Confrontation systems Nikon / Canon. Part 3. Autofocus fifty dollars.

In this part of the confrontation between Nikon and Canon systems, we will consider the question of who has better autofocus XNUMXs - Nikon or Canon.

Autofocus fifty dollars of two systems

Autofocus fifty dollars of two systems

The first two parts from the Nikon / Canon cycle can be found at the links:

  1. Confrontation systems Nikon / Canon. Part 2. Performance.
  2. Confrontation systems Nikon / Canon. Part 1. Discrete portraiture.

Fifty is called a lens with a fixed focal length equal to 50 mm. At the time of the film era, fifty dollars were standard lenses for film cameras, in our time such lenses would be called whale lenses (i.e. lenses purchased with a camera). Due to the fact that these were full-time lenses, since the time of the film, they have released countless numbers, and the number of modifications is just off scale. Now I see novice photographers buying for themselves it’s fifty dollars as the first additional / discrete / high-speed / creative lens... There is an opinion among the people that the fifty-kopeck piece is exactly the lens that should be in the bag of any photographer.

By tracking fifty dollars, you can easily find out a lot of useful information about the system as a whole.

In this article, I will consider only autofocus fifty dollars from Nikon and Canon. All fifty dollars can be divided into three groups:

  • amateur, entry-level, with a maximum relative aperture of 1: 1.8 (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical or Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.8 STM)
  • amateur, advanced, with a maximum aperture of 1: 1.4 (Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4G AF-S Nikkor SWM or Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.4 USM)
  • professional fifty dollars (not particularly tied to aperture, but usually with f / 1.4-f / 1.2-f / 1.0, for example - Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.2 L USM or Nikon Nikkor Z 50 / 1.2 S)

The company Nikon can be divided into 13 models (along with subversion) autofocus fifty dollars.

Lens Exit time Today's prices
Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkor (MKI), this lens exists in two subversions with a weight of 210 or 165 grams. Subversion fundamentally no different. September 1986 Outdated
Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkor (MKII), this lens exists in three subversions: mij,MIC, NJ. Subversion fundamentally no different. January 1990 Outdated
Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkor (MKIII) February 2002 View->
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical (MKIV) April 2011 View->
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical Special Edition (MKV) August 2013 View->
Nikon Nikkor Z 50mm 1: 1.8 S (MKVI) August 2018 View->
Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4 AF Nikkor (MKI) September 1986 Outdated
Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4 AF Nikkor (MKII) June 1991 Outdated
Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4D AF Nikkor (MKIII), this lens exists in two subversions: mij и MIC. Subversion fundamentally no different. February 2006 Outdated
Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4G AF-S Nikkor SWM September 2008 View->
Nikon Nikkor Z 50 / 1.2 S September 2020 View->

Lenses are highlighted in green on the plate, which are equipped with a built-in SWM (Silent Wave Motor) focusing motor, which allows them to be used on any Nikon DSLR. Lenses are highlighted in yellow that use the camera's focusing motor for focusing and will not have an autofocus function when working with Nikon 'junior' (non-motorized) amateur cameras, such as the D40 / D3000 / D5100 and others like them. Of course, I know about the existence of Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 55mm 1: 2.8 and Nikon N AF-S Nikkor 58mm 1: 1.4G Nano Crystal Coat SWM Aspherical, but these are no longer real fifty dollars. Lenses for Z-mount mirrorless cameras that use an STM focus motor are shown in blue.

Despite the fact that the variety of Nikon Nikkor lenses seems to be enormous, in fact, many models use the same optical schemes, and in fact they are the same lenses, and, in fact, give approximately the same image.

  • Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkor (MKI), Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkor (MKII, all three of its sub-versions) and Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkor (MKIII) use the same optical design developed back in 1978 year and first used in the Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8 AI manual lens.
  • Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical (MKIV) and Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical Special Edition (MKV) are almost complete copies, differing only in case design.
  • Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4 AF Nikkor (MKI), Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4 AF Nikkor (MKII) and Nikon 50mm 1: 1.4D AF Nikkor (MKIII, all two of its sub-versions) use the same optical design, developed back in 1976 year and first used in a manual Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.4K lens, PRE AI.

To summarize, the F / 1.8 fifty uses two fundamentally different optical schemes, and the F / 1.4 fifty also uses two fundamentally different optical schemes. It's 2015 outside, and Nikon continues to sell lenses whose optics were developed back in the late 70s of the last century (stability is a sign of craftsmanship!). On the other hand, in the F / 1.8 and F / 1.4 lineup there is a choice between two options, which differ in both price and image quality.

At Canon, you can clearly distinguish 8 models of autofocus fifty dollars.

Lens Exit time Today's prices
Canon Lens EF 50mm 1: 1.8 March 1987 Outdated
Canon Lens EF 50mm 1: 1.8 II This lens is available in two versions: Made in malaysia и Made in japan. Subversion fundamentally no different. December 1990 See
Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.8 STM May 2015 See
Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.4 Ultrasonic July 1993 See
Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.2 L USM Ultrasonic January 2007 See
Canon Lens RF 50mm F1.2L USM September 2018 See
Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.0 L Ultrasonic September 1989 Outdated
Canon Compact-Macro Lens EF 50mm 1: 2.5 December 1987 See

In the tablet, lenses are highlighted in yellow, which use a noisy built-in micromotor for focusing. Lenses highlighted in blue are Canon STM (STepper Motor) stepper focusing motors. The green color indicates the lenses that use the Canon USM (Ultrasonic Motor Drive) ultrasonic focusing motor for focusing. Purple lenses for mirrorless cameras with R mount.

As is the case with Nikon, some fifty fifty Canon also use the same optical design. So, the same optical design is used in Canon Lens EF 50mm 1: 1.8, Canon Lens EF 50mm 1: 1.8 II and Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.8 STM lenses.

Results

  • For professional development, both systems are good, they have TOP lenses with F / 1.2 and F / 1.0 (Canon L and Nikon S line)
  • Each of the systems has exclusive unbeatable lenses: Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.0 L Ultrasonic и Nikon Nikkor Z 58 mm 1: 0.95 S Nod
  • Canon XNUMXs are much better compatible with all Canon EOS cameras. Nikon has broken compatibility with cameras without a focus motor and lenses without a focus motor (this applies to both SLR and mirrorless cameras)
  • Nikon has a wider choice among budget and advanced fifty dollars, especially in the secondary market. The most budget fifty dollars with F / 1.8 as a whole are much better assembled than the budget Canon Lens EF 50mm 1: 1.8 II.
  • Canon has a macro fifty dollars Canon Compact-Macro Lens EF 50mm 1: 2.5... Nikon, however, also has a similar lens - Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 55mm 1: 2.8 (not added to the list, as it differs in focal length and looks more like macro sixties).

Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram

Add a comment: Arkady Shapoval

 

 

Comments: 220, on the topic: Confrontation systems Nikon / Canon. Part 3. Autofocus fifty dollars.

