To be fair, that is roughly the conclusion that the linked article states. But there is room for some skepticism with the methodology, like comparing MTF wide open (so f/1.8 vs f/1.4) instead of only at equal f-stop.
Exactly, if you read the review, the conclusion for most of the comparison items is that the lenses are very close.
I am pretty sure that Chez didn't bother reading it but is just commenting based on his pre-conveived ideas about my lack of objectivity. Not to mention the fact that he has zero interest in Nikon equipment. There is little more than bad mouthing going on here...
Besides, I own both and I am very impressed by the 50mm f1.8 S. I was one of the first here to own an Otus and to boast about its qualities, I have zero reason to prefer one over the other.
I personally find the Otus to be a bit better still, but the gap nowhere justifies the difference in price/weight/size. The 50mm f1.8 S is both an incredible deal and a remarkable performer in absolute terms.
What's so strange with the 50mm f1.8 S being a remarkable lens when Nikon told us it would be, when the MTF charts shows it should be, when the mount it is relying on is the most promising there is, when all recent Nikon lenses have been top performers, when all the other tests published so far have been very positive,... how could this 50mm f1.8 S not be very good?
Cheers,
Bernard
