The portrait images look strange, like the subject is a cardboard cutout. Maybe there is such a thing as too sharp…
Rick Benda
September 3, 2021 6:49 am
Thank you for all the work you do Nasim but I have a question. I know I’m late to this but looking at the charts, I’m not seeing that the Nikon is really better according to the charts. It basically betters the Sigma in a couple center comparisons but really loses out a lot on mid and outer parts of frame. In many. See my problem is that I have a D850 and Z7. I have the Sigma 50 and I thought it would be an upgrade to look at the Nikon 50. I do mainly Studio and some location. The adapter and weight is not a problem but looking at the charts losing the 1.4 and the differences in the mid frame and outer, it seems I’m taking a slight step backwards with the Nikon. Am I looking at this wrong. BTW I pretty much use the Sigma 40 most of the time and it buries both of these.
Literally no one is using appretures higher than 8 on a 50mil or any other lens than macro lenses. Why you take into consoderation the scores for that?
I’m not looking at F8. Don’t assume. Im Looking at F4 and 5.6. I take it that you don’t shoot in Studio. There are times when you have to Black the Background out and yes you do go to F8 and beyond.
Van Man
April 28, 2021 8:20 am
Thanks for the review. Chromatic aberration correction is surprisingly poor and LoCAs don’t go away even at 5.6. I bought the lens anyway as my Z starter but I don’t feel great about it.
John Dyte
March 3, 2021 10:27 am
I love these images but one of your recommendations between Z6 and Z7 is that Z6 is good for portraits and most regular photography like weddings and Z7 for landscape and architecture. But your examples are mostly Z7 for 50mm on a wedding. It seems like Z7 is better for everything and Z6 might leave us wanting.
Scott Segler
October 18, 2020 8:40 pm
Thank you for another fantastic review, Nasim. I’ve always found your reviews to be so thoughtful and well done. My compliments!
On your point about Lightroom not allowing photographers to disable the distortion correction, I just want to make sure I understand. In my version of Lightroom when I process a D850 raw file, I regularly turn the amount of distortion correction to zero in the Lens Correction section (the default is set to 100). I tend to use it only when necessary (like straight lines of a building are showing obvious bulging) because, to my eye, correction robs a slight amount of detail. Are you suggesting that Lightroom is still making corrections to distortion even when the distortion correction is set to zero (something new for the Z system)?
Jacob
March 5, 2020 8:42 am
With a 50mm 1.2 Z lens announced for later this year, I am wondering whether to get the 1.8 or to wait and compare. Does anyone already know roughly what the price and weight difference between the two is likely to be?
Dragan
December 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Hi Friends,
I own the z6 and two z lenses the 50 and the 35, i am sad and must agree with marco, all the z lenses are super sharp and contrasty with nice bokeh but the images are really flat as cardboard, i have the nokton 58 1.4 also and that lens is superior in case of dimensionality so called 3d pop. The 35mm has a little 3d pop. I would like to see a nikon autofocus 35 f2 with the same optical formula as the af-d variant, a fantastic character lens, or the 50 1.8 d. Sorry for my bad english.
If you want ultimate 3D pop or micro contrast or tonality and roll off, most of the old primes from Nikon, or try Leica or Fuji esp the Fuji 35mm 1.4. Unfortunately most new glass like the Sony GM go for ultimate corner to corner perfection at the expense of character and pop, having said that I own both Fuji XH1 and now renting a Z6 and that 24 to 70 kit lens is awfully sharp and has some character to it.
Pieter Kers
August 12, 2019 5:11 am
I think the focus by wire is a problem… changing focus without me wanting it is not very nice… very often it is important to me that focus is fixed in place- for instance with a panorama or architectural shots, not to mention time-lapse. Also LR must give the photographer the choice to NOT apply the lens profile… these things put me off… Computational photography should add features, not trash features… While Nikon is making compact S-lenses the funny thing is some are larger than the F-series, like this one and the 35mm… still i like the choice they have made, although i recently go for heavy no-compromize lenses as the Sigma 40mm f1.4- corners the are fabulous at f1.4 are worth a lot to me.
PeterTaylor
August 3, 2019 1:26 am
I am not yet very familiar with this lens shooting wide open but my initial impressions are that the bokeh is a bit nervous. Has anyone experienced the same?
Dan T
July 11, 2019 1:45 pm
Thanks for the review! A bit late to the party, but I have a question or two regarding the bokeh.
