Nikon leaks a new AF-S 50mm 1.8G

New 50 1.8?
Two days ago, upon doing my research, I came across people 'foruming' about Nikon's latest 50mm 1.8G. True enough, it wasn't a rumour at all. It was on Nikon's USA site but just recently they removed it; its now a blank page. Glancing the specs, it has 7 elements including one aspherical element in 6 groups (as opposed to 6 elements in 5 groups).

Sharper than before?
Nikon's MTF charts states that this lens is sharper and more contrasty.

50mm 1.8G MTF curve

50mm 1.8D MTF curve

Seems noticeably higher, doesn't it? Let's hope that it is that good.

Wait or just forget it?
I'm not sure how much the actual lens is, or whether it's actually sharper and more contrasty. If not, I rather go for the 1.8D unless the price is reasonably cheap - just like the 50 1.8D.  As Ken Rockwell said, "My only reservation, other than all the plastic, is that when Nikon did this same update to the f/1.4 lens, the distortion actually got worse than the older lenses!"

What makes a 'pro photographer' a 'pro'?

Yes, yes. People just simply say something that really annoys me some times - Hey look! There's a pro photographer there with his DSLR! Are you really a pro with the gear you have or is it the skill that counts? Go to YouTube, and you'll find a whole lot of users buying pro gear, but some how or rather they aren't pros. I find it a bit odd. Things aren't were they supposed to be. But to me, I feel pros are those who have skill.

One who is able to shoot with two primes or so, and still get amazing pictures - that's what I call a pro. To me, the more gear you have, the more 'incompetent' you are. Don't get me wrong; there are called pro gear for a reason. And buying more and more lenses isn't going to help, either.

To me, a 35mm and a 85/105mm is enough for any photographer to shoot almost anything. The 35 can handle wide angle and street or candid photography whilst the 85/105 will just handle everything else; macro, telephoto and portrait photography.

Canon 600D: Is it worth it?

600D is one of the budget DSLRs that has just been announced by Canon. It looks exactly the same. It performs exactly the same. And, it feels exactly the same. And the price ain't cheap - Canon says the price is around RM2,500. Its not that much more expensive than the Canon 550D which is also another great alternative for beginners.

Canon 550D - ignore those gold trims, they're originally white

Canon 600D - not much different to the 550D

Seeing the specs sheets, there really isn't that much difference between the 550D and its successor, the 600D.

Similarities

• 18 megapixel CMOS sensor
• DiGiC 4 processor
• ISO range of 100-6,400(expendable to 12,800)
• Burst rate of 3.7 frames per second
• Supports SD, SDHC, SDXC format cards
• Full HD 1080p movie recording

Differences

• Minor movie recording tweaks
• Tilt-and-swivel screen

Final impressions...

The 600D is like a baby 60D copying most of its features. Canon's moving to the video camera side, focusing more on video but also providing that awesome 18 megapixel shooting experience. 

Would I buy it?

No. I'd save up for lenses and other accessories. HD recording is a nice feature to have. But seeing that I'm a photographer and not a videographer, I wouldn't want to buy a camera which I won't use. The 550D has proved to be a remarkable budget DSLR. As for the 600D, it might be a worthy successor. I see no reason why current 550D users should upgrade unless they really want those video tweaks Canon just added.

How to make your lens SHARPER

Sharpness. Yes, all everyone cares about is sharpness. And its one of the gimmicks camera manufacturers usually use against us innocent consumers. 'Softness' is a term that basically means that it isn't sharp. Usually, lenses will have this softness at different focal lengths. Depending on the lens, different lenses will have different amount of softness. Even huge, large, heavy pro lenses still do have softness like the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8.

But, if you do know how to use a lens, a cheap RM300+ lens might be sharper than that pro lens you're dreaming about. It all depends on whether you know how to use your lens or not. If you're given the 24-70mm f2.8 and if you don't know how to use it, softness still might appear.

Okay, cut to the chase. How do you sharpen your lens??
Simple. It should work for all lenses. Cheap, old, expensive, you get the point. Anyway, its quite simple. Simply, stop your lens down to two stops. Depending on what aperture your lens has, it's usually in the f7.1/f8 zone unless you're buying fast zooms or primes with apertures at f1.4 - f2.8. Check your manual for further reference.

Should you buy a sharp lens?
Well, its hard to decide. I don't do lab tests. And my tests are usually not-so-scientific tests. But what I can say is, it does help. But should you buy an expensive lens over a cheap lens that has almost the same optics? Not necessarily. You're most probably paying for the better build quality, bokeh, less distortion, etc.

Should you buy third party gear

Third party gear/accessories have been quite popular recently. I think its a must have for beginners, since they're new to photography and they just want something cheap and practical. Pros use these too, but seldomly. Don't get me wrong, third party brands are there for a reason - to provide a cheaper alternative than the already expensively-priced manufacturer's lenses. Take the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 for an example. I'll compare it to Nikon's equivalent Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8. In terms of price, the Tamron is definitely cheaper which makes it a no-brainer. The Tammy(a nickname for Tamron's lenses) is priced around RM2,800 whereas the Nikon is priced at RM8,200. Yes, the numbers don't lie. The Tammy is about cheaper than the Nikon. Quality-wise, they're practically almost the same. Better yet, Tamron is said to be sharper than Nikon and its labelled Macro which allows it to get up close to get macro shots(not 1:1 reproduction ratio, sadly).