Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S Review
By Nasim Mansurov 44 Comments
Last Updated On
Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S Review
Reader Interactions
Reader Comments
Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.
And there it is!! ;-) It is by far my favourite lens for the Z6. The images have a certain 3D quality that is very apparent in the samples you posted. Thanks for another great review!
Thank you for your feedback Max! I have enjoyed the Z 50mm f/1.8 S a lot and it is one of my most favorite lenses today. Can’t wait for Nikon to release the 85mm version!
Max, I have to disagree. This lens is certainly sharp but renders subjects like cardboard cut-outs in front of blurred out backgrounds. If that is 3d for you, that’s great, but to my eyes it looks artificial and unnatural.
To date none of the Z lenses look like they generate much 3d pop, most of the Z photographs I’ve seen look abnormally flat to me.
Marco, let me ask you a question: Do you own this lens? I do and took countless pictures with it already. And I stand by what I wrote in my first comment.
i have the z7 and after the review i want to buy this lens too
Thank you for another great and well written review, Nasim, not to mention the impressive sample pictures. Stunning.
My problem with this lens is not it’s superb quality, but I would have preferred the 85/1.8 first to add to my 35/1.8 S. THis way it’s just not enough difference in FL – and for the few moments I like to use a 50 mm, I still have the Sigma.
I wished Canon’s decision makers for “which lens we produce next?” would teach the Nikon guys how to step out of the safe (and boring) comfort zone and come up with something great. Something which is giving the mirrorless body additional value, like their 28-70/2 or the new 70-200 supercompact lens.
Joachim,
I also wish Nikon put more resources towards producing Z mount lenses. The current pace is very slow and it will take 5-6 years to get the most basic lenses for the system. I love seeing great Z mount lenses, but we need more of them. I would love an 85mm portrait lens – would be the first in line to buy it! Same with a 70-200mm f/4. I know an f/2.8 version is on its way, but I wish Nikon did the f/4 version first…
Nasim,
The review situation with Nikon Z lenses seems bizarre to me. You, speaking in generalities, praise all Nikon Z lenses. Lloyd Chambers, diglloyd.com/index.html, again speaking in generalities, condemns them all, mostly due to reliance on software to cure lens design defects. My own opinion, based on all reviews I’ve read so far, aligns more with Lloyd Chambers’s view. Can you reconcile this divergence of opinion regarding Nikon Z lenses?
Ron
I guess it pretty much depends on what you rate:
* Do you rate the quality which the lens would give without any correction made by the built in correction profile? Then there are better lenses.
* Do you rate the image you get out of the camera in JPEG and with the built in correction profile in the raw image? Then the Nikon Z lenses are really great.
(just my thoughts, Nasim may see it different)
Paul, it doesn’t matter, because we don’t use corrected versions of images for detailed assessment (with corrections, these lenses would look even better). We compare uncorrected RAW images between Z and F mounts and the conclusion is that in every case the Z mount is better. Look at the Sigma 50mm comparison in this review – why should one get the much bigger and heavier Sigma, if the Nikon Z 50mm provides very comparable results?
Nikon Z lenses are clearly better than their F mount counterparts, end of story :) I can openly say this after testing every Z mount lens and most F mount lenses out there, including many third party options.
Ronald, we use Dcraw to convert RAW images to TIFF in Imatest software and Dcraw does not perform ANY software corrections whatsoever. Therefore, all analysis we provide, including MTF, chromatic aberration and distortion numbers come from uncorrected images, completely ignoring Lightroom’s built in lens profiles. So far, aside from the oddball 14-30mm (which is still a great lens in my opinion), software corrections aren’t doing much to affect the results. The Z mount lenses are clearly better than their F mount predecessors in almost every way. So why shouldn’t we praise them? Give these lenses a try yourself and compare them side by side with F mount versions and I can assure you that you will come to the same conclusion. I don’t know what methodologies Lloyd Chambers relies on, but our assessment of the Z mount lenses so far has been very positive. The Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is by far the best 24-70mm lenses we have tested to date and that says a lot in itself, considering how many 24-70mm lenses are out there…
It’s clever marketing by Nikon. Produce a new mirrorless body which still has several issues to sort (eg www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/…ee-repairs) and and start producing high price lenses. Lenses that the mirrorless fanclub with their GAS will rush out and buy. It’s like the Emperer’s new clothes. I’m sure there are lots of benefits to going mirrorless, if, you bring a body that is ready for the public to buy to market. I think the Z7 & 6 were released too early and they are still fixing & finding faults that could have been resolved before launch but no-one dares to say it nor will anyone dare say a word about the price of the new Z lenses.