I know the Nikon 58/1.4 G is appreciated for its bokeh here at Photographylife. How would you rate the bokeh of the 50 S compared to that one? And the 50 S bokeh compared to the Sigma 50 Art?
The portrait images look strange, like the subject is a cardboard cutout. Maybe there is such a thing as too sharp…
Thank you for all the work you do Nasim but I have a question. I know I’m late to this but looking at the charts, I’m not seeing that the Nikon is really better according to the charts. It basically betters the Sigma in a couple center comparisons but really loses out a lot on mid and outer parts of frame. In many. See my problem is that I have a D850 and Z7. I have the Sigma 50 and I thought it would be an upgrade to look at the Nikon 50. I do mainly Studio and some location. The adapter and weight is not a problem but looking at the charts losing the 1.4 and the differences in the mid frame and outer, it seems I’m taking a slight step backwards with the Nikon. Am I looking at this wrong. BTW I pretty much use the Sigma 40 most of the time and it buries both of these.
Literally no one is using appretures higher than 8 on a 50mil or any other lens than macro lenses. Why you take into consoderation the scores for that?
I’m not looking at F8. Don’t assume. Im Looking at F4 and 5.6. I take it that you don’t shoot in Studio. There are times when you have to Black the Background out and yes you do go to F8 and beyond.
Thanks for the review. Chromatic aberration correction is surprisingly poor and LoCAs don’t go away even at 5.6. I bought the lens anyway as my Z starter but I don’t feel great about it.
I love these images but one of your recommendations between Z6 and Z7 is that Z6 is good for portraits and most regular photography like weddings and Z7 for landscape and architecture. But your examples are mostly Z7 for 50mm on a wedding. It seems like Z7 is better for everything and Z6 might leave us wanting.
Thank you for another fantastic review, Nasim. I’ve always found your reviews to be so thoughtful and well done. My compliments!
On your point about Lightroom not allowing photographers to disable the distortion correction, I just want to make sure I understand. In my version of Lightroom when I process a D850 raw file, I regularly turn the amount of distortion correction to zero in the Lens Correction section (the default is set to 100). I tend to use it only when necessary (like straight lines of a building are showing obvious bulging) because, to my eye, correction robs a slight amount of detail. Are you suggesting that Lightroom is still making corrections to distortion even when the distortion correction is set to zero (something new for the Z system)?
With a 50mm 1.2 Z lens announced for later this year, I am wondering whether to get the 1.8 or to wait and compare. Does anyone already know roughly what the price and weight difference between the two is likely to be?
Hi Friends,
I own the z6 and two z lenses the 50 and the 35, i am sad and must agree with marco, all the z lenses are super sharp and contrasty with nice bokeh but the images are really flat as cardboard, i have the nokton 58 1.4 also and that lens is superior in case of dimensionality so called 3d pop. The 35mm has a little 3d pop. I would like to see a nikon autofocus 35 f2 with the same optical formula as the af-d variant, a fantastic character lens, or the 50 1.8 d. Sorry for my bad english.
If you want ultimate 3D pop or micro contrast or tonality and roll off, most of the old primes from Nikon, or try Leica or Fuji esp the Fuji 35mm 1.4. Unfortunately most new glass like the Sony GM go for ultimate corner to corner perfection at the expense of character and pop, having said that I own both Fuji XH1 and now renting a Z6 and that 24 to 70 kit lens is awfully sharp and has some character to it.
I think the focus by wire is a problem… changing focus without me wanting it is not very nice…
very often it is important to me that focus is fixed in place- for instance with a panorama or architectural shots, not to mention time-lapse. Also LR must give the photographer the choice to NOT apply the lens profile… these things put me off…
Computational photography should add features, not trash features…
While Nikon is making compact S-lenses the funny thing is some are larger than the F-series, like this one and the 35mm… still i like the choice they have made, although i recently go for heavy no-compromize lenses as the Sigma 40mm f1.4- corners the are fabulous at f1.4 are worth a lot to me.
I am not yet very familiar with this lens shooting wide open but my initial impressions are that the bokeh is a bit nervous. Has anyone experienced the same?
Thanks for the review! A bit late to the party, but I have a question or two regarding the bokeh.
I know the Nikon 58/1.4 G is appreciated for its bokeh here at Photographylife. How would you rate the bokeh of the 50 S compared to that one? And the 50 S bokeh compared to the Sigma 50 Art?