Good lens for a GOOD price! I got mine for christmas (but I was planning on buying afterwards so I did my research) Ive only used it a handful of times and it takes some times to get use to but it is worth it!
I use 50mm 1.8D on a d7000. I find it extremely sharp from f2.8 up, though I am not professional so maybe I don't know my 'shit'... It's very versatile and makes you move around and concentrate on framing more than you would with a zoom. I love it.
I'm not sure I'd pay a lot of attention to "konstantingl". It doesn't sound like he's really tried the 1.8D lens out. All he's done is describe it as 'shit' (not the best technical analysis, I'm sure you'll agree).
I have the 50mm 1.8D and I use it with my Nikon D90. It's a sharp lens and is pretty good at focusing. The main differences between the 1.8D and the more modern 1.8G are the following:
- The newer 1.8G is obviously quite a bit more expensive. - The older 1.8D has no autofocus capabilities when used with entry-level cameras that lack an autofocus motor. - The newer 1.8G - They both focus at roughly the same speed, however the newer 1.8G has a silent wave motor allowing for very quiet focusing - The newer 1.8G has an aspherical lens element. - The newer 1.8G has slightly better contrast and sharpness when photos are viewed at 100%.
Honestly, for the price the older 1.8D is a STEAL. It's a good bit of kit to have in your bad. If you're making money from your photos, such as from weddings, there are good reasons so use the newer 1.8G, otherwise, I'd say go for the 1.8D.
You are right that the 50mm f1.8 AF-D is a perfectly good lens and a real bargain. But it is a much better choice for your D90 than the D5100 because the D5100 lacks an autofocus motor for AF-D lenses. Unfortunately the 50mm f1.8 G has disappeared from the marketplace here in the US. They seem to be sold out everywhere.
You don't have a single clue wht you're talking about. I own the 1.8D and I can say that it is not shit at all. I'm very pleased with the results. It's a nice sharp lens, and for the price i's well worth it.
i say that it was unsharp at corners at full frame camera, if you use crop camera it maybe really good and sharp lens sorry for shit name for lens, my english is bad, and shit mean just not good lens but at full frame it's unusable because unsharp and moir)
Yes but you also wrote this " don't buy it. it's shit lens [...] 50mm 1.8D is fully shit" even if it doesn't retain universal sharpness into the corners, that's quite normal as most lenses aren't as sharp in the corners as they are in the center. However, even if it is, that doesn't make it a "shit" lens by any means.
i use it, it unusable. bon't try defend it. my language knowing don't allow me to discuss. i lost knowingly i own helios and even this lens are better than 50mm 1.8D and it's my opinion, and i think that my skill allow me to say that it's shit
i don't know what does mean G at the end of the lens name and sorry for my english, i am from russia, there no english if compare this two lenses so 50mm 1.8G would be more and more sharp than 50mm 1.8D. It's one really difference these lenses if you use non full frame camera try 50mm 1.8D. it have very unsharp image on the corners at full frame, but crop cameras have little image area, and maybe it would be very sharp It would best buy in your life if it is 50mm 1.8D was very low weight and dimensions
I've got a Nikon D90 and a AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4G. I bought it in December '12. I'd wanted one for ages, and ages, and ages because everyone always talks about them and takes pretty good photos with them. I love the depth of field, but I really wish I'd researched more. I didn't know that if you don't have a full frame sensor then the lens is more zoomed in than it would normally be. It's been a real pain in the ass trying to take pictures of people that are close to me (not close up portraits, just when the person is in close proximity). I would prefer a 35mm lens for my particular camera. If yours has a full frame sensor, then it could be good. I've used 50mm's on some of my film cameras, and while I can get closer, sometimes the portraits look a bit like I'd taken them with a fish eye lens. It might just be the particular lens, camera or angle though.
