Nikon Z, 50, f/1.8 S, Review

[Palouse]

Anyone on the fence about this lens should read this: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8s-review/

I'm enjoying mine a lot, and find it much sharper than the 1.8G, and with sharpness across the entire frame.

 

[Pa]

That's a very positive review. Thom Hogan has very positive comments also. He says it's the best 50mm Nikon has ever made.

 

[mneary]

Mine just arrived yesterday - still in the box, too swamped to try it out...

 

[Pa]

Could you guys convince me I need one of these? My only 50mm is an old AF-D I bought about 2006 and I almost never use it. My thought is if I had a better one I might use it more often.

 

[MikEm13]

Hokus Pokus Kalamazoo the Z 50mm f1.8 is the lens for you.

Hope that works Jim.

 

[Pa]

Hokus Pokus Kalamazoo the Z 50mm f1.8 is the lens for you.

Hope that works Jim.

Nice try, Mike. Gonna take more than that.

I can't think of what I would photograph with it that my 24-70s wouldn't do just fine for. Sure, one can get better subject isolation with an f/1.8 lens, but it's a bit short for portraits.

So what do you use it for?

 

[Palouse]

Jim, I LOVE my Z 50 S 1.8. It is everything the reviews say it is. If you think you'd be using it a lot, I'd stuck with your zoom, or a 50F + FTZ. The more I shoot with a 50, the more I like shooting with a 50. The S is so good, that I had to buy it even though I had a 50 1.8 G. A team of reindeer are bringing me a couple of extension rings, so that will be my close-up system. You have a macro, so no real advantage here.
But I do love the S lens.

 

[MikEm13]

There are times when my favorite, 35mm f1.4 S just isn't close enough. The 50mm S really is one of the better lenses that Nikon has developed. I have shot it against the my 24-70 f4 S at 50mm and to my eyes it is sharper with a better depth of field. The 50mm picture just looks better also. But my brain might be justifying the purchase. Lol.

 

[Pa]

The reviews I've read have pretty well convinced me of the sterling qualities of the lens, and I'm remembering I recently bought the extension tubes Nick is expecting, so perhaps that would mitigate its lack of close focus. I'm getting closer.

 

[Cslucas34]

Jim,

I had the same reservations for the same reasons initially. I never used my old 50 prime much either. However I’ve taken to using it more and more because of its high quality especially when I’m shooting portraits that require more depth or environment. Shot from a low angle and with proper posing it’s a stunning lens to use for portraits. I now consider it to be a go to lens. If that’s not your cup of tea or you don’t want to deal with mitigating compression then look at the 85 prime. Quality is just as good and a lot less to worry about with compression and it’s past your current focal range with the 24-70.

 

[Pa]

Jim,

I had the same reservations for the same reasons initially. I never used my old 50 prime much either. However I’ve taken to using it more and more because of its high quality especially when I’m shooting portraits that require more depth or environment. Shot from a low angle and with proper posing it’s a stunning lens to use for portraits. I now consider it to be a go to lens. If that’s not your cup of tea or you don’t want to deal with mitigating compression then look at the 85 prime. Quality is just as good and a lot less to worry about with compression and it’s past your current focal range with the 24-70.

Thanks, Chris. Thing is, I'm not much of a portrait shooter. I would be more likely to use it for landscapes. or general travel photography. And I think the 24-70s is just fine for that.

 

[Cslucas34]

Thanks, Chris. Thing is, I'm not much of a portrait shooter. I would be more likely to use it for landscapes. or general travel photography. And I think the 24-70s is just fine for that.

If you aren’t doing much portraits and sticking with landscapes then I would say stick with the 24-70 for sure. Maybe that 14-30 would be a nice addition for landscapes. I know I’m debating on getting it!

 

[BillM]

The nice thing about having only the 24-70 is not having to decide what lens to use!

That being said, every S lens I have (35 f/1.8S, 50 f/1.8S, 85 f/1.8S and 24-70 f/4S) is fantastic! Some, like the 50 are a bit more fantastic than the others

 

[Pa]

The nice thing about having only the 24-70 is not having to decide what lens to use!

There is that. Of course I have a closet full of other Nikon lenses, all of which require the FTZ to use with my Z6.

 

[BillM]

There is that. Of course I have a closet full of other Nikon lenses, all of which require the FTZ to use with my Z6.

My two favorites on the FTZ adapter are the 60mm f/2.8G Micro and the 20mm f/1.8G.

 

[Pa]

My two favorites on the FTZ adapter are the 60mm f/2.8G Micro ...

That's intriguing since one of my favorite DX lenses is the 40mm Micro.

But I keep hoping there will be a Z-mount macro before too long.

 

[acnomad]

I think a native 50 in Z-mount would be redundant for me, since the 24-70mm f/4S does pretty much all I need for shorter focal length work. It is very seldom that I wish it were faster. For all the 50mm lenses I've tried over the years (and I still own quite a variety of them), none has ever convinced me that the "normal field of view" produces particularly interesting photographs, at least in my hands.

 

[BillM]

While the 24-70 f/4 is a very good lens, the 50 f/1.8 S is better to my eye....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[cgandiaga]

I LOVE this lens. The optics are in a class by themselves. Now I just have to find opportunities to use it. My journey to Madrid in April will do quite nicely!!

 

[bpdougd]

I think a native 50 in Z-mount would be redundant for me, since the 24-70mm f/4S does pretty much all I need for shorter focal length work. It is very seldom that I wish it were faster. For all the 50mm lenses I've tried over the years (and I still own quite a variety of them), none has ever convinced me that the "normal field of view" produces particularly interesting photographs, at least in my hands.

Sometimes aperture matters. Taken in my rather dim basement office. Even wide open I needed a pretty high ISO and would never have achieved the background blur and subject isolation with the 24-70. It would have been just as sharp I believe but "different".

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)