Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF?

[jamesh]

I am looking for my first nikon lens to use with an sgpro r3.

I am very confused as to which model to go for. Ive looked through all the related threads but cant find a definitive answer.

Im pretty set on getting a nikon 50mm 1.8 just to start me off but im confused about the ai/ai-s/af/manual part of it?

If i buy this nikon 50mm 1.8 AF http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-50Mm-F1-8D-Nikkor-Focus/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1229516720&sr=8-1

will it fix properly to the sgpro and will i be able to use all of the functions on it, or will the AF aspect of the lens hinder the usability with the sgpro?

Do i need to go AI/AI-s? because those lenses are double the price as AF?

[Tobias Martinsson]

That lens should work just fine! maybe not the best lens out there but it gets the job done.

Nikon lenses that wont work are the DX line. They're made for a smaller sensor and don't have a manual apperture ring.

[jenningsp]

it will work fine.

ai and ais lenses are preferred only because they are closer in design and function to a cinema lens.

they generally have a larger focus draw so you can hit your marks and focus more easily. and they have a smooth dampened focus ring. some newer/cheaper lenses have a really loose rings. so it's hard to hit marks. i don't know if the 50mm f1.8 AF is one of those... go to a photography shop and play around with it.

[jamesh]

Thanks guys.

In that case im a little worried i wont be able to focus properly with an AF lens. Will it work with a follow focus?

Anyone know where to get a decent condition ai or ais lens then? or know anyone selling one?

[frobozz]

Since you aren't coupling with a meter, and you don't care where the engravings are since you won't be viewing them through a teeny window in your SLR viewfinder, you can even get Pre-AI lenses and they'll work just fine.

Just glancing through KEH.com's inventory of Nikkor 50/1.4 lenses, it looks like you can pick up EX condition pre-AI ones for anywhere from $70-$120. Some of the differences matter to collectors, and don't matter to you, so going for the cheaper end of the scale is fine. If you don't mind one that's a bit beat up cosmetically, you can look through the BGN grade ones and save tons more money. You're going to be far happier with an old manual focus 50/1.4 than with an AF 50/1.8, believe me.

And if you are really trying to save money, don't rule out ebay. All the normal care required to avoid scammers, plus make sure the lens isn't filled with fungus or heavily scratched, etc, but you can really pick up some cheap ones there, almost cheap enough to be worth getting a dud or two along the way if you're not in a hurry. And especially look for lenses that are "broken" in ways that won't matter to you - like if the auto-aperture mechanism is stuck and so the lens always stops down as you move the ring - that's exactly what you want when mounted to an adapter! Similarly, if it's listed a having oily/slow aperture blades that makes it worthless for an SLR owner, but just dandy for someone with an adapter who is operating the aperture manually anyway.

Duncan

[chagchag]

The lens you are reffering to is very good, and very good value for money, AND u can pick it up anywhere.

This particular lens has fairly long focusdraw and very smooth focusring. It has a manual iris-ring, and it is nice for both DX-sized DSLRs and FX-sized SLRS especially since it's AF.

You can not go wrong with this lens, and you'll find yourself using it a lot, even as your collection increase.

[djgvinny]

just a tip from what i heard .. people eyes are equal to 50 mm lens ..so in film try to stay away from 50 mm it mimics human eye and doesnt look good on screen that what i did and i got me nikon 15-35 2.8 and nikon 35 - 70 2.8 and others higher im covered from 15 to 200 ....so try to get wider and move your way up ..thats what i did ....

[pmark23]

The 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 and 1.2, but of course you'll need more light to take advantage of it.

[frobozz]

The 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 and 1.2, but of course you'll need more light to take advantage of it.

I'll admit I'm far more familiar with Canon FD lenses (where the 1.4 is vastly sharper than the throwaway 1.8) but are you sure that at the same aperture, the Nikon 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4? Like, say, set them both at 1.8?

Duncan

[bmxbud4130]

I have the 50mm f1.8 and love it on my DSLR, but I haven't really tried it on my DIY 35mm adapter too extensively yet.

www.keh.com is a great place to look up older manual focus lenses that are out there, and to get an idea of what they're selling for.
I've bought from them before and had good luck.

[Xtopher]

OMG that site is amazing thanks for showing us that guys!

[pmark23]

I'll admit I'm far more familiar with Canon FD lenses (where the 1.4 is vastly sharper than the throwaway 1.8) but are you sure that at the same aperture, the Nikon 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4? Like, say, set them both at 1.8?

I assume that the 1.4 will be sharper at 1.8, but a step higher the 1.8 is sharper. I don't think there is a true relation between price and sharpness, but a marketing one. Logically there's probably an inverse relationship, as a simpler lens is cheaper to make, and sharper because there's less glass (assuming it was constructed properly in the first place).

[mvansomeren]

Here's a good review comparing just about every aspect of Nikon 50mm lenses:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm

Hope this helps.

[Shooter]

Here is an interesting site if you want to check Nikon Lens serials.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

[frobozz]

I assume that the 1.4 will be sharper at 1.8, but a step higher the 1.8 is sharper. I don't think there is a true relation between price and sharpness, but a marketing one. Logically there's probably an inverse relationship, as a simpler lens is cheaper to make, and sharper because there's less glass (assuming it was constructed properly in the first place).

While there may be some specific examples where someone charges more for a lens for marketing reasons, as a blanket statement that's completely untrue. Some serious design and manufacturing work goes into the insanely high quality lenses, and they charge accordingly. One of many examples would be aspherical elements... they help get the entire scene focused on the same plane, but are significantly harder to make than spherical elements.

Duncan

[pmark23]

I agree with you. I'm talking about all those extra bits of glass they put in front to correct a fundamentally flawed design. If you take a look at the various lists of the "best" lenses, they're almost always small and simple (simple including aspherical designs as well.)

I'm not a pro at this by any means -- I've just spent the last few months reading everything I could about 35mm lenses and have come to a few conclusions.