Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Voldenuit wrote:Every time that you enter a post, there are 5 checkboxes under Options below the entry window. These are:EDIT :ARGH! Can we get rid of the sunglasses smiley? Every time I end a parentheses after the number 8 I get 8) instead of 8 ). -_-
Voldenuit wrote:What's wrong with Nikon's 50mm f/1.8? I don't think it has quite the maximum sharpness of the Canon but I believe it's sharper wide open.The canon 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens (unlike Nikon's piss poor 50 mmf/1.8 ).
Voldenuit wrote:I'm guessing you went for a Canon Rebel instead of the Sony 230? Good choice (I like Canon ergonomics the best, but that's a matter of preference).
ludi wrote:Voldenuit wrote:I'm guessing you went for a Canon Rebel instead of the Sony 230? Good choice (I like Canon ergonomics the best, but that's a matter of preference).
Actually, that was Welch. I got my Rebel XS back at the end of January.
I think I'm going to buy one of these. A friend owns an older version of the f/1.4 lens and it was a real treat to try out, but I've got auto maintenance coming due.
potatochobit wrote:I dont believe it is USM either
crazybus wrote:Voldenuit wrote:What's wrong with Nikon's 50mm f/1.8? I don't think it has quite the maximum sharpness of the Canon but I believe it's sharper wide open.The canon 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens (unlike Nikon's piss poor 50 mmf/1.8 ).
bought the f/1.8 II lens. As noted I had seen the f/1.4 both on Amazon and in real life, and while it is a beautiful lens, I can't be putting that kind of money into glass just yet.
SPOOFE wrote:I wanna second this question, and also ask a caveat question: Which Nikon 1.8?
Voldenuit wrote:According to DP Review, the $120 Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D has much better corner sharpness than the $90 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 when both are shot wide open (f/1.8) on an APS-C body. Stopping down to f/2.8 improves the result enough to give the low-priced Canon "nifty fifty" a slight edge. By f/4, the inexpensive Canon lens has a significant image quality advantage that it maintains until f/11, where both lenses become limited by diffraction.It should be noted though that the picture was shot with a FX camera, which would show up inadequacies in the lens much more than APS-C sized DX cameras (and why would anyone use a $100 lens with a $5,000 body?). The lens might be just fine on a DX body, come to think of it...
Steve Huff tested the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 against the Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D lens and found that it had quite a bit of corner softness wide open (and wasn't as sharp as the 20 in the center either).
SPOOFE wrote:A few more considerations to consider:Steve Huff tested the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 against the Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D lens and found that it had quite a bit of corner softness wide open (and wasn't as sharp as the 20 in the center either).
I'm unimpressed; he talks very little of what he did to the images, both with in-camera settings (which can make a world of difference) or with post-processing, other than to mention the program he used. And I have a sneaking suspicion that he's not providing us 100% crops from the images, but then it might just be late and I missed it... but you can soften a picture really easily if you start resizing
mattsteg wrote:I'm also having a difficult time thinking of when one would want to utilize a normal lens in such a way that extreme corner sharpness at wide apertures was the driving concern.
JustAnEngineer wrote:They're certainly not a lot closer to having the same field of view than the combination tested...There's still the problem that the $120 Nikon 50mm f/1.8D requires a camera that costs $400+ more if you want to auto-focus with it. You've got to get the $440 AF-S 50mm f/1.4G if you want to autofocus on a low-end Nikon camera. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to consider Nikon's "affordable" $200 AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G as an appropriate comparison to the Panasonic 20mm lens? They're a lot closer to having the same field of view, too.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Also, you can't really back this up for a few reasons.According to DP Review, the $120 Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D has much better corner sharpness than the $90 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 when both are shot wide open (f/1. on an APS-C body. Stopping down to f/2.8 improves the result enough to give the low-priced Canon "nifty fifty" a slight edge. By f/4, the inexpensive Canon lens has a significant image quality advantage that it maintains until f/11, where both lenses become limited by diffraction.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/wid ... on.xml%3F4
There's still the problem that the $120 Nikon 50mm f/1.8D requires a camera that costs $400+ more if you want to auto-focus with it
Voldenuit wrote:I had the f/1.4 too (on my film camera(s)), that was a great lens, and easily the equal of the L lenses in my collection. If you're thinking of using the lens as a portrait lens, I'd recommend saving up for the 1.4, since the bokeh will be much better.
JustAnEngineer wrote:There's still the problem that the $120 Nikon 50mm f/1.8D requires a camera that costs $400+ more if you want to auto-focus with it. You've got to get the $440 AF-S 50mm f/1.4G if you want to autofocus on a low-end Nikon camera. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to consider Nikon's "affordable" $200 AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G as an appropriate comparison to the Panasonic 20mm lens? They're a lot closer to having the same field of view, too.
None of these options are in the same range of affordability as the $90 "nifty fifty" Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 lens, which is fully functional with every Canon EOS SLR and DSLR camera sold since 1987.
I do wonder if/when Nikon will update the 50mm 1.8 to AF-S
SpotTheCat wrote:At their current rate, it shouldn't take Nikon more than another 5-10 years to convert the entire Nikkor lens line to include internal focus motors. They introduced a few AF-S prime lenses last year.JustAnEngineer wrote:I do wonder if/when Nikon will update the 50mm 1.8 to AF-S.There's still the problem that the $120 Nikon 50mm f/1.8D requires a camera that costs $400+ more if you want to auto-focus with it. You've got to get the $440 AF-S 50mm f/1.4G if you want to autofocus on a low-end Nikon camera.
FireGryphon wrote:It started in the third message of the thread, for no reason that I can discern.Why do threads like this one always devolve into a Canon vs. Nikon debate? It's ridiculous.