  • Lynx

    * considering that for “lovers of more budgetary and more reliable” nikon is still preferable, its 50 / 1,8 g and d versions represent a much more widespread and competitive niche in comparison with the only Canon 50 / 1,8 with a very mediocre image and quality assembly.
    Plus the most delicious manuals, of course.
    When moving to the major league - here, of course, the canon has more show-offs.

    • Oleg

      Well, the canon has corrected 50-1.8stm. Seven aperture blades, metal mount. The image is not bad for the old version. The network has a lot of flattering reviews about him. Well, there price-quality is the same famous dastish plastmastish. The only strong minus 5 aperture blades

    • Alexey

      Ryska, as usual, is not in the subject :))))
      the manual on the crop with its small and dark JVI is hemorrhagic. although there are also lovers of crap :))) if you really want a manual, it drives and you can buy it not so expensive, different versions. a lot of old Soviet manual rubbish is handicrafts a la tseiss only in the worst quality.
      back to the cheap 50mm AF lenses.
      for the price - the best new Canon EF 50mm f / 1.8 STM to date. its price is 110 dollars! )))
      in terms of quality, it is not much inferior to not only the lousy Nikon 50 1.8D but even 1.8G. for the price - out of competition.
      among other things, the new Kenon is equipped with a STM engine, optimized for video and live view and a new coating for working in backlight.
      Oleg was wrong above, he has 7 rounded petals and not 5. for that kind of money - quite enough.

      • Lynx

        oh ... and here is the boorish guy “who knows everything”.
        haven't you been banned yet? )))

        • Alexey

          better to know than how you post nonsense)))
          Have you noticed the rudeness in the expression “Ryska, as usual, is not in the subject :))))”?
          Ryska - this is what I call trolls so fondly.
          but the fact that you are not in the subject is obvious :)))) what kind of hamtsvo is this? it's just a fact, you don't know the obvious things, but post fiction.
          did you even hold the canons in your hands? and know what their lenses are? ))))

          Well, tell us what the Canon EF 50mm f / 1.8 STM is bad for at a price of $ 110)))
          share your experience! ))))))))))))))) 0

          • Lynx

            Given the fact that in this stochastic system you are just another, took the place of the once banned Trekhsotkovich, I see no reason to take you seriously anyhow.
            ....
            hey people, this "trehsotkovich" has already broken, maybe the next one?

            • Alexey

              “* Considering that Nikon is still preferable for“ amateurs on a budget and more reliable ”, its 50 / 1,8 g and d versions represent a much more widespread and competitive niche in comparison with the only Canon 50 / 1,8 with a very mediocre image and build quality. Taking into account the fact that in this stochastic system you are just another, ... "
              =======================
              typical delirium of a smoking troll. first posts illiterate comments and then turns to the individual in an attempt to justify their ignorance)))))
              Ryska, try at least sometimes, for a change, to post something in which you at least a little bit understand))))))))))))

              • Fat marketer

                Alexey, do not skip taking Haloperidol, it is harmful for you. Calm down, relax. Climb the network less, all the branches are fucked up here. Walk more. Nikon is shit, Canon is driving. Repeat this to yourself 20 times when you feel a seizure. Especially when you hallucinate about “New York photo shops”, as you wrote below. But in this case, hospitalization is better, voluntary is better. This will indicate a critical approach and improve the forecast.

      • AgentSmith13

        At the expense of "gemmoroy" and "trash" - 1) JUMP: Zeiss Sonnar 135 (probably such a copy was caught, or it was cut badly for Nikon), the picture was given on a Nikon crop worse than Jupiter 37A ... 2) GEMMOROY - Well, I do I shoot more macro, but ... AUTOFOCUS macrik Tamron 90 and MANUAL Vivitar 90 (and 55 F2.8 too) - heaven and earth ... AF focuses where the PROCESSOR and CAMERA comes up with, manual - where NECESSARY. The use of AF in reportage, indoors and with flash is not canceled in any way. 90% of the photos (and not only macro) I do in the manual - more familiar or something. And the size of the viewfinder is not so problematic even with a vision of 0,8 / 0,3 ... Skill, however!

        • Alexey

          used lenses are very different in quality. It is possible that living Jupiter is better than a half-living Zeiss. )
          tampons and sigma are often focused wherever they want - companies do not have access to proprietary Nikon / Kenon AF protocols.
          I put the focusing screen on the FF and worked with manual lenses. IMHO, the reportage on the manual glass is hemorrhagic! )))
          I agree with you - maybe there are people who love this and focus with the knobs faster and more accurately than AF.

          • AgentSmith13

            105 Nikkor micro autofocus is also “not right” compared to 90 SP macro manual tamron + converter up to 1: 1. Focusing screen native, nikon, wild crop D31000 + D7100

        • Alexey

          "Trash" - the bulk of old manual lenses. soapy muddy picture (“soft”, “soft” - if you need a fig leaf to cover the low resolution of the lens), low contrast, poor back work.
          good old manual lenses of pentax, zeiss, olik, etc. - the price is from $ 700 to $ 4000 (there are some).
          from 135mm optics - there is, for example, Elka Kenon 135/2. she will soon be 20 at lunchtime.
          which manual lens will produce similar quality? )

          • AgentSmith13

            There is no turbidity, no software (Helios 81, yeah, soft ...) on QUALITY lenses. Dot. Contrast - Welciome to lightroom (Capture NX) - the same Jupiter 37, well, you don't need to take old lenses in poor technical condition.

            • AgentSmith13

              Zeiss, by the way, I do not know how and by whom it was altered, but outwardly, both the body and the lenses are ideal, it would be interesting to film U37A (with an M42 tail), and Sonnar 135 for experiments to hang and shoot a couple of frames with the same apparatus

  • Konstantin

    Recently, the elections were, the head went round, now Arkady threw a little brain rebellion! :)))

  • anonym

    All the same, on the crop, fifty dollars is long for a staff member and for a portrait painter a bit short. And how is Canon and Nikon doing with budget quality widths and portraits?

    • Oleg

      About portretki Arkady has an article https://radojuva.com.ua/2015/02/comments-under-fire/. But about shirikov waiting article. I think there will be more interesting nikon

      • Oleg

        Oleg, the article will be called “Tokina vs Sigma, or is it Tamron?” In budget terms, because neither Nikon nor Canon has anything relatively inexpensive and will not be available soon.

        • Lynx

          "Normal or beautiful, or is it just cheap rubbish?"