Dave, we covered the service advisory in detail:
photographylife.com/news/…e-advisory
Let’s be clear, if Nikon didn’t issue this advisory, no one would have even noticed that their camera was affected. My Z7 is on the list of affected cameras and I still haven’t sent mine, because I haven’t seen any examples of IBIS misbehaving. In fact, I would argue that Nikon Z6 and Z7 are among the cameras with the least number of manufacturing issues out there! And I’m not just saying this because I own both – I have used pretty much every new camera that has been released in the last 10 years.
As for prices of the Z mount lenses, you get what you pay for. No one forces you to buy Z mount lenses when you can easily adapt F mount versions and they work just fine. But the Z mount versions are clearly better in almost every way, which does come with a higher cost premium. Take a look at the lens designs and coating technologies Nikon has been using on Z mount lenses and compare them to F versions – there is a clear difference!
I’m sure Nikon will start discounting Z mount lenses in the future the same way F mount lenses are often discounted. It is just a matter of time.
DaveG
The service advisory affects very few cameras and is only a positive thing. All products suffer, there’s just a difference between the responsible makers and irresponsible.
Sounds like you don’t own the Z? All I can say after decades with Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon and Fujifilm is that these lenses are better than anything I have ever seen before. I don’t understand where your bitterness comes from?
Not bitter at all, everyone can jump on the person who doesn’t think mirrorless is, at this point, worth dumping existing kit for and that’s fine – each to their own.
Another misconception… I have to be a bit sarcastic now, DaveG: Imagine, no one forced me to dump anything to getting a Z 7. And no one will be able to do so furtheron. For a while, D810/850 and Z 7 can coexist with no problem at all. I even don’t know for how long this while will last.
“each to their own” – absolutely. Stay clear of the advantages and disadvantages of a Nikon mirrorless and enjoy the advantages and disadvantages of your camera. In each of this mirrorless threads at least one or two posters are needed to remind the mirrorless users which advantages and disadvantages we gave up and which we gain.
Dave “marketing” and “clever” should not be used in one sentence when talking about Nikon. Nikon’s marketing is a lot of things but “clever” doesn’t come in my mind first, second or fiftieth… But what comes in my mind is “someone who never used a Z body but read a lot about it, has some solid prejudices” ;) The bodies are a pleasure to use, I can say after 10 months of ownership.
Also, the Z’s are not Nikon’s first mirrorless attempt. Holding a 1 V2 against a Z 6 or 7 one will discover a lot of similarities in design – and the 1 series entered the market when no one talked about Canon mirrorless – except some tenthousands of Canon rumors readers.
Z coming too early? Totally disagreeing. Should have come 4 years earlier. But then they would have come with the same flaws as Sony or the first Fuji X-T1 were showing. At some point the money consumed by R&D has to come back – if Nikon would have waited to come up with the perfect mirrorles, it would never had happen.
And as much as I think, the S-line lenses are on the high side of value to quality relation – Nikon will want to milk the first and second row of buyers as long as possible until third party lenses make them look more expensive.
My experience with the Z system so far exactly mirrors Nasim’s review. I’ve never seen anything like these lenses. They blow everything else away. The F mount lenses aren’t even close. Sigma lenses are heavier, bigger and less reliable (in my experience). I highly recommend the Z lenses and system. I don’t think there’s anything better out there. The closest would be EOS R but completely impractical lenses for me.
