Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G review

[Greg Beetham]

Yes I've always liked A-mode, being interested in close up photography, A-mode is best for that by far (or M-mode), never done a whole lot of extreme macro for which you really need more specialized gear and lenses, although there are some very good add on close up lenses available now, but the thing is, having the f/stop set on, and controlled by, the camera body opens up a whole new can of worms.
There is no guarantee that the quadrant position on one lens for a given f/stop is the same as on another lens, (calibrated detent positions no longer exist) so it seems that the entire lens inventory would have to be T/stopped (too obtain actual light transmission at a given camera sector position, and the results put into a data base) so there would be some sort of commonality between lenses. Where it really gets complex is with variable ratio zooms that actually loose light during the action of zooming, the sector/quadrant position would have too be calculated according to the position of the zoom too achieve a given f/stop....ie. the position of the sector/quadrant is different at minimum zoom for f/8 than the position it would have at full zoom to achieve f/8. The whole thing was probably instigated too make it much harder for third party lensmakers to conform with requirements and do accurate emulation, especially when it comes to flash photography where a tiny mistake in the opening of the iris translates into a large exposure error.
The tangled webs we weave.....
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

btw. I wouldn't complain if the f/stop ring was put back on the lens either....where it belongs.

I got into SLR photography in the early 1970s, all manual (focus, exposure -- stop down ttl metering) so I was accustomed to having the aperture ring on the lens too, but since 1988 I have been using AF (first was a Minolta Maxxum 7000i) and, I think, that it is probably generally better for people who use zoom lenses (most people these days) to have the aperture controlled by the thumb or shutter finger. The hand holding the lens is often busy adjusting the focal length so it is nice to be able to adjust the aperture with the other hand.

Yep point taken Henry, but the way I worked it was generally as Dusty pointed out, if it's closeups when in A-mode, just set f/11 or f/16 on the lens depending on available light etc, it only takes a second and you can see the f/stop that you've set in the little window (on an X700 for example), if it's flash, generally f/5.6 is/was ok, and for action just open it up as far as it will go and blast away. quick and simple and usually worked quite well...especially flash photography was very good exposure wise...from memory, although I've noticed memory tends to auto-enhance things a tad.
Greg

[bakubo]

Yep point taken Henry, but the way I worked it was generally as Dusty pointed out, if it's closeups when in A-mode, just set f/11 or f/16 on the lens depending on available light etc, it only takes a second and you can see the f/stop that you've set in the little window (on an X700 for example), if it's flash, generally f/5.6 is/was ok, and for action just open it up as far as it will go and blast away. quick and simple and usually worked quite well...especially flash photography was very good exposure wise...from memory, although I've noticed memory tends to auto-enhance things a tad.

Yeah, that works well for slow, methodical photography. After reading that though I can't see anything that would be different using a camera such as the A700. Set A mode (that's what I use most of the time), set the aperture you want and you can see it both in the vf and on the LCD. A mode works very well with the aperture set with the control dial. For nostalgia's sake the traditional style of aperture ring and other aspects of the camera is cool, but the current aperture control style does everything it did and has the advantage I mentioned previously. Of course, another aspect is that I am sure it is cheaper to not have the mechanical ring on the lens and also these newfangled electronic computer controlled cameras (newfangled meaning only 24 years old ) need to be able to have the body control the aperture.

[Dusty]

I got into SLR photography in the early 1970s, all manual (focus, exposure -- stop down ttl metering) so I was accustomed to having the aperture ring on the lens too, but since 1988 I have been using AF (first was a Minolta Maxxum 7000i) and, I think, that it is probably generally better for people who use zoom lenses (most people these days) to have the aperture controlled by the thumb or shutter finger. The hand holding the lens is often busy adjusting the focal length so it is nice to be able to adjust the aperture with the other hand.

Of course, my first 35mm was my Dad's old Argus C3. He'd bought it in Korea, and it's been stored for 20 years when he took it down to Jefferson Camera for a tune-up. The reason was a trip to Yellowstone, circa 1972. I had a couple of weeks to read the manuals for it and the Weston meter, play with it and put a roll of film thru it before we left.

The aperture ring was on the front of the lens, the shutter dial on top left of the camera, and it was a rangefinder with the little yellow spot in the viewfinder.

Point is, you can get used to the 'workflow' of the camera, if you need to. Granted, even w/ my film SLRs I could take better pics faster, and now w/ the auto-machine - and no film costs - I can fire away like a machine gun. Some how, however, it doesn't seem as creative.

Dusty

[bakubo]

ranted, even w/ my film SLRs I could take better pics faster, and now w/ the auto-machine - and no film costs - I can fire away like a machine gun. Some how, however, it doesn't seem as creative.

That may be the reason it doesn't seem as creative. I never fire away like a machine gun. I have said before that I could be quite happy with a 1fps or probably even 0.5fps DSLR because that would be fast enough almost all the time. Much of the time a camera that just shot 2fph would be enough. Not that I would want one though since I wouldn't want to be limited to 2 frames per hour!