          • Oleg

            Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 trash? OK, then call at least one analogue of Nikon, which at a price will not be more expensive in one and a half to two times

            • Alexey

              Tokens are super successful shiriks. both. Nikonovsky in the picture is not better, but the price is twice as high. and development of Nikonovsky - OEM Tokin :)

            • Michael

              I didn’t really like 12-24 of the first version. BUT Nikon has neither analogues nor Canon, neither cheaper nor better. If 12-24, then I'm for Sigma))) all on Foveon)))

              • Alexey

                I had Tokin second version. For the sake of interest, I tested it on a Nikon crop along with a Nikon 16-35 / 4, so the Nikon was simply worse in all respects except for XA, up to hole 8. The 8 Nikon was already better :)
                the first version of 12-24 tokins was at Julia’s Nikonklab, as Julia was a fan of Nikon and she was very pleased with the Tokina and even used it on FF carcasses.
                and on foveons it can be everything, Kenon makes new matrices using this technology and recently tried to buy Sigma to get patents))))

              • Michael

                It was a joke, if that. About sigma 10-20 seemed more interesting

            • Lynx

              like you are tight with logic, or at least with a banal comparison of two sentences. (((

              • Oleg

                When there is nothing to say in the case, it is best to go personal

        • Lynx

          yes what are you so inconspicuous.
          I still haven’t turned to personalities.
          So, for those who cannot correlate two sentences:
          “Tokina vs Sigma, or is it Tamron?” ==== “normal or beautiful, or is it just cheap rubbish?”
          ergo: tokina - normal, sigma - beautiful, tamron - garbage.
          oh, yes, now about personalities - even my 4th grade pupils could think faster in such examples.

      • Andrei

        Very interesting in terms of width would be to read and hear opinions. I have on my hands a sigma of 28 1.8, I am very disappointed in it. The ambush is that the native 28 1.8 is no better, and the new 28 2.8 is dark, expensive, and I don’t need a stub from the word at all.

        • Alexey

          the width of the zooms is very simple.
          Crop Tokin drives. 11-16, 12-24, 12-28.
          FF - Nikon has a successful 18-35, canon has 17-40 and 16-35 / 4.
          The super expensive Nikon 14-24 and Kenon 11-24 are of little interest to the general public; they are easier to rent when necessary.

    • Lynx

      Yes. It's just that half of it "happened historically."
      Nikon has a wonderful and frequently encountered sprinkled 35 / 1,8 with its cheapness, it gives out very good quality, and a very suitable staff.
      Canon, alas, doesn’t.
      For portraits in the budget segment - parity, both cost 1,8 and shoot about the same, although the Canon one is traditionally ugly.

      • Oleg

        but there is a smaller forty aperture, but overall not bad

        • Lynx

          magpie is delicious, especially with 100d. especially in the white version. )) But it's not fifty dollars

        • Lynx

          just awesome in a similar set:

      • Alexey

        kenon has a great Canon EF 35mm f / 2 IS USM
        at least for the full frame, at least put on the crop. with a beautiful picture and a stub.
        price 550doll

        • Michael

          And Nikon has 35 f / 1.8 for $ 150 with excellent image quality. And since a normal fix of 35 mm is more needed on the crop, what will an amateur choose? For the remaining $ 300, I'd rather buy 1 more glass.

          • Alexey

            Kenon / Nikon line of optics do not match.
            it is obvious that if you need a crop lens and exactly 35mm for 150 dollars, then Nikon is better.
            if you need a good 35mm with good bokeh, stub and the ability to work on FF, then Kenon is better.
            if you need 50mm extremely cheap and with an excellent picture - kenon is better.
            etc.

      • AgentSmith13

        Yes, then yes, I don’t have it myself, but I didn’t have it, but I took it a lot of times, good glass, I really have Nikkor 35mm f / 2 AI-s, I am happy as an elephant. And so, quite a staff member was when a bag with Japanese lenses whistled on a fishing trip (oh, I would have caught and beat the foe), 2 months, a simple Helios 81 (+ Jupiter and Arsat 80-200).

    • anonym

      It's a matter of habit! For example, you can shoot 90% of the scenes with fifty dollars. Even on the crop. After buying 85, I try to shoot only for her! For the picture from her is more pleasant than fifty dollars ...

      • Lynx

        Go ahead, shoot half a half of children at home or full-length portraits in a small studio.

        • Dim

          It’s the very thing for children to shoot 50 at home. I shot my 50 at the hospital holding and holding my hands manually.

          • Lynx

            with both hands held the weight of the child, and with the other two hands held the camera and focused?
            ……
            children, if anything, are not only infants. But this is so, suddenly you are not in the know.

            • Dim

              What a sparkling humor that is not a comment that pearl. In each barrel ... Let’s tell me what and how I did then - Actually, otherwise I’ll die in the dark. In general, many things can be done with one hand, but some are ashamed, though, it seems, not for you judging by the abundance of posts.
              And you, dear, in turn, do not you know that photographs are taken not necessarily from any one distance? I hope your faith allows you to walk? In this case, it is possible to move away while leaving the maternity hospital, and often end up in the parents' apartment, which, given sufficient income of the latter, is usually larger than the hall where children go after birth ... Although “theorists-writers” like you have never been there. Next, the child needs to provide walks, and even someone like you can be photographed for 100, all you need to do is retreat ...

              • brighty

                Dim, I did not understand what you were offended by, just your way of holding the child in your hand and focusing on the DSLR manually is, to put it mildly, not entirely clear. There is nothing to spray about raising children, I have four of them and we know how they grow and where they come from. But honestly, I was not too lazy right now to get up from the computer to fasten the Helios 81 50mm, picked up the pulp! SOFT AND EASY CARL! Not 3.5 kg of the child, but a soft toy and a pancake, could not. And all fingers twisted into the letter SJ, and stupidly MDF was not enough. So do not here, about sparkling humor, think for yourself what to write.

              • Lynx

                oh how many words, and how much confusion with spelling mistakes.
                I am still waiting - when will the state exams for the institution of the child be introduced. Maybe then the intellectual level of the population will rise?
                In fact, you wrote that you “held it in your hands,” so there can be no question of going to another room. ))
                or do you have hands of 5 meters and 3 pieces, which allows you to keep the child on weight and at a distance in another room, and the camera, and still twist the lens?

              • Valery A.

                Well, you would be easier with Lynx, still a lady. (And according to my feelings - a young lady with rings and with D40 from Arkady's photo)

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Who is Lynx indicated here https://radojuva.com.ua/about-radojuva/

            • Valery A.

              I realized that I was holding the FA in my hands and focusing on the screen manually. Even Chekhov himself wrote: “Approaching the station, my hat fell off”.

    • Alexey

      portrait photographers are 100mm or more?
      everything is simple here. Nikon has nothing resembling kenon 100/2 and kenon 135/2.
      Nikon has an old exotic Nikon AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f / 2D at a price of $ 300 more expensive than the 135/2 Elka with monstrous HA in all colors.
      if you are talking about 85-ke, then the canon / nikon are approximately the same 85 / 1.8, only kenon has version 1.2 (Canon EF 85mm f / 1.2L II USM).

      in width - the kenon has a cheap ($ 700) Canon EF 17-40mm f / 4L USM
      I don’t remember with Nikon. at a reasonable price (about 1100 dollars) there are two twins 16-35 / 4, only nikon is an order of magnitude worse in optical parameters (XA, sharpness at the edges) than kenon. and performance, too.

  • Dmitriy

    About the image quality Boot 50 1,8 || I don't really agree with Lynx, but about the quality of workmanship - yes. It looks more like Chinese Lego.

    • Lynx

      Nikon has "soft-bounce" G and "bounce" D, while Canon has only bounce.

