Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 G Lens Review — Adam Leahy Photography

The classic 50 one-eight from Nikon, the G-series lens. This prime lens has been around for a few years and is one of my most versatile optics. Should you buy one? Read below...

I am a Nikon shooter professionally, and much of my personal work is with Nikon dSLR's also. I have done a ridiculous amount of photography with this lens. I could write pertinent information about this lens for about 6 days straight, 24/7. The problem with that is it would take you about the same amount of time to read it. Got that kind of time? You do? Let's get you through this so you have time to interact with people in the real world;) I'm trying to be brief...

This review is for relatively new photographers, avid amateurs and people that want to take a step beyond the kit zoom that came on their camera.

Pro's: 1) Cheap for the quality of images that it can make. 2) Photographing between f/1.8 and f/2.8 can give you bokeh that people drool after, especially in portraits, and yes it can be an absolutely stunning portrait lens on full frame (FX) and sub-frame (DX) cameras. 3) Did you just say with a snobby voice "an 85mm or 105mm would be a better choice for portraits"? STFU. Do you think a creative pro can't make a kick-a$$ portrait with a 50mm? Ok then. It's not about an infinite amount of tools, it's about the artist and their vision. You can get to your girlfriends house in a truck or a sports car, they're both good, and get you where you want to go just fine. The difference between a portrait made with a 50mm, 85mm or 105mm is like the difference between pepperoni pizza, combination and vegetarian; it's a matter of taste, and they all hit the spot. If you are so privileged to have all three, then good on you, you have choices, but you only really need one pizza, given that you know what to do with it and how to share it. 4) It's as sharp as it needs to be at f/1.8 for the kinds of things you want to shoot at 1.8 for. Stop crying, gnashing your teeth and reading endless reviews. Seriously. Want it a bit sharper, shoot at f/2.8 and it still will put out some dreamy shallow depth of field. Stop down f/4-f/11 ish and it is as sharp as it gets. These options generally will open up your depth of field to be more of the wide variety, that is, more in focus from foreground to background. Sad face? Shallow depth is not everything, although it IS something. 5) Auto focus is pretty darn good with this lens. Not as good as Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 or the 70-200 f/2.8, but surely good enough given that you apply your brain to your situation. 6) It's light and small, which is kind of nice sometimes. 7) It has no zoom. Wait, did you think that belongs in the "Con's"? This might be the most important thing you learn today. Listen up. These are the words of Ansel Adams, "A good photograph is knowing where to stand". A photograph looks vastly different if you stand close and zoom out, or stand far away and zoom in. These are two completely different focal lengths. They look different. Your ability to zoom, when you don't know the difference between a 70mm lens and a 24mm lens, makes you as effective in good photography as a blind man driving a car trying to decide whether to turn right or left. If you can't see the difference, you are bound to make a lot of stupid mistakes, or at least learning by trial and error. Anyway. You need to learn where to stand when framing up a photograph, the the 50mm prime lens helps you with that. You know how it goes, you stumble across a good image, you snap it, chimp it, smile and move on. The smart thing to add to your process, is to explore that situation with making images from different points of view, high or low for example, and closer and further away. Use your feet in photography, it's what they are at the ends of your legs for.

Con's; 1) It's not a macro lens. 2) It's not good for taking pictures of dangerous animals, close up. 3) It is not good at capturing a wide view in close quarters, especially on DX format. 4) Manual focus is adequate for modern digital cameras, but if you are a connoisseur of film and the dinosaur days, this lens sucks bad, really bad. 5) It does not have Vibration Reduction, which I think is a really cool technology. Being able to shoot from 1/8 second to 1/30 second hand held can open some creative territorial options.

Compared with: All of Nikon's 50's made in the last 20 years are quite good, and will do the job nicely. Splitting hairs... ok, I like this 50 better than the 1.4 version simply because it is cheaper. They are very similar in image quality, size and durability. The older D-series lenses are less accurate in auto focus. In some lab situations the 1.4 D focuses faster than the G lenses, but this is meaningless in the real world. In all real world situations the G series lens focuses faster and more accurately than the D series lenses. This is actually not a big deal. If I only had the D-series lens, I would be perfectly happy. In my experience the D-series lenses search more for focus, especially in low light and miss the focus more often, like the difference between focusing on the eyebrow or the eye itself for example. Other brands? Sigma and Tamron make some good, and comparable lenses. Zeiss and Voitlander make some lenses with really great manual focus, if that is what you are into.

Recommendations: Having a 50mm lens for your camera as you explore and practice your passion in photography is a no-brainer. It helps you learn where to stand in making images, it allows you to make some really luscious shallow depth of field, it keeps some money in your bank account until you earn the right to buy that pro zoom, or 85mm f/1.4. It's hard to make a mistake in buying any 50mm lens for your Nikon, but I like this 50mm f/1.8 G the best because it has very high image quality, is cheap, small and light.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 G @f/2, heavy edit with vignette, contrast and saturation.