 1.4 nifty fifty lens. Each generation had pros or cons over the other but it was never a perfect lens. Same hold true here though I would argue that this version will run circles around the DSLR version (but perform poorly if we go by the technical metrics and compare to many element counterparts from different manufacturers or even Nikon's 50mm 1.8 Z)
Good old old school design where there are not many higher order aberrations. For the lower level aberrations, you just stop down and it's all good. Given the price point, it's a very good lens.
A trivia for Nikon lovers, 50mm 1.8 G lens was the better lens (technically but also on aesthetics in my opinion) when compared to to 50mm 1.4 G lens. The same holds true in the mirrorless variants.
Now Nikon, please open up your Z mount for the Sigmas and Tamrons of the world so that people have a choice. I'm sure many would still pick this lens.
For comparison, it is similar to Zony 55mm 1.8. The Zony is the better lens (much sharper and contrasty, the Zeiss pop which I don''t believe but see sometimes) but more expensive, onion rings in bokeh (but otherwise smooother) with the same wide open LOCA that will clear up earlier. Also Nikon is faster, without aspheric elements which matter to some.
Also the older 50mm AF f/1.8 D was better (lower distortion and sharpness) than 50mm AF f/1.4 D - it seems to be a tradition with Nikon :)
Waiting for your Fujifilm xf 16-55 2.8 v2 review 🎉🎉🎉
We need a review of the RF 35mm 1.4.
Nikon does not allow Sigma on their mount, but this is not so critical, since they themselves fill the middle segment perfectly. This is a huge difference from what Canon does. Where Nikon has 2 lines competing with each other for the wallet of a reasonable buyer - Canon has a huge hole.
"Nikon does not allow Sigma on their mount, ..." - false, there are three Z-mount Sigma lenses for DX, since Sigma is one of the companies which officially licensed the mount from Nikon, enabling full compatibility (besides Tamron and Cosina Voigtländer). Of course, they might contractually control what kind of specific lenses Sigma can release, but saying "they do not allow Sigma on their mount" is not true.
@@mandula10 I don't think that there is a contractual control from Nikon regarding what Sigma can release - I just think Sigma doesn't want to (or can't do it). If there were contractual control in place I would point at the flood of lenses from the Chinese manufacturers for Nikon Z and would find a way to relax the restrictions to at least get their I-series approved.
Another weird thing is that they stopped after releasing the Sigma APS-C trio and didn't release any additional APS-C lenses for Nikon Z like for example the Sigma 23mm 1.4, 18-50mm 2.8 or 11-20mm 2.8. They did say the sale of those lenses were not good. Surely Nikon wouldn't mind those lenses considering there just isn't many APS-C lenses for Nikon Z.
Sigma also needs to release lenses for the L-mount, (compared to Tamron) so they already have to deal with one more mount. They also said that they have their hands full just releasing the lenses for E-mount, which doesn't sound to me that they would be in a rush to release lenses for other mounts.
Then there is the Canon opening up - unfortunately I think Sigma would rather bet on Canon RF than Nikon Z, which is why they released practically their whole APS-C lineup for the Canon from the get go (no "touching the market and then we'll see" talk like they did when releasing the lenses for Nikon Z).
@@mandula10Everyone already knows that the APS-C lenses exist, but when people say "3rd party lenses from brand X aren't allowed" it's already implied that it's about full frame since that's where it counts most importantly.
Hoping this pushes Canon to have one for the RF system
Honestly compared to the f mount 50mm 1.4 this z mount is 100x better, and half the weight and size of the 50 1.2
vs the G version please
Please, also review the new Panasonic lenses, such as, the:
Panasonic Lumix S 28-200mm f/4-7.1 MACRO O.I.S.