In 35+ years I have never used continuous advance -- prior to 1988 I never bought a motor drive or autowinder and since 1988 I have never used anything but single shot mode. I met the owner of a camera shop in Vancouver, BC about 4 years ago and he told me that his digital camera, that was only 1 year old, had already taken 40,000 photos! He said he just shot everything and figured something would be good. Real spray-and-pray style. I can't see that there is any room for creativity or even fun in that.

[Dusty]

ranted, even w/ my film SLRs I could take better pics faster, and now w/ the auto-machine - and no film costs - I can fire away like a machine gun. Some how, however, it doesn't seem as creative.

That may be the reason it doesn't seem as creative. I never fire away like a machine gun. I have said before that I could be quite happy with a 1fp or probably even 0.5fps DSLR because that would be fast enough almost all the time. Much of the time a camera that just shot 2fph would be enough. Not that I would want one though since I wouldn't want to be limited to 2 frames per hour!

In 35+ years I have never used continuous advance -- prior to 1988 I never bought a motor drive or autowinder and since 1988 I have never used anything but single shot mode. I met the owner of a camera shop in Vancouver, BC about 4 years ago and he told me that his digital camera, that was only 1 year old, had already taken 40,000 photos! He said he just shot everything and figured something would be good. Real spray-and-pray style. I can't see that there is any room for creativity or even fun in that.

Well, to clarify, I don't fire like that. I just mean that you CAN take a lot more, and I do, since film and developing isn't an issue anymore. When I was poor AND paying for film/developing, I was more careful. Now I often shoot several with slight variations. When I covered events as a photojournalist, (freelance) I was amazed at the amount of film the staff shooters from the papers would use. Since I was covering my costs, I was more careful, and didn't seem to be getting any less good shots than they did.

I've had 2 Focal brand - Kmart's Kalimar made - power winders. They came in handy doing weddings, since I didn't have to bother flipping my thumb, and, in continuous mode, at a whopping 2 fps, for the only real action shots I took. Either at the drag races or the hot-dog skiers at the lake. There are times I wished I had a bit faster drive, but so seldom it was never worth the cost.

Last summer I got out to Pikes Peak. The camera was brand new, and I only had the kit lens. I shot a lot of photos up there, and in part it was just to get used to the camera and see what it could do. 12 years before, I shot a lot on film, but didn't do a lot of too similar shots. It's hard for me not to get all yin-yang on the issue. I want the memories, that's why I took up photography. If I shoot too many, am I lessening the moment, or recording it better? And if I'm shooting more, am I rally taking the time to compose as I want to?

That's why I'm an MP and DR advocate, over ISO and FPS. Take several good shots on great film - actual or digital - and crop, adjust, etc. to get what you need. My other yin-yang issue is that for the most part I'm a purist. Manipulating images can be fun, but doing anything more than correcting them makes me sometimes feel like I'm cheating.

I guess one day I'll figure it out, if we don't see another photo paradigm shift.

Dusty

[bfitzgerald]

I guess you could always get really small memory cards..say 128mb or something! That would stop you machine gun shooting.

I am finding 36 exposure rolls of film a struggle to finish myself, I prefer the 24 myself..if I could get 10 exposures that would be nice.
I certainly agree that quality counts for much more than quantity, but obviously digital is a boon for action work..

[Greg Beetham]

OMG 40K shots on a one year old camera, how does one find time to sort through that many shots with a critical eye, and the storage space requirements with a usage rate that high, not to mention re-finding a particular shot etc. I have a KM5D and an A100 and the combined total of shots wouldn't be more than 4K.
Greg

[bakubo]

OMG 40K shots on a one year old camera, how does one find time to sort through that many shots with a critical eye, and the storage space requirements with a usage rate that high, not to mention re-finding a particular shot etc. I have a KM5D and an A100 and the combined total of shots wouldn't be more than 4K.

My mouth must have dropped open when he told me that. My impression from what he was saying though is that his photography sucked and he was very gear oriented.

My Canon 30D which I used for almost 2 years before selling had about 9,700 shots on it and my A700 in a year has about 4,000. Besides normal close to home shooting the Canon 30D spent 4 months in Japan on 2 trips, 2 months in Thailand on 2 trips, a week in Cambodia, 5 weeks on a road trip in the Southwest U.S., and 6 months in Hawaii. The Sony A700, so far, has spent almost a month in Mexico and over 8 months in Hawaii. I shoot more when I travel since I am shooting everyday.

[NealS]

Duplicate post deleted.

[NealS]

Thanks for this report.

One more question: How is the focus shift on the Sigma when stopping down to middle apertures f4-f5.6? How much does it affect overall sharpness?