      • Oleg

        and what affects the softness of bokeh ???

        • Lynx

          The optical design is basically, I think.

          • Oleg

            I think they are the same, only the name is different.

            • Lynx

              would you even read the article first

              • Oleg

                I agree that the optical schemes are different for kenon 6 elements in 5 groups for nikon 7 in 6. The number of aperture blades probably plays more on a bowl. The watering can has beautiful bokeh, but the price is beautiful

            • Lynx

              bokeh most often looks at a completely open aperture, so the number of petals here does not affect it at all, and if it is closed, it differs in the shape of the spots (polygons are visible on the less petal ones), but this is not about that

  • grandfather Fedor

    What about the Canon lenses references? Arkady, I understand that “Nikon rules”, but there is no need to “offend” anyone.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Fixed

    • Vorkach

      Arkady makes reviews on those lenses that friends / acquaintances / sponsors / site visitors provide him with, if you want to see more canon reviews, send him a message and he’ll definitely write a review on them.

      • Lynx

        incorrect unswer. Arcadia has reviews on half a canon, it was just missed when writing and is now fixed.

  • Victor

    Arkady, you write that Nikon's fifty dollars are not included in the NPS list, however, on Nikon's Russian website I found a mention that “AF-S Nikkor 50mm f / 1.4 (D and G versions)” seems to be included there. Link http://www.nikon.ru/ru_RU/pro/nps-main.tag

    • goddess

      That same thing surprised me. Both Nikon fixes on 1.4 are part of a series of professional ones.

      • Arkady Shapoval

        Almost recently, I looked in the same place, and they were not there, there was only a manual fifty dollars from 1.2. I do not know what is special. Moreover, the G-version without a gold ring. Looking at how clumsy and incorrectly spelled the names of the lenses (for example AF-S DX Fish-Eye Nikkor 10.5mm f / 2.8G IF - AF-S!), I can assume that they themselves do not know what is included, what is not.

  • Dim

    I'm more interested in how many aperture blades someone has and how wide the color stripes will be around thin objects, whether I see double or triple objects in bokeh, how quickly the image goes into the background. But all these 1.8 are slag, 1.0 are cool ... nonsense in fast oil

    • Lynx

      It happens

    • Alexey

      the best bokeh of all AF 50 kopecks - kenon 1.2 XNUMX
      out of competition.

      • AgentSmith13

        But in reality (not to show off this very 1,2) who photographs them, like Nikkor the same, for "production" on the open?

  • anonym

    From my experience, 50 1,8 d and 50 1,4 d (4 pieces in total) and 17-50 2,8, the difference is not fundamental, for home and even commerce you can shoot at 2,8. I can’t even imagine why 1.0,1.2,1.4. XNUMX?

    • Alexey

      go to the photo camera theme - kenon 50mm 1.2
      there are many photos with exifs. )))
      among other things, the brighter the lens, the better the AF works.

      • anonym

        I went, in the section "discussion of photographic equipment" I found examples on 1.2 there it is called a light artistic picture. I honestly tried to be optimistic, but damn it turned out that the camera on my old phone is an extremely artistic glass, I certainly exaggerate, but very similar. Therefore I don’t use aperture of 1,5 on helius. And here's another bokeh for almost all laid out has a flattening or cropping of one edge.

  • alexander

    and the “number of aperture blades” is better for Fujifilm, and the picture is better for “gimbals”. You can talk about other topics ...

    • Dim

      The trick is that Arkady compares Nikon and Canon. Sometimes I take pictures on Nyokon through the Pentacon with 15 aperture blades, but the trouble is that he is not Nikon, not autofocus and fifty-fifty :)))))

  • anonym

    Bokeh battle: Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS vs Canon 50mm EF 1.2L & 1.0L

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skq6WQjncnQ

    • Alexey

      "Bokeh Battle: Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS vs Canon 50mm EF 1.2L & 1.0L"
      ===========================
      You need to compare non-AF lenses with non-AF lenses.
      the problem of high-aperture 50mm AF - the motor cannot turn the heavy lens unit, it is necessary to completely redo the entire optical scheme.
      if you want a manual - compare Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS with Zeiss.

  • Alexander

    Oh, Arkady, that's enough already. Who are your articles targeted at? A professional will remove what he needs for any more or less worthy optics, and 90% of amateurs will ignore this information. You are comparing the technical side of the issue, but you do not draw conclusions about the optical qualities (pictures) produced by the lenses, but it would be nice with examples. Of course, I understand that you can read reviews, but if you push them head on, then to the end.

    None of your three parts have awakened in me + or - to Nikon or Canon. By and large, everything is spacious and abstract. Both systems have their pros and cons. In any case, I am inclined to think, after reading the sea of ​​reviews on the equipment of both companies, I am inclined to believe that Nikon is more sharpened for creative photography, and Canon for studio / reportage, etc. For me photography is creativity, so for me the issue has been resolved. Yes, and it hurts to change the system of the invoice, of course you have other priorities - you earn money in the photo. =)

    There is a small wish in the future for your lens reviews - for completeness of reviews, indicate (if not difficult) the level of coma in the lenses. Many people shoot at night and this parameter is on a par with the aperture ratio in importance - practice shows just that. Thanks for your hard work.

    • Alexander

      As an example of my words - my last astrophoto. No special equipment, camera only (D7000), lens (35mm 1.8G DX) and tripod. Well, straight arms and a clear sky))) The photo shows the open star cluster Pleiades and the California nebula (which is VERY difficult to capture with the available equipment). So much for color, sharpness and DD. =)

      • anonym

        Can I find out the shooting parameters? ISO, shutter speed and aperture, etc. And I, as the owner of the D7000, did not understand how it turned out - good, not very good or bad. And what kind of lens is needed to make the picture better. For 2000 $ not to name. Thanks for the photo. And then empty philosophizing, unsupported by nothing, are not kumar.

        • Alexander

          It's my pleasure. =) Yes, no problem: manual focus, F 2.8, 6 sec., ISO varied 3200/6400. Naturally, it is not realistic to shoot with such detail at a time, so about 60 image frames were added in Deepskystacker to accumulate a useful signal and about 250 calibration frames were applied (eliminating noise, vignette, matrix parasitic currents, etc.). In theory, I squeezed 90-95% of the D7000's capabilities. Well, to make it better - buy an additional mount with guidance or an astrotracker (the sky still does not stand still, but moves rather quickly), depending on the tasks (an extensive snapshot of star fields or a specific object) when buying a fast shirik or telephoto. Away from the "illumination" of cities and a clear sky. Then a LOT of pictures and extensive work at the computer. =) What lenses specifically, IDEAL - 14-24mm Nikkor, 80-200 2.8 Nikkor, etc. Budget 35mm 1.8G, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 180mm 2.8. Lenses with a low level of coma are desirable, otherwise instead of stars around the edges there will be blots, or aperture selection (for 35mm 1.8G DX - this is at least f2.8). Try it, it's fun and not as easy as it sounds. At the same time, I learned to appreciate Nikon's matrices with their large DD and stringy RAWs. =) And all the holivar on which Nikon or Canon is better will fly out of my head. =) Good luck!

