FWIW: Ken Rockwell Reviews Nikkor 50mm F/1.4g AF-S
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4g AF-S Review
If you follow Ken at all, he’s got a review of the 50mm AF-S f/1.4g up now.
Oh and look! His kid’s growing up 
You’d expect a guy like Ken to take some more interesting test shots than pictures of his son… At least if he wants to maintain my interest.
The only gotchas are that this new lens has more barrel distortion than the old 50mm f/1.4 AF-D, it has a weird 58mm (not standard 52mm) filter size, and that this new lens is useless on Nikons made before about 1990.
Oh hey, wait a minute- MORE barrel distortion? That’s not cool.
I’m getting sharp, haze-free shots dead-on in-focus at f/1.4 on all of my cameras, where at f/1.4 my old 50/1.4 AF-D often had more veil, bloom or glow (what scientists call spherical aberration) in real shots.
…
This new AF-S 50 has more linear distortion than any other fixed Nikon 50mm ever made.
Ha:
Complain about kid pictures all you want, but unlike shooting Formula One racing or American hero Lance Armstrong, you don’t know where the kid is going next. Just try getting an in-focus shot without AF.
December 21st, 2008 at 18:13
I’m confused by Ken’s report! ( nothing unusual ). Is this a great lens or not? He says it’s indispensible but then lists its shorfalls in no uncertain terms…..
December 21st, 2008 at 21:25
conventional wisdom says we should ignore whatever Ken says… His “d40 is good enough for us” remark throws him out of the running for people I look up to.
For me- seeing the difference between performance in a Sigma lens and a Zeiss lens for a Hasselblad was a defining moment and it appears he’d be plenty happy with Sigma-level performance from that remark.
If your pictures don’t mean much to you- feel free to use whatever quality you like.
December 22nd, 2008 at 09:21
if your IQ is around 50 Ken should be an interesting reading for you.
and his “findings” interesting and correct too.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:16
The guy is a complete joke, for lenses Bjorn Rorslett is great, his write ups on Zeiss VERY interesting too.
December 22nd, 2008 at 13:16
Give the guy a break. He’s not for photography-nerds who are more into specs than actually appreciating pictures. He’s for amateurs that want things written and explained for them at their level.
matt, the D40 comment has to be one of his comments that is most misunderstood and taken out of context. Perhaps you should ask him what he meant. He must know since he doesn’t shoot exclusively with a D40.
max123, is your sense of self-worth so low that you have to insult him and anyone who reads it. I find his writing interesting, are you saying I have an IQ of 50. You don’t even know me. Get over yourself. If you don’t like his writing style, fine, but having to insult him and his readers is just immature.
Matrix, I enjoy both Bjorn’s and Ken’s reviews for different reasons. Sometimes raw spec numbers don’t tell the story and I want to read actual words instead of just charts and numbers.
December 22nd, 2008 at 16:35
One of Ken’s most fundemental problems is that he gives opinions on glass that he has never used. He also has a tendency to be overly flamboyant. He seems to have a problem with lenses made in China, but never ever has stated that one of these Chinese-produced lenses, construction-wise, has ever failed on him. But then he’ll also remind you that images are what is important.
I don’t know how or why he became an authority on Nikon gear. I suppose it is because he speaks to the masses, but that alone doesn’t make him worthwhile to listen to.
Anyways, I find it interesting that Bjorn Rorslett said this regarding the barrel distortion of the new 50:
“The barrel distortion, typical for this class of lens, is kept under good control.”
I suppose that this might be a matter of sample variation. But I am going to take Bjorn’s word on this, no Ken “Top Googlesearch” Rockwell.