Like the iPhone and iPod before it, technophiles have had a lot of negative things to say about Apple’s iPad. Geeks tend to like spec sheets, and iPad doesn’t check as many boxes as some rivals. Some complaints are certainly valid; I would love to be able to have an IM client and Safari open at the same time. The big picture is, though, that Apple has fleshed out the iPhone interface to what it was meant to be: an alternative computing paradigm, not just some hastily slapped together desktop OS in a different form factor. I was extremely impressed by the the iCal and iWork implementations in particular, and can’t wait to see what the future holds for touch versions of other applications.
For the photographer, iPad represents a convenient display mechanism for showing portfolios, but also an alternative to the laptop for shooting on the road. It remains to be seen if the A4 processor is powerful enough to handle the workload — my guess is yes for a light JPEG workflow, no for a RAW workflow — but the platform will only get faster with time. I personally believe the touch interface offers the possibility of a superior UI for post production versus a laptop, and have already begun programming a fairly basic photo editing app that I hope to release shortly after iPad is available.
Everyone has an opinion on HDR, something I never really shoot. Most non-photographers love HDR imaging, but many photographers take issue with it. My opinion is mildly positive, depending on the image.
As long as HDR techniques are applied with a fairly subtle touch, it can add a lot to a photo, heavy handed images get old quickly. They may look interesting the first couple times you see them, but that feeling doesn’t last. I think this is where the schism between photographers and non photographers really lies, the novelty has worn off for photographers who have seen more.
Times Square — 24mm f/2 AIS @f/8 2 Exposures
This morning I spent a few hours in XCode writing an application that will combine 2 images into one, compressing the dynamic range. I’ve named my creation “Light Compressor”. High Dynamic Range is the word we normally use, but I think saying Compressed Dynamic Range is a bit more immediately understandable.
Light Compressor is severely limited right now: it only combines 2 images, and there are very few options to tweak, but it does a pretty decent job for a Saturday morning’s work. Once you put in your two images, you set the “subtlety” (0 gives you a burned, overdone look, 10 is fairly close to being just a 50% opacity merge between the two). If you choose a lower, more agressive number on your first option, you can compensate for some of the harshness using the second parameter, which smooths the mask. Then you just hit save, wait half a minute (for a 12MP image) and it spits out a merged image and it even gives you the mask it used to combine them. Here we see the two input images on top, with the output on the bottom.
You can download the input images here and here if you want to try combining them in another app and see how it comes out. I’m sure you can get better results in Photomatix if you spend a little time with it. You may notice the output version here looks different than the one at the top of the page. I just bumped the saturation a bit and tweaked the curves to get that image.
I went down to Times Square (somewhere I normally avoid like the plague) to get these sample shots as, despite how much the crowds bother me, Times Square at night has a really challenging dynamic range to deal with. I think I’ve done a pretty decent job keeping the effect subtle while preventing a big chunk of the image from either being over or under exposed.
If anyone would like me to put some more work into Light Compressor and release it as shareware, leave a comment and I’ll consider it.
This review is a work in progress and will be updated.
Overall: 4 out of 5
Optics: 4
Price (New): $320 USD
Value: 4.5
The screw-type AF version of the 50mm f/1.4 is a good deal new for $110 USD less than the AF-S version.
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D
Taken with Nikon 105mm f/4
Assorted Information
|
Max Aperture
|
f/1.4
|
|
Min Aperture
|
f/16
|
|
Aperture Blades
|
7
|
|
Close Focus
|
0.45m/1.5ft
|
|
Filter Thread
|
52mm
|
|
Hard Infinity Stop?
|
Yes
|
|
Built in Hood?
|
no
|
Image Quality
Image quality is very similar to older versions of the lens. Wide open it’s a tad soft (relatively speaking), with some chromatic aberration, though that’s controlled better than in previous versions of the lens. It sharpens significantly by f/2. I have no issues with the bokeh, though I think all renditions of the 85mm f/1.4 look better in that department. Flare can be a problem wide open as is expected with a fast lens like this. The only other nits to pick is some coma at f/1.4 and some vignetting, which is easily compensated for.
D700, Nikon 50mm f/1.4 af-d, ISO 2500 @f/2
Operation
Autofocus is quick, but not in the same league as the best af-s lenses. But, for normal lenses I tend not to come across situations in which I’m limited by the AF speed. The focusing ring is rubbery and turns ⅓ of the way around the barrel and is perfectly usable, though it feels a bit cheap.
D700, Nikon 50mm f/1.4 af-d, ISO 640 @f/2
Compared to...
I have a brief comparison to the much older Nikkor-S f/1.4 50mm f/1.4 pre-ai in that review.
D700, Nikon 50mm f/1.4 af-d, ISO 4000 @f/1.4
Final Word
A 50mm f/1.4 is a lens everyone should probably own. It gives a very neutral perspective that works for a variety of situations, and is the one fast lens that can be bought cheaply. If you’re looking at this lens, you’re probably also looking at the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, and maybe a manual focus version, like the 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, or 50mm f/1.4 AI-S.
For $110 more the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S will get you the ability to override AF without switching to manual focus, which is a great thing to have. Unfortunately it comes at the cost of the aperture ring (if you care about that) and worse yet, it uses a 58mm filter ring. Nikon’s normal lenses traditionally all take 52mm filters, which means you can buy a set of filters and use it across a number of normal lenses. having the non-standard filter size is a major pain to anyone who uses filters regularly. It’s less important in the digital era, but a circular polarizer and ND filters at least should still be a part of most arsenals.
If you’re looking at manual focus, the 50mm f/1.2 has wonderful IQ and is ⅓ stop faster but costs significantly more. The other MF versions offer similar performance with better focusing rings. Of course you’ll have to set the lens data manually on a camera that supports non-chipped lenses, and there will be no metering on cameras that don’t.
I wouldn’t recommend against any of Nikon’s 50mm f/1.4s, it’s merely a choice as to which one fits your needs. This is a very solid choice if you want AF and use filters or don’t need to manually override AF too often.
More Photos with this Lens
D700, Nikon 50mm f/1.4 af-d, ISO 200 @f/3.2
D700, Nikon 50mm f/1.4 af-d, ISO 2500 @f/1.8
For anyone wondering, the vignetting was added in post.
All content © Tai Shimizu unless otherwise indicated.