Panasonic Lumix S 18-40mm f/4.5-6.3
Panasonic Lumix S 14-28 Ultra Wide Angle
Panasonic Lumix S 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Panasonic Lumix S 85mm f/1.8
Panasonic Lumix S 50mm f/1.8 Lens
Panasonic Lumix S 35mm f/1.8
Panasonic Lumix S 24mm f/1.8
Panasonic Lumix S 18mm f/1.8 Ultra-Wide-Angle
I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 over this any day of the week.
Sharpness actually seems alright, but having to deal with these chromatic aberrations isn't worth the slight edge you get in terms of price and DOF, in my opinion.
I also wouldn't mind the sharpness. But from f1.4 I'd expect very smooth bokeh which is not this case. That's why I'd the 50mm f1.8 S instead of this one too.
The 50mm 1.8 is probably the best in line. I will hang on to mine. I will buy the 35mm 1.4 soon as a sale comes around though for video use.
I bought this lens for video but for photography compared to my 50mm 1.4 SIGMA ART that I bought used for $350 this new Z lens somewhat disappointing, sharpness is there wide open but you really have to post process it to even match the SIGMA. If you don't dabble much on video just better get the used Sigma, much cheaper too. I just recommend adapted Sigma Art for new Z system owners, these lenses just offers better bang for your buck and i feel like this 50mm Z is a bit overpriced by about $100
Well Meike 85 1.4 looks really good now....
Hope they will bring out an updated 58mm f/1.4 non S-line
With SA control like Canon 100mm macro
@@rhalfik I have never tried a spherical aberration control lens, but it sounds interesting. The old Nikon 58mm f/1.4 f-mount is not the sharpest wide open, but I'm not looking for ultimate sharpness, when I shoot portraits
what about using this lens with Z50 ? anyone have experience?
50mm on full-frame isn't my first choice as it isn't a focal length for me. I do have the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4 and I am very pleased with it. These lenses have character and are a great addition to the Z line up. I hope they do a 85mm f/1.4 - with old-school softness on the edges wide open and sharpening up as you stop down, would make an ideal portrait lens. Old school character with modern AF and handling.
Hm, I get there is a market (and application) for these new decent enough 1.4f-lenses from Nikon but I'd much rather pay the additional 100 bucks for the much better overall 1.8f version of this.
Already for my analog lenses I'd have gotten a good 1.7/1.8/2.0 over a not-so-good 1.4 any day. But I guess it's nice there's a choice
Finally!
The optical performance is similar to the old Af-s 50mm f1.8g, which is the same overall perfect sharpness starting from stop down to F2.8. If you didn't have the old lens, get the new one, otherwise there is no point to buy another one.
62mm filter size btw
I'm really annoyed because I miss my Voigtlander 50mm f/2 and the 1.8 S is as close to an AF version of that lens as Nikon has on its mount. But _this_ thing is basically a modern AF version of the 50s from the 1970s, which I do actually have one of. So now I really don't know if I want to stick with character for my main lens or go for optical "perfection" and use the real thing for when I want the vintage look.
Disagree. From an optics standpoint, this smokes the lenses I have from the 70s wide open while still retaining some of that character. I recently mounted my Canon 50mm 1.4 and Minolta 55mm 1.7 and they are cool, but far from sharp wide open
@@freebird61885 I'm being metaphorical. Of course the optics blow an actual vintage lens out of the water, but there aren't many cases where you can get the character of a lens from back then _with autofocus_ even if it seems like it's put in this one intentionally.
Still though, I love that Nikon did it. We need this sort of thing.
Nikon's way to avoid people buying sigma's lense to get affordable F1.4 :)
And with some characters and if i may speculate considering they used the same body for the 35 and 50 i'm wondering if nikon isn't trying to do a panasonic with a full release of video lense of the same size with low focus breathing but this time at 1.4 instead of 1.8 :)
Let's hope they also do a 85mm :)
The video thing looks quite likely considering the lenses are the same size and weight, and have two rings (the only non S lenses to have them)
An used Sigma 50 f1.4 Art for DSLR cost 20/30% less, yes needs adapter and is bigger and heavier, but it's ten times better then this mess. Especially the LCA is a total disaster, and corner sharpness at f1.4 is barely acceptable just due to the price, but at f2 needs to be MUCH better then that, it seems they deliberately designed it to be good just from f2.8 which is rather offensive.