          • anonym

            I am grateful for unexpectedly detailed information!)) I don’t suffer from Holyvar. At the same time, I have nothing against good “chrome boots” and their branded “body kits”. Every tvaryna has a right to exist. A joke, humor.)) I understand that Tokina 12-28 will not work? Yes, you need to do the wiring. I have not specifically dealt with this issue yet, but if my memory is correct, I can manually do the wiring for a certain number of degrees, at regular intervals, something like that. I will try, because due to the nature of my work, I regularly visit the fields, and in the highlands, the sky at night and without the moon is something. And to you - successful photo sessions!))

            • Alexander

              Tokina might be okay, she's good enough. But I didn't shoot, I won't say. And with handles the camera is ungrateful business - there is no accuracy, and hemorrhoids. And you correctly wrote about the Moon, I forgot to write about this aspect, you need to follow its phases. Thank you, I will continue to continue this hard work))))

      • Lynx

        and what of this star, and what noise?

        • Alexander

          Uv. Lynx, there is NO noise in this photo AT ALL. And it CAN'T BE. Calibration shots were taken, they remove any noise by 99.9%. All you see is a natural background + sky light. Moreover, the exposure is strong.

          • Lynx

            it was irony.

            • Alexander

              It can be seen that I am now a bit tight with perception =) I did not understand the irony ...

              • Lynx

                and .. hammer. )))

      • anonym

        Here are my Pleiades ... at 50 / 1.8G

        • Alexander

          Not bad, only the nebula was weakly manifested)))

          • anonym

            "Star cluster with nebula" is a classification! and the fact that foggy is not visible is the D90 limitations

    • Lynx

      Actually quite the opposite

      • Alexander

        What is the opposite?

        • Andrei

          nikon - reportage

    • Michael

      Yes, the third part definitely didn't work out ... I completely agree about Canon's advantage in the first part. Its portrait optics are cheaper and have f / 1.2. The second part is about performance. Well, Canon is more technologically advanced in terms of performance characteristics. In practice, I don't know how much it is in demand and noticeable ... An ambiguous conclusion. I simply disagree about the third part. In terms of wide-angle-normal lenses, Nikon is cheaper and better in quality. For Nikon's fifty dollars I won't say, I didn't use it. And Canon has 1 cheap plastic, the other (1.4) is better but expensive and also not without sin and 1.2 (did not use - the price tag is not humane). So either buy junk or EF f / 1.2. Nikon's prices look more adequate. And on the boot the best optics for price and quality were produced until the 93rd (approximately) year. These lenses are really delicious.

      • Alexey

        Outdated data. today there is already on sale an excellent kenon 50mm 1.8STM for 110doll.
        in 2016 comes out 50mm 1.4 kenon.
        From shirikov to the crop, the best is Tokin, Nikon and Kenon rest.
        from FF - kenon 16-35 / 4 is much better than nikon 16-35 / 4, and kenon also has a budget 17-40.
        From standard zooms, Kenon 24-70 / 2.8 Mk 2 is by far the best.

        • Michael

          It is not known how much better the EF 50 STM has become, I doubt very much. I omit the possibilities for video because this is not a photo. Of all 50 Canon, only film deserves attention - it is really good. Budget 17-40 junk, and 16-35 expensive. There is nothing in between. Nikon has 10-24, 18-35, 16-35, 17-35. I will choose from something. I won't even argue about 24-70 mk2 and E, because you can only look at them, they were completely stunned with prices ...

          • Alexey

            "It is not known how much better the EF 50 STM has gotten better, I strongly doubt it."
            ==============
            do not hesitate, try it. or look at examples in the photo, there is such a topic with examples. )))
            in addition, for $ 110, the choice is either a modern canon 1.8 with a STM engine, a new enlightenment or an ancient, very ancient muddy Nikon 50mm 1.8D.

            “Budget 17-40 junk, and 16-35 expensive. "
            ============================================
            Canon EF 17-40mm f / 4L USM (price $ 700) lathers around the edges, otherwise a normal lens.
            16-35 / 4 - the price is even cheaper than nikon 16-35 / 4
            look:
            Canon EF 16-35mm f / 4L IS USM --- $ 1049
            Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f / 4G ED VR —- $ 1097
            at the same time, kenon is better than Nikon in terms of picture and workmanship.
            and there’s a good one
            Canon EF 16-35mm f / 2.8L II USM - $ 1500
            Mk3 is coming out in 2016.

            “Nikon has 10-24, 18-35, 16-35, 17-35. "
            =========================================
            Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED - crop lens, creepy $ 900 price
            according to the picture at the level of Tokina, in aperture ratio worse than Tokina. sense in it ???
            Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f / 3.5-4.5G ED —- $ 749
            excellent lens but darkish, and 18mm is often not enough. I liked it, nice drawing.
            Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f / 4G ED VR —- $ 1097
            read the review on lenstip. One of Nikon’s most unsuccessful lenses. soap and huge HA. or look at digital piccher.
            Nikon AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f / 2.8D IF-ED - $ 1950
            ??? very expensive, soap on a number of focal, problems with the motor.

            total for crop better no tokens. on FF at kenon and the choice is greater and the quality is better and even the prices are better.

            • Dim

              Drink less vodka and fan your fingers and the 1.8D will no longer be cloudy. Are you by any chance a relative of Vyacheslav from the Trunk?

        • Michael

          Regarding Tokina, yes, on the crop, these comrades are resting.

      • varezhkin

        + And in general, the feeling as if Arkady began to draw conclusions beyond ears.

  • IZELBOR

    In theory, the consumer should not care what is inside the lens, what year of development the optical design is, whether or not there are aspherical and low-dispersed elements. And which motor also does not matter. The point is that all this together gives an output.
    If you compare the example of 50 / 1,8G and 50 / 1,4G with their competitors from Canon for the same price, who wins in terms of sharpness, bokeh, focus speed, ease of use, is there any manual focus control for Canon in any mode? - otherwise, there was a recent article on the focusing features of Nikon lenses, like Canon does? After all, is it still determined by the diaphragm?
    If everything is clear with a focusing speed of 50 / 1,4G, then with the other parameters it’s not very clear.

    • Lynx

      Knowledge of the materiel is what distinguishes a professional from an amateur just pressing a button

      • anonym

        A professional from an amateur is distinguished by their photo works.

        • Lynx

          come on?
          but I thought that the presence of a fee for work.

          • anonym

            Come on! I thought that the presence and, as a result, the size of the fee determines the quality of work.

            • Lynx

              No

              • anonym

                Defines. Do not dissemble.

            • Dim

              A professional is one who sells frames that an amateur would have deleted without hesitation

              • BB

                People are generally strange. Sometimes they themselves choose and buy what I would delete without hesitation, but they don't like really good shots. From time to time I work in ballroom dancing competitions, I immediately delete only a specific marriage - AF miss, for example, the rest (back / sideways / faces_invisible / position_unsuccessful, etc.) - I leave until the end of the day, for the above reason.