Personally I am a huge fan of computational photography. There is absolutely no reason for holding on to purely analogue corrections in a digital system.
Better thing, when a new camera/lens appears, is waiting around a year. Then, despite of all commentaries, to rent it îs a good option to make your personal opinion. Thank You.
sharpening in camera in LR is set to radius +2 (Z7+50/1,8S). DId you set up the same sharpening to the pictures of the compared lenses? Nikon corrects vignette and ca! I think the tests are completely useless because you have to edit the photos of the compares lenses as well!
We don’t use Lightroom for comparing lenses, only detailed RAW analysis using Dcraw, which does not apply any corrections.
Thank you for your information. In this case (no profile, no corrections) the images are very impressive!
Coincidentally, I was going to comment that the Z7 and 50/1.8S looked like a good combination when I read your Profoto article and saw the many great shots taken with that combination.
I have a slightly left-field question regarding the colours: do you notice a difference between the S lenses and the F-mount lenses with nano-coatings? The majority of developments in binoculars over the last 10-15 years have been in lens and prism coatings; transmission and resolution being fairly stable since the development of high-fluoride glass in the 1990s, manufacturers have worked on coatings to eliminate CA and provide ‘neutral’ true-to-life colours. Now, most Nikon binoculars, even their top-line, have normally not performed as well as the European Alpha binocular manufacturers (Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski) in colour fidelity with often warmish colours, they do not transmit blue light so well. At the same time, I have noticed that the F-mount lenses since the introduction of the nano-coatings also show a typically warm cast (no matter which in-camera profile is used), so my guess was that they use similar technology to their binoculars. So the questions is, have you seen a different colour balance between the S and F mount lenses when processed similarly (WB, Picture Profile)? My interest is mainly the hope that Nikon may also improve their binocular coatings soon to give more neutral colours if they have found a new nano-formula, as their bins are otherwise, perhaps characteristically, ergonomically excellent.
I often use the F-mount 50mm f/1.8G as a landscape lens on my D850. It is small and lightweight and its central performance at f/5.6 and f/8 (which are the apertures I typically use) is excellent and, indeed, not too far behind the Z-mount 50mm f/1.8S (based on your measurements).
My dissatisfaction with the 50mm f/1.8G is that the edge performance is significantly poorer. I have often hoped that Nikon would produce a F-mount 50mm lens with better optical performance (I don’t regard the Sigma f/1.4 ART as a realistic option, both because I don’t require f/1.4 and due to its huge size/weight). It seems that the 50mm f/1.8S is the answer to my wishes (albeit in Z-mount), because it clearly beats the 50mm f/1.8G in terms of edge performance.
I recently purchased a Z6 which is a good complement to the D850, given the different sensor characteristics (particularly the better higher ISO performance of the Z6). But I still use the D850 as my primary landscape body – so, even though I have purchased the Z-mount 50mm to use on the Z6, I don’t have an immediate solution for my landscape usage. The DSLR to mirrorless transition is not easy!
The 35 1.8 S snd the 24-70 S also take amazing
landscape photos, even handheld panos.
Hi Nasim, a great article as always, thank You, the 50 is really a great lens. However, I could send You the bottom of a bottle and You would make fantastic puctures with it too :)
I would wish from Nikon a much more faster development of the Z-lenses, otherwise they could get problems with the acceptance of the whole system. And an adaptor without the chunky tripod mount would also be nice.
This review, as comprehensive as usual, many thanks, Nasim, also brings the dilemma of the Z system to daylight: Fantastic lenses, but big and heavy (I wonder how big the 85mm f/
1.8 will be) for a camera system which should be lighter and smaller, because it does not need a DSLR mirror box. Considering the long road map of the Z lens line-up, it seems it will take an even longer time, meaning possibly years, before we see small light lenses (a pancake lens e.g.). Maybe third party companies will jump in, but nevertheless, a lens like the Z 50mm f/1.8 does not fit to the camera body in physical aspects: too big, too heavy. (It does fit to the image quality of the sensor though which is perfectly alright).