These non S line is the job of third parties. An S line 1.4 lenses can coexist along with these to cater different market groups.
Nikon is making grt hybrid bodies but nikon lacks hybrid lenses. A good ecosystem is needed for someone to really get into a brand. DearNikon pls make high quality 1.4 S line primes with a optimum balance of quality, charecter, weight n price
affordability of set of highquality primes n ease of using them on field is imp for hybrid shooters especially event shooters .
if they made a 1.3 for $1k i'd buy it. yes im insane.
Looks like there are too many compromises. The 1.4 out of focus areas are edgy with fringed bokeh so I guess that is the 'character' of this lens. Same issue with the 1.8 version but very sharp, but on the used market that one is cheaper! The 1.2 is great but very big, heavy and often overkill. I was hoping for a 1.4 S lens which would mean I'd only need that one. 🥲
Eyyyyy
Looking at Chris' own review of the Nikon Z 50 f1.8 S a few years back as a comparison this new lens is clearly a step down in image quality. The poor central sharpness and noticeable CAs at the widest aperture and pronounced comatic flare are particularly of note. If your typical shooting scenes don't have light sources in the frame or don't require you to shoot at the widest apetures then it would be fine.
Honestly I don't understand Nikons product strategy. Shouldn't an f1.4 lens be better than an f1.8 lens? But the bokeh and longitudinal ca of this f1.4. lens is (at least for me) not acceptable. And no it's not "retro/vintage" look. If I want a nice, romantic "retro/vintage" lens, I use my Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 Nokton.
No, a f/1.4 lens doesn't need to be better than an f/1.8 lens. Lenses with smaller apertures are easier to correct for optical aberrations, with this and the f/1.8 S being in the same price ballpark it you can use that budget to either better correct a design or give a larger aperture, not both. Of course, it could have been better than the f/1.8 but then it would have been more expensive and worthy of being part of the S series (which Nikon didn't seem to want). This is Nikon repeating what they have done with some of their zooms: you get both f/4 S and f/2.8 non-S versions at similar prices with just different tradeoffs, you pick the one you like the most.
@@mbravos If you ask me, Nikon failed completely with their 50mm lens strategy. The 50mm f1.2 is huge, heavy, expensive and has a slow, noisy autofocus. That it can be done a lot better can be seen with the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM or the Sigma 50mm f1.2 for E mount (and several other fast 50mm lenses for Sony E mount). The Nikon 50mm f1.8 S is optically nice, but a bit slow. And the 50mm f1.4 is a bit faster, but not that great optically. So I'll keep using the 50mm f1.8 S, because it's in my opinion the best of the bunch. But I'm not happy with it.
@@stefan_becker Here is a tip: Start thinking outside the box instead of being stuck on old definitions of how some things should or shouldn't be.
But about the 1.2 being too large and heavy, you're damn right. The Sigma needs to be allowed to come to Z.
@@fotografalexandernikolis I have lots of vintage glass by Zeiss, Leica, Pentax, Canon, Minolta, Nikon (and more) that I can use, if I want to. I simply don't need another new one.
@@fotografalexandernikolis I already have lots of vintage glass by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Zeiss, Leica (and what not). Simply don't need another one.
I'm not into Nikon, but when I read about this lens and the price, I wondered whether they took an older f/1.4 design and adapted it to their Z mount. This reminds me pretty much of using the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 adapted onto my EOS RP. Note also that it's even cheaper than the highly esteemed Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.
It's actually a new design - 10 elements in 7 groups with one aspherical element, vs the older 50mm f/1.4G with 8 elements in 7 groups.
It's pretty damn easy to find that this optical design hasn't been used in any previous Nikon 50 1.4. I mean which one would you even suggest that it could be in that case?