              • anonym

                That is, the one who leaves all shit on the flash drive? Being sure that they will buy it all, is there a professional?

    • Alexey

      “If we compare, for example, 50 / 1,8G and 50 / 1,4G with their competitors from Canon for the same price, who wins in sharpness, bokeh, focus speed, usability”
      =========================================
      I compared. IMHO, nikon is better and significantly better.
      I think that Kenon is aware of this, therefore the super ancient Kenon 50 1.4 has already been discontinued, a new one is coming out in 2016.
      regarding 1.8G - it is still better than the new canon 1.8 STM, but also twice as expensive.
      Nikon has no equivalent in price to the quality of the new Kenon 1.8STM.

  • Spider beetles

    Yeah, no matter how you twist, but people are always more interested in the result obtained with the help of one or another system. And if you push them with your foreheads, then do it with comparative tests, in terms of the quality of jpeg received in the first place. I think very many will agree to sacrifice speed, a pleasant design or money, receiving in return the picture from the system that they would like. Or to know if the quality of older models of overpayment is 3-10 times worth it.

    • Lynx

      The quality of the jeep is obtained as non-objective lenses a bit.
      A picture can be seen in the reviews and examples.
      The article is exclusively historical and informative.

      • Spider beetles

        In my opinion, unconditionally unpretentious, like many others, lenses, one or another, are primarily interesting for qualities that can be felt in practical application, including, and, perhaps, first and foremost, the resulting picture. The story is certainly wonderful, but when buying a lens a person is hardly interested in its history. A story is great when it comes with practice tests. Personally, during the shooting, it’s absolutely violet to me which lens was assembled in which year and according to which optical design. Fair. Yes, this data is not superfluous, but it is hardly useful to me during the shooting.
        And yes, the picture from different lenses is different. It is obvious. So one person will like one of them more than the other. Quality meant that. Yes, the taste in the picture is certainly subjective, but comparing systems with only the historical side, or with the technical data written in black and white, is generally meaningless, without comparing what the lenses are actually designed for.

        • Lynx

          Well so and go, read directly those articles where the drawing of lenses is described.
          Why come to a technical-historical article and be indignant that it is not about what you wanted?

  • Ilyas

    De facto Canon is better on the head
    WHY THE MAJORITY REMOVES THEN ON NIKON?!?! ??! :)

    • Alexander

      Probably because Canon is better for professional work with people. And Nikon is better for everything else))))

    • Serg

      I live in Siberia, most of the surrounding photographers shoot just on Canon.

      • anonym

        Kenon's service, stereotypes are more accessible too.) Until recently, Nikon’s service was completely absent in our Palestinians, as such. But I know a professional who, after many years of working with Kenon, took, and switched to Nikon.

        • Lynx

          Canon's service is more accessible. In many cities, there are authorized canon services, but with nikon it was tense, nikon is generally very greedy before distributing permits for it.

        • Alexey

          Kenon service at the level of other brands. by a large margin, only the Nikon service sadly leads)))
          Nikon's service - for example, according to Lenrental - is the worst among all photo brands.
          from my experience - I contacted Nikon's service in Europe and America. they began to move only after repeated visits, and even argued that AF in live view should not coincide with the phase one :))) after calling the manager, it turned out that it should, and in a week they set up the carcass :)
          the unforgettable Julia from the nikon club carried a blizzard about the curvature of the lens field on her D800e until finally the nikon service in the Netherlands did not bother to find that the factory mount was crookedly mounted in its Yesh))), though before that they had long and tediously adjusted AF carcass and lenses)))
          about failures to fix the D600 problem for free is well known. Nikon acknowledged the problem and the service began to solve it for free only after two class action lawsuits in America and television broadcasts in China on central TV.
          now the newest 24-70 2.8 has ... nuances on the front lens, but Nikon will not eliminate these nuances, because it does not affect the picture and nothing that the lens costs $ 2400)))
          Now Nikon's repair time, for example, in Europe, has already reached 3 months, there are no spare parts)))
          etc.

        • wharfage

          I also know one meticulous semi-professional amateur who chose 2 mark for a long time from 3 mark with a bunch of elek, and then took it, and switched to D810 ...
          And now the canon system will either be given to the child or sold out a little.

          • anonym

            I mentioned a professional who, since Soviet times, sells his photo work not to mothers in kindergarten, but to reputable print media.

          • Alexey

            lovers have their own troubles.
            D810- a very good device, in a number of positions it is better than Mark 3.
            in fact, this is work on bugs - the D800 (e) had a bunch of problems.
            if a person is a landscape artist, or works with a macro / subject - D810 is definitely better than Mark 3.
            many elks of a very old design, they are 20 years old, have already begun to change them plannedly.

      • Dmitriy

        Sergey, do not generalize. My father and I have zenith and Nikon, from a friend of Cannon. I think it is equally divided. With lenses on a used market, the boot is better, but Nikon's carcasses are traditionally cheaper. If you look at a flea market, say, Irkutsk (http://www.angara.net/forum/g1005?p=0) you may get the impression that Nikonov is 20-30% more. But this is a mistake. About equally.

    • anonym

      I agree with Alexander. And buyers choosing Nikon argue their choice with the fact that adapters are not needed for some Soviet optics.

    • Alexey

      statistically, both in terms of sales and published works of the pros, most of them shoot just at the canon. on innovations, lenses and market share - ahead of kenon.
      Kenon is better for creative people, if only because of the presence of fast AF lenses.
      for the pros - because of the color profiles (the commercial standard is still the color of the canon).

  • Develer12

    Canon EF Lens 50mm 1: 1.0 L Ultrasonic is not obsolete, but banned, as the lens lenses contained thorium - a radioactive material

    • Dim

      Probably all of them bought themselves, you know who for the production themselves, you know what. Even thorium interferes with a bad dancer

      • anonym

        Dim, very intriguingly written. If not a secret, then who and for what?

        • Dim

          Terrorists, of course, and the goals they all know

  • Alexey

    from personal experience, IMHO:
    old kenon 1.8 and 1.4 have a not very reliable design, frequent mechanical breakdowns for them are more likely than the exception. Optically, the lenses are average and do not shine.
    Super Dear 1.2 has a double sided tape design. with strong heating, there were cases when the top of the lens simply fell off in a case. among other things, the lens has a strong focus shift (this affects many Nikon lenses, too).
    Today, Kenon on some sites has already noted version 1.4 as discontinued, in 2016 a new version is expected.
    1.8 - a version of STM has already been released at a ridiculous price of $ 110 with a new STM motor and a new coating, Nikon has no analogues.
    1.2 version - focus shift - a design feature designed for outdoor shooting. there is no replacement yet. Sigma made version 1.4 Art, sharpness and HA are many times better, but Sigma has significantly worse bokeh and AF problems.

  • Peter Sh.

    I wonder how well the Canon 50mm f / 1.4, f / 1.2 and f / 1.0 get into focus. In comparison with cheap versions, as well as in comparison with Nikon?
    And what is the comparative focusing speed?