I regard all 50mm f/1.8 lenses of Nikon as really sharp enough for almost all of us. The Z system is aimed to the mass market. I do understand Nikon to develop such an outstanding sharp lens, but on the other hand I do not see how that fits to a real strategy. The FZ adapter is not a solution, it is a workaround.
It must not be a f/2.8 or even f/4 lens, as Nasim suggests. It rather be a lens, not that sharp, but sharp as the 50mm f/1.8 F lenses, that still gathers a lot of light. It could be smaller, lighter and perfect to combine with a Z6/7. Landscape photographers in honour, but what about those who like to take pictures in low light situation, like evening or night events? For me, that would be a reason to buy a Z6: a small 20mm f/2.8 and a small 50mm f/1.8. Heck even the F 50mm f/1.4 AF-D is a lot lighter and smaller than this new Z 50mm f/1.8. And that’s 2/3 EV more light to come in. Image quality is absolutely no issue here as the ISO goes easily up to 6400 and most of the time the background (to the edges and corners) is much darker and out of focus anyway than the subject(s). No need for perfect sharpness in the far out corners (and if so, stop down the lens).
(sorry, for the two part posting, I touched the touch pad very unluckily and off went the first part).
Jan, which FF mirrorless body got “small” lenses? In all current lineups, I see compactness like you describe it, in µ4/3, but nowhere else. And if you’re already willing to accept “no perfect sharpness”, then why bother about cameras which are made for high quality (and high price, to get back some margins for Nikon)?
To me your wishes appear highly contradictory: No FF body will ever be as compact as the µ 4/3 already are – no waiting for a half a decade long roadmap and you’ll get at least the same IQ in a much smaller pack.
And Nikon S lenses are NOT big or heavy – if you like to put that badge on lenses, get your hands on Sigma versions – or the Panasonic 50 mm which is even heavier. Or 1 kg of 40/1.4 Art.
The Z system is already so much lighter than the D8xx. I don’t need to get low cost f/2.8 primes for that as there are really enough systems out to cover this kind of needs. Also, lower optical quality makes the AF job even harder which is crucial in low light situations.
“…but nevertheless, a lens like the Z 50mm f/1.8 does not fit to the camera body in physical aspects: too big, too heavy.” Let me guess: You never had this combo in your own hands? 45 grams more than the featherweight 35/1.8. As I said, if you wnat or need to go lighter and smaller – just do it, choices are enough. Nikon never said they go mirrorless to become lighter and smaller – this feature remains in the heads of some people who bring it to all mirrorless discussions and it simply didn’t got better with age.
Hi Joachim, short answer to the first paragraph: There is no such thing as “perfect sharpness”. It is all about the circle of confusion and the size of your prints (or monitor). Why not having both: big, heavy, super sharp vs small, light, still sharp lenses (as today’s F lens: AF-S 50mm f/1.8 or the older AF-D: 155g or 5.5oz)?
About “too big, too heavy”: I think you did not get my point, I was not clear enough: I could choose a simple D3200 (DX, 24MP) with a pro lens like the 17-55mm f/2.8 or the 12-24mm f/4 and get great results, about as good as with a near pro D500 (DX as well). It works. But I still could attach the cheap DX 18-55mm f/3.5 – 5.6 or a DX 35mm f/1.8 which are very light and get great results. – Same for FX. – But for MLC there is no such choice (yet).
If I want great quality, I use a big and heavy pro lens – but I have to carry it around. If I want small, light, I’d choose a simpler lens.
With your examples you’re already in DX world, right? I’d say, in this world Fujifilm practically rules without real competition when it comes to MLC. An XE3 or XT3 with an 18-55/2.8-4. In µ4/3 I’m not feeling at home, but as I said, there are plenty of options.
