I wouldn't say that I believe in Henri Cartier-Bresson's theory of you only need the one 50mm lens, but I have a love for the 50 that has resulted in a collection of them.
Right now, I feel like the z-mount 50s are either too much or not enough.
The 1.8 is ok. It's very sharp but its... boring? I find myself using my f-mount Zeiss 1.4 and my LTM canon 1.4 a lot more.
Can you expand a bit on what about the 50 f/1.8 Z you find lacking compare to the other 50's you mention. Is is the 1.8 vs. 1.4? Do you find the bokeh not as pleasing? Is it just to clinical?
While I have several zooms that cover the 50mm range, the only 50 mm that I use much is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G. It is tiny, cheap, and gives results that are good enough for me. But I am really just a hobbyist, not a professional. I have never had the opportunity or need to shoot any of the 1.4 or 1.2 50's from Nikon.
I also just recently picked up the 40mm f/2. Not a 50, I recognize, but still small, light, and so far pretty decent. I admit that I haven't shot much with it yet. I do hope to pick up the 50mm f/1.8 z at some point, so I would like to hear more of your thoughts about it.
Add comment