@@ineedagoodusername3164 Yeah and even the size is vastly different. It's astonishing how people even manage to speculate that it's an old design.
@@fotografalexandernikolis I did so because it certainly would be cheaper by saving them a lot of the engineering cost and this would possibly have been the easiest way to keep the price down that low. Still, thanks a lot for these answers. As I mentioned, I'm not a Nikon user, so I don't know anything about the strategy behind their engineering.
Please Nikon made a 85mm 1.4 and I will Switch to you
It is rumored to be the next one released in this line of primes. I haven't heard a release date yet.
You need to charge your battery very soon. Cheers
Makes no sense why the 1.4 lenses are worse than the 1.8 ones. The 1.2 lenses are great but bazookas.
Because being ultra sharp with low distortion is not the only goal of a camera lens, this lens will produce far more pleasing images for portraits than any of the S lenses because optical imperfections and softness are more flattering than sheer ultrasharp ultra corrected photos
no suprise there Nikon DSLR 50mm 1.4 G was optically worse than the 50mm 1.8G. There was also the 58mm 1.4 G lens which was an overly expensive character lens that had a specific look but would technically still be weaker than 1.8G.
Is it just me or do modern lens designs all look bland and boring? Lenses used to have distinctive looks between manufacturers; now they are all black canisters :(
Terrible lens. Rf 50 mm 1.8 is sharper and has much less chromatic aberration and cost 200$ and weight 160g. Shame for Nikon.
I personally have rf 50 mm 1.2 L with my Canon R5 mark 2 and R6 mark 2 as second camera.
Canon pls 😭😭😭
Best I can do is 31 year old EF lens
No "S" no buy
"Only" 500?
It better be damned near perfect from 1.4.
(It isn't. 😐)
For native is really cheap, even 3rd party sigma want 2X more for such lens, sony equivalent want nearly 3X more.
It's not the 1990's any more I'm afraid...
I wanted a nice portrait lens for my Z50, so I ordered a Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN... Literally the day before the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.4 was announced. So I cancelled it, thinking that for only ~$100 more, the Nikon would be better, at least overall, for sure... Man, was I wrong... I'm so disappointed in this lens. It should've been better, even at this price. To me, the worst part is the chromatic aberrations. They're just unbearable. When people say this is not a professional lens, they're absolutely right. There is so much work to do in software afterward if you want the picture to be "good enough." You just couldn't charge money for a picture straight out of the camera with this lens. I find it hilarious that people say it has a "vintage" vibe to it... Let's just admit it, it has more of a "trash" vibe to it. The only reason I'm keeping it is because I don't want to sell it for less than I bought it, then buy a Sigma 56mm and look at it every time thinking it cost me $250 more than it's worth because of that trash Nikon lens. I throw away most of my pictures and usually keep between 5 and 35 from my outings/jobs, which I edit extensively to create a quality album. Therefore, I can live with this lens, even if I'm disappointed. But if you're the type to keep 200+ pictures (events, weddings, etc.) and only slightly edit them or not at all... Man, you'll be a sad sad photographer with this lens. I'm almost always at f/2.8 to make my pictures look at least half decent.
I use the Viltrox 56mm 1.4 on my Z50. It's a great lens and punches well above its weight. Watch Chris's excellent vid on the Viltrox and compare the two.
You don’t know what your talking about 😂
Initial thought wow 1.4 reasonable priced but so many compromises so more a marketing trick, again, sorry Nikon.
Disappointing lens. Sharpness at wide open aperture is essential.
Brightness decrease from f1.4 to f2 is half off so having two 1/3 stops from f1.4 to f1.8 should be 66% of halving the brightness, which is 33% darker not 66%. And going just 1/3 stop from f1.4 to f1.6 would be half of 33% decrease which would be 16.67% darker.
I've seen this channel make this mistake a few times now. Since working with options means involving physics, photographers should really get their math skills right.