I now have to deal with a broken strap of an overloaded slingshot bag – after nearly 10 years the metal part of my ThinkTank sling-o-matic 20 became a victim of flawed design, it broke where ThinkTank weakened it to bend it better. With a lighter Z set (which is not around) or an X-T3 set it wouldn’t have broken… :( I was always worried what to do when this bag becomes worn out.
DX = smaller, lenses and body. Just as an example of a fitting strategy. There are (were) pankage lenses for the F-system. I remember the Nikon E series. Go, have a look at it, e.g. the 50mm f/1.8 series E. The series E lenses fitted perfectly and so this camera was the perfect SLR for climbers, wanderers, tourists … A friend of mine, climbing as many of us living in the highest area of the Alpes, had chosen this camera for exactly that reason and not buying a FM or F3, which are not really much bigger and heavier.
Anyway, imagine a light Z5, still 24MP, along with small(er) lenses. The Z 24-70 f/4 is going in the right direction. But the actual primes are not and they are f/1.8 “only” and not f/1.4. If I was Nikon, I’d chosen pro primes of f/1.4 (20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 105mm) which could be big and heavy because nobody expects small and light f/1.4 primes and start with 50, 24, 85, 35, 105mm. And I’d chosen standard primes of f/1.8 to f/2.8 but then small and light. (e.g. 20, 24, 28mm f/2.8 and 35mm, 50mm, 85mm f/1.8) and start with 50, 35, 85, 20mm. Since not all lenses are available at start, the 24-70mm f/4 and the 70-200mm f/4 fill the gaps (and the f/2.8 incarnations for the pros). Maybe a 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 would be ideal for tourists as well? You have to sell as a company to survive.
That would have been a consistent strategy. But this is just the point of view of me or photographers not considering the real resources Nikon actually has available. And their marketing division for sure does know much more about the market than I am.
Forgot to mention the SRL: It was a Nikon EM.
Thank you for the timely review. I just purchased the 50mm 1.8S to and it is superb! Its a great companion with my 24-70 f4.
Nasim, is the 50mm f/1.8 S not made of metal? In the hand the focusing ring feels much colder to the touch than the rubbery 24-70 f/4 S.
It is patent that contemporary photographic tastes have been increasingly bent on sharpness. The results are certainly superb, but to my eye this lens (like a number of others), is just oversharp, and I don’t quite like the rendering. (Ok with landscapes, but not so much with people.) This goes hand in hand with the contemporary taste for overprocessed photographs, which gives an over-the-top aspect to too many of them. Now, it’s still better to have an oversharp lens than an over-processed picture.
Due to the prevalence of smartphones, our eyes have become used to oversharpened pictures, and many people will regard a “standard” photograph as “flat.” The new digital technologies have deeply changed our aesthetic perceptions.
Now, it always remains possible to reduce the sharpness of an image in post-production, perhaps even to add grain, so it’s still fine to have a sharp lens…
François, more sharpness often leads to less pleasing bokeh – which is a bit more complicated to fix in post. I know there are tons of apps for every manipulation, but I still like the tools without the need of additional apps.
I am not a fan of 50mm focal length, so will think of getting 35mm f1,8s and portrait lens, in addtion to trinity kit 14-30 f4s ,24-70 f4s and 70-200 f4s.
Hi Iceman,
Just a thought but you could get the 24-70 2.8s instead of the f4 version and skip the prime lenses altogether ;-)
Personally, I am a huge fan of 50mm lenses. To me, they are more inspiring than 35mm and more versatile than 85mm.
I already have the 24-70mm f4, the 50mm 1.8s and the 70-300 AF-P.
But my trinity might eventually consist of: 24-70 2.8s / 50mm 1.8 / 70-200 f4
Yeah, and perhaps the 14-30 as well :))
Thanks for the review, Nasim. Any plans to review the Sigma 40 1.4 Art? I think you might be surprised by the superb numbers you get if/when you test that lens. It’s large & heavy but optically incredible (easily better than the 50 1.4 Art IMO).
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?
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?
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.
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.