Help me understand the new 50 f/1.8 AF-S lens regarding market placement.

[crimbfighter]

It seems to me, if they were going to redo the older 50mm f/1.8 AF-D, why not make it a DX lens. It seems to have the same construction quality as the 35mm AF-S f/1.8, so why not just make it a DX lens and let the 35 and 50 be the wide/standard set optimized for crop frame cameras. They've still got the 50 f/1.4 for FF. And it wouldn't seem to make sense, to me anyway, to put a lower quality 50 on your FF DSLR because you wanted to save $250? I don't know, maybe my logic is flawed. What market do you think it was most intended for? And where it will likely see better sales? My guess, is the pros and FF shooters won't touch it, and they will sell like hotcakes to the crop frame shooters, just like the 35mm did.

And this is in no way a dig on the lens itself. I'm sure it's an excellent lens. Just not putting two and two together for market placement.

 

[Garbz]

The 50mm f/1.8 is a standard lens, always has been. Market placement? Why make it a DX lens? What benefit do you gain from it other than you can't use it on a FF camera?

The market it serves is that it becomes the new standard cheap lens. There's not a person I know who doesn't have a 50mm f/1.8 somewhere in their kit precisely because they don't want to spend $250 more. Frankly I don't see why not to make this lens given there's a whole lineup of cameras now which can't autofocus with the old one.

 

[Derrel]

There is absolutely ZERO benefit from making a 50mm DX lens...no weight savings, no size savings,and a net loss of potential market share. Making the image circle of a 50mm reduced makes no sense...we're dealing with a lens that weighs mere ounces, so shaving one or two or even three ounces would not be significant. This new 50mm lens has an aspherical element and an additional element, and is potentially the best 50mm f/1.8 lens Nikon has made in decades. I do not really think that the 50/1.8 will be "a lower quality" lens than the current 50/1.4 AF-D or 50/1.4 AF-S G lenses; it might actually be a better lens than the 1.4 model, much like the old 50 1.8 Ai-S made during the earliest Ai-S era (the pre-pancake, FULL-sized 50 1.8) was a better lens than its contemporary 50/1.4 model...

 

[AUG19]

Good point about the aspheric. I think making it purely DX would needlessly limit its potential market.

 

[crimbfighter]

Ok, I see your points. And understand what you guys are saying. I see the errors of my thought process now. I wasn't looking at it from the right perspectives. Maybe I'm just jealous I spend the doe on the f/1.4, when I could have waited and gotten the f/1.8 and been just as happy!

 

[Markw]

I think it's all about the money, honestly. It is a slight difference to the older 50/1.8D with quite a bit of cosmetic difference, but nothing major. the DxO shows sharper tests, which is good, but I think it's more about people selling their 50/1.8Ds and buying this sparkly and shiny new 50/1.8. That's what I think it is. I could be wrong, but this will likely bring an enormous flow of money into the marketplace. 50/1.8s, both new and old, will be all over the market, and the price will likely reflect this demand once it is released. Personally, I would love one too. My 50/1.8D isn't as sharp as my 35/1.8G, and this one seems to be. So I'd jump on the bandwagon too and switch out.

Mark

 

[zamanakhan]

I think it's all about the money, honestly. It is a slight difference to the older 50/1.8D with quite a bit of cosmetic difference, but nothing major. the DxO shows sharper tests, which is good, but I think it's more about people selling their 50/1.8Ds and buying this sparkly and shiny new 50/1.8. That's what I think it is. I could be wrong, but this will likely bring an enormous flow of money into the marketplace. 50/1.8s, both new and old, will be all over the market, and the price will likely reflect this demand once it is released. Personally, I would love one too. My 50/1.8D isn't as sharp as my 35/1.8G, and this one seems to be. So I'd jump on the bandwagon too and switch out.

Mark

really i found the 35 to be less sharp than the 50 1.8 i had for a little while... but not having AF killed i sold it off and actually managed to make a tiny bit of profit, i purchased mine over in the states an it sells for a whole lot more in Canada. Iam still wondering if should go for the new 1.8 or 1.4, i think the 50 is exactly what i need i can never seem to get close enough with the 35 and cant get further enough with my 105 the 50 falls somewhere right in the middle.
I think the new 50 has a great spot in the market, it equals a great portrait equivelent length for DX and for fx guys that havent picked up the old afd or want to be able to MF without messing with the AF switch. Why make a lens dx when its just as cheap to just make it FX?