    As for the Nikon 50mm f / 1.4G, it seems they tried to make it as accurate as possible, with the smallest possible misses in focus. Because It was unprofitable and lazy to improve electronics and mechanics, it turned out what happened. However, it is much more accurate than the D-version, I have both of them now, so heaven and earth are so simple.

    • anonym

      I have exactly the opposite, w-hits only on the open and the more I close the aperture, the stronger the focus shifts. E-much better.

      • Alexey

        this is called focus shift, alignment is not eliminated, design / optical circuit problem.
        Nikon 50mm 1.4G has a pronounced focus shift.

    • Alexey

      Nikons G version - improved contrast and resolution, worsened halftone accuracy.
      The D version cannot be adjusted, the halftones are good but the lenses are soapy, low contrast, poor AF (depending on the carcass). Nikon 50 1.4 G - AF mediocre.
      all 50mm Nikons have problems with back-front focus. in a very famous store in new york, I checked a couple dozen with their manager :))) the deviations are clearly not +/- 1, much more.
      kenons are no better. but all canons are easily adjusted in the service and this takes many times less time than in the Nikon service.
      clarification - the focus is not removed by adjustment.
      Nikon 50 1.4G and Kenon 50 1.2 suffer from a strong focus shift.

      total, among manual fifty dollars the best is probably the Zeiss.
      from AF 1.8 - kenon 50 1.8 STM for kenon and 50 1.8G for nikon.
      and Nikon and Kenon have mediocre versions of AF 1.4, like Kenon will release a new one in 2016, let's see. so maybe the optimal choice is Sigma 50mm 1.4Art if you close your eyes to problems with AF.
      from 1.2 and 1.0 - there is nothing to choose from, AF makes only a canon.

  • varezhkin

    I suggest adding to the topic title: “…. and Alexey "

    • anonym

      I would immediately add to the name of the site!

      • varezhkin

        burn ...: D

    • anonym

      I would clarify-Confrontation Nikon & Alexey.

      • wharfage

        Confrontation Nikon & Trolexey))

    • Peter Sh.

      The joke was remembered.
      - Moishe, do we have a goose?
      - Fat and greaves.
      - And yet, sho?
      - Fat and cracklings ...
      - Moishe, tell me, where are you sleeping?
      - On the bed.
      - Where else?
      - On the mattress.
      - And in the mattress, sho?
      - Louses.
      - And what else?
      - Money.
      - And what about?
      - Down and feathers.
      - Here! So what do we have off a goose?
      - Fat and cracklings ...

  • Pastor

    I’ll tell you my story of meeting with fifty dollars Nikon and Canon. I managed to try sort of like more or less relevant models of both manufacturers, and here is my opinion on them:
    1) Canon 50 1.8 2. Quite decent image quality is adjacent to the lousy assembly and oblique autofocus. But, it should be noted, the speed on normal carcasses is very sufficient, and it smears only under poor light conditions. The cheapest half and it is clearly worth the money. I tried three things - they are all about the same. I only held the STM version in my hands once and clicked at it - the image quality has not changed, but the jambs with assembly and autofocus have been corrected, and the bokeh has become more round. Now I use 50 1.8 without stm, I'm thinking of changing to stm.
    2) Canon 50 1.4. Honestly, I did not understand what they were taking the money for. For the build quality, apparently, the lens was assembled well, although there is no dust and moisture protection. But the sharpness of the two tested instances of 1.4 was a bit. On similar diaphragms, 50 1.4 is almost the same as 50 1.8, which is frustrating. Sold 50 1.4 without regret.
    3) canon 50 1.2l. Looks cool and well built, but there is simply no sharpness at 1.2. I understand that the glass is artistic, but no one bothers to reduce the sharpness during processing, why do this in the glass itself. Yes, the blur is nice, creamy bokeh and all that, but it's noticeable only for stubborn bokes who can see the difference. Ordinary photographers, let alone just spectators, are unlikely to be able to see the difference in bokeh between 50 1.2 and 50 1.8, shot under the same conditions at aperture of 1.8. And 1.2 is not very working, as for me. Another thing is that playing with depth of field is reaching a new level. But I decided for myself that it was not worth the overpayment. I tried 1 copy, but according to reviews, everyone has it. Still, one of the cheapest elfixes does not shine.
    4) Nikon 50 1.8d. Cheap and cheerful. In general, with proper processing, you can get a high-quality image out of it, but up to 2.8 the lens is noticeably soapy, there is HA, autofocus does not behave adequately everywhere, its speed is normal, but not high. I used it for a long time, tried 2-3 copies, now I got rid of it. As the first fix is ​​not bad, but not perfect.
    5) Nikon 50 1.4d. The cheapest fix since 1.4. Fast autofocus is very pleasing. Small sizes too. Assembled not super cool, but it will. HA there are many. But the sharpness is generally not indicative. Approximately at the level of Canon 50 1.4, maybe a little higher. But 1.8 is already very noticeably corrected, getting rid of soap and HA. I love this glass, including behind the boke, I kept it for myself. I don’t know why, but to me this Nikon seems very similar in drawing to the Canon 50 1.2l.
    6) Nikon 50 1.4g. Soooo slow autofocus, albeit pretty accurate. Sharpness is high, HA is normal, but autofocus kills. Subjectively, the canon 50 1.2 is even slower, although it did not compare head-on-head. I sold it due to slowness, but in general this 50 1.4 is noticeably better than the Canon 50 1.4 on all fronts (except for autofocus, it is fast with the Canon), including the presence of dust and moisture protection (checked personally and by colleagues).
    7) Nikon 50 1.8g. My favorite fifty dollars. Pretty fast focusing, excellent sharpness with open, almost complete absence of HA, small dimensions and weight. If I take fifty kopecks, then in 90% of cases I take Nikon 50 1.8g. I consider him the best fifty dollars of all systems (probably because I have not yet met the sigma 50 1.4 art). In practice, its protection is confirmed, light rain with snow withstood without problems. But I guess 50 1.4g is better protected.
    I also tried Sigma 50 1.4 from autofocus not art - autofocus is pretty naughty there, and I did not feel particularly high image quality. Nikonovsky 50 1.4g, though slower, is sharper and with more pleasant bokeh.
    The conclusion has already been announced - 50 1.8g from Nikon is the best fifty dollars for me :)

    • Lynx

      Lynx defeated mnogobukoff !!

      • anonym

        A pastor needs to throw a photograph and submit to writers.

    • varezhkin

      Plus

      • Valery A.

        Well done, digging deep.))

        • Dim

          In many reviews, approximately this is the alignment and give. I also heard that the sigma geometry is less distorted, but not all carcasses work normally with them; my 30 / 1,4 only works adequately with the D300

    • varezhkin

      Commentary on practical benefits surpasses the article itself.