So... In conclusion, I do think it's a great lens, (the focus is insane) but if you're going to be close to the people maybe then a smaller lens may be better
I shot with a Helios 44 for a while, I love those lenses, such distinct character and they are so sturdily built. I lose mine in a car accident and have been watching craigslist for another ever since.
As for the 50mm F1.8, I have one, the D version, and to be honest I really am not a fan of it. Don't get me wrong it makes very sharp images but I just find 50mm to be a bit too wide for portraits and the Bokeh it makes is very distracting. Everyone will be different but I vastly prefer the 85mm focal length for portraiture. The only time I use the 50mm is when I need to shoot full body length in studio.
Ya, thats why I mentioned it. And I agree it does have those downsides but that is why the lens is so great. When shooting with it I am looking for that slight dreamy blur with cool lens flare and that swirly creamy bokeh it makes. Never had any issues with being too dark through, F2.0 is pretty fast.
And yes, the darn money issue, photography sure isn't cheap. I'd say keep an eye on the used market, might be able to get one cheaper.
That's interesting. I'm thinking of picking up the 35mm f2.0 for when I switch to full frame and start doing portraits. I just recently purchased the 50mm 1.8 D and am very impressed with it, but even though I am shooting with it on a crop sensor, I feel like I need something a little wider, especially for when you're in a small room.
Out of interest, at what aperture have you found the 50 1.8 to be sharpest? I took a hand-held pano at F8 and I loved the results. It made me not want to use my 18-55mm kit lens ever again, but I know I'll have to lol
Honestly I'v never really had a shot where I have noticed sharpness issues on it but like I said I don't shoot with it very often. Even at 1.8 it has seemed very sharp to me. Although it does have CR issues.
I have two primes- a 50 1.8, and an 85 1.8, both Nikon. Best purchases I've ever made, honestly (lens-wise). I shoot mostly portraits, so this was definitely a choice for me, but it works superbly for many other uses. I find it one of my best lenses for shooting events, some landscape work (Until I get that 35 mm prime. ). Definitely a purchase I'd recommend. I believe mine is the AF-S, and I've never had any issues what-so-ever. I love the lens to pieces.
Is your 50mm 1.8 the D or the G? I just recently purchased the D ('cause little strapped for cash). I know I can sell it and upgrade later, or just hang onto it (but I don't see the point if I won't be using it). So far I am very, very pleased with it, as you can imagine I am since its my first prime lol.
I was going to ask if you shoot FF or with an APS-C sensor, but I see you have D90 (like me). I can understand why a 35mm prime would be better for landscape stuff, and that will probably be my next prime purchase.
Mine is the D, and honestly, I've never had an issue with it. It's a very awesome little lens, for such and affordable rate. I don't see the point in upgrading (unless you're a gearhound)-- The differences, unless you're a really bad picky person, are going to be minimal. Of course, if you're upgrading from a crop sensor, you may have to upgrade eventually, but if you're using a d90, odds are, the differences will be minimal.
I'd definitely recommend it. I've been scoping it out lately, and it seems to be relatively as affordable as the 50 1.8 D ; around $250 (w/o taxes), which is quite affordable, for a photographer on a budget.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8G AF-S is really one of Nikon's best lenses and in terms of performance vs price (about $220) you really can't do better. It's an excellent lens. AF-S will autofocus on any Nikon dSLR whereas some other versions of the 50mm will not.
For the AF-S and AF part, that really depends on your camera body. As for the 50mm as a portrait lens, it works well but like many things it has disadvantages. For one you'll be locked into the one zoom factor, which really comes down to personal preference on how you want your portraits to look. It does provide nice bokeh though, so you would be countersetting the lack of having a long zoom. Is it worth under 320, yup. I use it now and then. Not as often as my other glass but I do use it.
Just as examples, these: [link], [link], [link], [link], [link] were all shot on a 50 prime lens. It's certainly up to the task and if you can afford it I'd suggest it as a 50 prime is versatile for many shooting scenarios. It's great in lower light which is why it happens to be a favourite of mine for shooting indoors with.