Yes. At full aperture, f1.4, it is no way as good. The Sigma is sharper and has less aberration round the edges of the frame, though some difference exists between centre and edge. The Nikon clearly has more spherical aberration, but this also means it appears to have slightly more depth of field, and that AF is less accurate. Because the Sigma has such a clean image, AF (which is determined by f2.8 performance on the Sony, but as far as I can tell by f5.6 performance on the D3X) is very accurate indeed.

But - the Sigma does not sharpen up as well across the entire frame as the Nikon, or indeed the old Minolta, and it doesn't have quite as a flat a field as close focus. It concentrates best resolution over a wide central zone, and slightly sacrifices stopped down resolution at the periphery. This means that the Nikon (and the Minolta) around f8-11 can produce some sharper details away from the centre of the image when you are taking close-ups.

I haven't really gone into this in my BJP test next week, because overall the Sigma is well ahead, and it is the first lens to produce such a low degree of full aperture vignetting and such exceptional (portrait to distant focus) f1.4 performance across the frame. The big difference really is that the Sigma does not need even 1/3rd stop stopping down to give a totally clean image. The Nikon needs 1/3rd of a stop. The old Minolta is surprisingly good and even 1/3rd of a stop improves it, but really it needs to be set to f2.8 for an image approaching the Sigma's f1.4 clarity and clean rendering.

I will be posting some full size 24 megapixel examples when I have time. Right now I'm testing the Tamron 70-200mm on the Canon 50D, write-up urgently needed! I already tested it on the D3X, was not happy with the focusing, so had to arrange a Canon copy and a Canon body to see if it made a difference. It does.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

The Sigma has almost zero focus shift - undetectable. That's the whole point of the design.

David

[Dusty]

My Canon 30D which I used for almost 2 years before selling had about 9,700 shots on it and my A700 in a year has about 4,000. Besides normal close to home shooting the Canon 30D spent 4 months in Japan on 2 trips, 2 months in Thailand on 2 trips, a week in Cambodia, 5 weeks on a road trip in the Southwest U.S., and 6 months in Hawaii. The Sony A700, so far, has spent almost a month in Mexico and over 8 months in Hawaii. I shoot more when I travel since I am shooting everyday.

If you have great subjects, or like me, travel to interesting places that you may never return to, you could burn a lot of film. My only foreign trip that was not business related was 10 days to the Holy Land in '99. We did Jordan, Israel and Egypt non-stop, and I shot over 1000 shots. Everything was interesting, and I felt like I would probably never get back there, so take a shot if it looks interesting.

Moscow in '93 was 6 action packed days, but I didn't have enough time to just go out and shoot whatever I wanted. However, I did have 3 SLRs and a video camera with me wherever I went! My guides sometimes complained I was slowing them down, but I would speed things up by hailing a cab instead of walking 10 blocks. At 50 cents, they thought I throwing my money away to do that! They didn't understand that in America you can't get one to take you across the street for that price!

My A350 has about 1100 run thru it since bought in June. One wedding, 1 Christmas in 3 parts, 4 birthdays and 2 interesting travel locations, only one of which I really got out and about to shoot at. Not too many, surely not too few! If we get a vacation this year I may go hog wild, or I may spend too much time tending to little one's needs and not get the camera out enough.

Dusty

[Greg Beetham]

Yes I've always liked A-mode, being interested in close up photography, A-mode is best for that by far (or M-mode), never done a whole lot of extreme macro for which you really need more specialized gear and lenses, although there are some very good add on close up lenses available now, but the thing is, having the f/stop set on, and controlled by, the camera body opens up a whole new can of worms.
There is no guarantee that the quadrant position on one lens for a given f/stop is the same as on another lens, (calibrated detent positions no longer exist) so it seems that the entire lens inventory would have to be T/stopped (too obtain actual light transmission at a given camera sector position, and the results put into a data base) so there would be some sort of commonality between lenses. Where it really gets complex is with variable ratio zooms that actually loose light during the action of zooming, the sector/quadrant position would have too be calculated according to the position of the zoom too achieve a given f/stop....ie. the position of the sector/quadrant is different at minimum zoom for f/8 than the position it would have at full zoom to achieve f/8. The whole thing was probably instigated too make it much harder for third party lensmakers to conform with requirements and do accurate emulation, especially when it comes to flash photography where a tiny mistake in the opening of the iris translates into a large exposure error.
The tangled webs we weave.....
Greg

Actually there is another way of doing it, (making variable ratio zooms with a constant pre-selectable f/stop without an f/stop ring, ones deeper than max-min open of course), without having a variable quadrant position etc. connect the zoom collar too the iris in such a way that the action of zooming opens up the iris just the right amount to compensate, thus maintaining the selected f/stop, then it wouldn't be necessary too have all the sophisticated compensation built into the body. Thinking about it, that's probably how they do it.
Greg

[youpii]

Do you think Sony can introduce a centre AF sensor with F/1.4 or F/1.8 precision?