[mst]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1306671859' post='8898']

I think 50mm on Nikon APS-C is neither this nor that...

[/quote]



I used to think like that, too. An equivalent of 75mm seemed neither fish nor fowl to me. However, the two focal lengths I use most often now on the M9 are 35mm and 75mm. So, it seems personal preferences and habits can change (or evolve) over time.



-- Markus

[Ter Roshak]

Conclusion of the review ?



1.4G vs 1.8G = Bokeh?



When you would never use f/1.4 wide open, rather get the one third cheaper 1.8G?

[Steinar1]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1306699335' post='8907']

I used to think like that, too. An equivalent of 75mm seemed neither fish nor fowl to me. However, the two focal lengths I use most often now on the M9 are 35mm and 75mm. So, it seems personal preferences and habits can change (or evolve) over time.



-- Markus

[/quote]





Is it possible that the sense of an M9 disappears if you carry it with a much longer lense? It seems to me that if the Fuji X100 is in such demand, it is because we are looking for an inconspicuous little camera that is not seen or heard! To me an M9 with a 135mm lense would be a contradiction.

[mst]

[quote name='Ter Roshak' timestamp='1306700672' post='8910']

When you would never use f/1.4 wide open, rather get the one third cheaper 1.8G?

[/quote]



That's what I would do, yes. The difference in bokeh quality is probably not huge enough to justify the faster lens alone. Well, except maybe if you can't stand polygon background highlights.



If you care about bokeh quality a lot, though, you could also have a look at the Sigma EX 50/1.4.



-- Markus

[mst]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1306700907' post='8911']

Is it possible that the sense of an M9 disappears if you carry it with a much longer lense?[/quote]



Absolutely.



[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1306700907' post='8911']

It seems to me that if the Fuji X100 is in such demand, it is because we are looking for an inconspicuous little camera that is not seen or heard![/quote]



Compared to any DSLR, especially any full frame DSLR, the M9 is still inconspicuous, even with slightly longer lenses (there are some quite compact 90mm primes available).



[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1306700907' post='8911']

To me an M9 with a 135mm lense would be a contradiction.

[/quote]



It is. There's a reason why 135mm is the longest available focal length for the M9 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> The viewfinder frame for 135mm is quite tiny and offers only a rough guidance to guess the final framing. Focussing is quite difficult with such long lenses, too. I have a 135/2.8 that features goggles to magnify the viewfinder image, but that lens is huge (for an M lens) and not really much fun to use in the field.



-- Markus

[oppitronic]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1306701299' post='8912']

*The difference in bokeh quality is probably not huge enough to justify the faster lens alone. Well, except maybe if you can't stand polygon background highlights.

*

[/quote]



So you'd say the 50/1.4 has a better bokeh quality than the 50/1.8?

From your tests I don't really get this - at least not for DX use where the vignetting should not be visible (?)

[frank]

The test results look remarkable but I am not convinced to switch from my 50 1.8D to 50 1.8G.



Some people have complained about the AF speed of the 50 1.4G. How is the AF speed of the 50 1.8G? Is it better then that of the 50 1.4G?



Frank

[mst]

[quote name='deroppi' timestamp='1306739441' post='8928']

So you'd say the 50/1.4 has a better bokeh quality than the 50/1.8?

From your tests I don't really get this - at least not for DX use where the vignetting should not be visible (?)

[/quote]



Sorry, that was slightly misleading. The AF-S 50/1.4G of course offers more image blur with the larger aperture. But the bokeh quality is more or less on the same level, yes. (Edit: except for background highlights, the 1.4G has fully rounded aperture blades that do not form polygons stopped down).



Vignetting should be less of an issue with both lenses on DX.



-- Markus

[mst]

[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1306741915' post='8929']

Some people have complained about the AF speed of the 50 1.4G. How is the AF speed of the 50 1.8G? Is it better then that of the 50 1.4G?

[/quote]



I don't have a 50/1.4G available to compare directly, but from my memory they seem to be ore or less on the same level.



-- Markus

[MadManAce]

This is my first time posting in this forum. For the most part, this is my favorite lens testing site because my own lens tests concur more often with PZ than with other sites. That being said, I wish the tests were also done at F/2.0. This would have made the comparison to the 50 F/1.4 more interesting, and from my personal experience, just 1/3 can sometimes make a huge difference. Other than that, keep up the good work!