  • wharfage

    Arkady, I did not immediately understand:

    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical (MKIV) April 2011
    I look at the prices: 4-6 kilogrivnas

    Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical Special Edition (MKV) August 2013
    the lens has been available since the fall of 2013, nothing but the appearance does not differ from the previous model
    looking at prices: 11-17 kilogrivnas ...
    spread my hands ... why?
    In your other article I compare it with the price of Nikon Df - now everything is clear with the patient ...
    Perhaps you need to add here that he is in retrodesign, otherwise your photo on his link to m.ua is not worth it.

    And the second question:
    I look at the optical scheme - the lenses are recessed and grouped into 2/3 of the body width, from the bayonet side.
    The outer third is empty ... is it just for focusing convenience?
    What prevented you from making it a pancake, so that it was 72 × 38 instead of 72 × 54?
    Or is there a motor hiding there?

    • Pastor

      Regarding the first question, I can assure you that special edition is only the color of the case. In all other respects, the lenses are identical, checked personally. Well, they ask for more on Avito for the version from df, however, so far no one in our region has dared to overpay several thousand for a show-off in six months - the lens is exposed all this time and the seller does not reduce the price. On the other hand, Canon sells its white 100d more expensive than black. And Nikons in red and brown cases on the second-hand market are on average a couple of thousand more expensive. Design does mean a lot to a number of users.

    • wharfage

      A thought appeared on my second question - that this is a kind of non-removable hood so that half a hare would not catch ...

  • wharfage

    Arkady, another question that I wanted to ask in the first part of the series.
    More precisely, even a request:
    Could you reveal a little topic with non-native lenses.
    Because Sigmotokinotamrons are often more interesting, at least for the price. But they also have their own rake, often not obvious.
    Though mention the most interesting alternatives so that you can see where you can look further?

    PS: as always, it’s terribly interesting to read, even about something that I don’t think I will ever use.
    I am cultivating))

  • Peter Sh.

    It seems to me that it makes no sense to take 50mm sigmotamrons (thanks, skela)) it makes no sense. They are both more expensive and smear a lot. I’m trying to imagine the advantage of all art fifty dollars, and I can’t, honestly.

    Because If I’m shooting in a ghastly hated Nikon, I personally chose 50mm f / 1.4G for myself. But I need it for certain specific shooting conditions, no more. If not for this, then I would definitely choose a 50mm f / 1.8G.

    • Alexey

      Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 is optically gorgeous. the issue with AF is solved using live view. its small minus - bokeshka worse than Kenon 50mm 1.2.
      Nikon 50mm f / 1.4G - strong focus shift, slow and not the most accurate AF due to a poor motor. IMHO, from Nikons much better choice is 1.8G. cheaper, sharper, better AF and no problem with focus shift.

  • varezhkin

    “It turns out that Nikon doesn’t have professional AF 58's, while Canon has two.” - a 1.4 XNUMX G?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Then let's write down here and write 60K macros, add 2 mm then :)

      • anonym

        after all, “fifty” and “lens with a focal length of 50 mm” are not the same thing, to be legally accurate! and 58 mm fits well into the family of fifty dollars. as well as otus 55 / 1.4. Well, a makrik is a makrik ... a specific lens. people, speaking for example, "portraitist" can mean 85-ku, 135-ku, and even the same "fifty ku" (especially "gifted" even 70-200 / 2.8 consider "portraitist"!)

  • Lera

    I use Nikon 50mm f / 1.8G, I’m happy as an elephant considering that it was bought for 1700 UAH. Many people write beautifully and work is poor. Yes, we all have our hands sharpened differently, so it would be interesting to look at the work of half-writers of many writers. would learn from each other’s creativity, otherwise we’re driving only impressions and names.https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/lerochkin-valera/album/282339/?

    • anonym

      There was no need to give a link to such photos ... .. ”Look in the family album”.)

      • Lera

        Which ones?

        • Alexey

          https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/lerochkin-valera/album/312914/view/1161973
          I liked it.
          but didn’t you try to retouch it? to work with the background, the pose (the model of the leg is placed along with the folds, the leg is crookedly exposed to emphasize its curvature?), to make the models a good make-up, to put light on? at least remove acne from the cheek of the model and the traces of its red powder, a swollen vein in the wrist? it’s nice for a guy to wash his white shoes)

          • Alexey

            yes, you have a strong oversharp there, artifacts have already been popped up on the contours. IMHO, twisting the sharp slider is not the most important thing, especially in a portrait ...

          • anonym

            What did you like then?

      • Alexey

        Yes, there are normal photos for a person who just bought a camera. everyone starts with these photos. then master the editor, BB, work with color, light, etc.

        • Lera

          Yes, this was the beginning of studio photos. I wanted to show my fifty dollars work, which I like without pretending to be a masterpiece. The studio was shot not for fifty dollars, so you can ignore it, but I don’t quite agree about the re-sharpening. but it’s if you look at a 100% increase, but it’s not a very thankful task. So whose work can you see?

          • Alexey

            Nikon 50mm 1.8G is probably the best with what it has.
            and maybe it’s better than canon 50mm 1.4

            Re-sharping is clearly visible in your link on Yandex. there are no originals 100%, only downsize.

            If you need examples of the work of different fifty dollars, look at the photo, in specialized topics.

            • Lera

              Alexey, well, and your photos of work on the example of which you can learn?

              • Alexey

                study at the works of giants. I personally like the work of Panteleev (exchanged Nikon for Kenon), Martynov (Fuuji-Olympus-Sony), Stelmakh (Kenon-Nikon-Kenon). All three shoot excellent portraits, see their blogs on the net.
                on the other hand, you don’t have to be grand to clear up pimples in a photo, wash your shoes and work on your pose. these are the initial skills in the photo :)

              • Alexey

                you seriously do not see resharp in the form of double contours ????
                Or do you think that the folds of sticking shorts between the legs, the curvature of the legs of the model and acne decorate the picture? If you want to learn portraiture, there are many great books and courses on portraiture.

              • Alexey

                here is an example of a 50mm studio photo. no acne or powder or protruding folds between the legs or bloated veins in the model. you can learn :)
                Author- Martynov

              • anonym

                Well done, Lera. I am also sick of the pleasure of any "smart" specialists. You were not afraid to present your work as an example of the capabilities of a particular lens, which is what the whole “artistic” whistle is about. Do you like taking pictures? Your customers, friends, etc. like? Well, with God. The rest will come with experience. And I prefer nature and boogers. :) Good luck.

  • Alexey

    Nikon 58 1.4G - not quite fifty dollars and not a very successful lens at a cosmic price of $ 1600.
    ”The much cheaper Nikkor AF-S 50mm f / 1.4 G isn't really significantly worse and if our Canon review of the Sigma 50mm f / 1.4 HSM DG Art can be a guidance, the Sigma will be able to beat the Nikkor at almost half the price (which is still high enough for a nifty-fifty). "
    very strong HA up to 2.8
    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_58mm_f1-4G/sharpness.shtml
    etc. etc. In general, a strange lens. it is not clear to anyone.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2015/12/nikon-or-canon-best-3/comment-page-1/?replytocom=162694

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2015/12/nikon-or-canon-best-3/comment-page-1/?replytocom=162694