Any reason I should not prefer 50mm 1.4D over 50mm 1.8D ?

<p>I keep hearing that 50mm 1.8D is a great lens and great bargain at about USD 125. I also have a 35mm 1.8D and am happy with the results so far, still new at it though.</p>

<p>Now if I get a 50mm also, specially for portraits, is there any reason why I should go with 50mm 1.8D over 1.4D ?</p>

<p>50mm is the most generous focal length for Nikon users. The 50/1.8 is truly a bargain lens because of the price and also because it's little and has a good IQ. Of course that 1.4D and 1.4G are better because are faster and stepped down at f2 for instance produce very nice results. For portraits though my prefered are 50/f1.2 used in general at f2-f2.8 and Sigma 50/1.4. </p>

<p>So, for a general usage, 50/1.8 is a very good option but for portraits I'd pick a faster lens for the special character included and for the better bokeh.</p>

<p>Thanks Mihai. I should have mentioned that I have D90 camera body.</p>

<p>The best 50 is the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G...<br /> For portrait use it has better out of focus rendition than the f1.8 or f1.4D.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any reason I should not prefer 50mm 1.4D over 50mm 1.8D ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Both are very good.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any reason I should not prefer 50mm 1.4D over 50mm 1.8D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Price.</p>

<p>The price/performance ratio is the major advantage of the 50mm 1.4 over the 50mm 1.8 .</p>

<p>I hear you Brooks. It's almost 1:3 for 1.8 and 1.4</p>

<p>That's why I wanted to check with you all if 1.4D will give me clear advantage over 1.8</p>

<p>I'd say it does. The 50 1.8 is hailed because it's good and cheap. The 50 1.4 is better and not so cheap.<br>

If you have the money just buy the 1.4, but if you're trying to do it on a budget, perhaps a 50 1.8 and a SB600 would be a better use of similar amounts of money.</p>

<p>I have had both the f1.4D and f1.8D. I like the 1.8, but the 1.4 is a better lens. It's sharper, built better and focuses closer. I bought a new 1.4D a few years ago. It was stolen and I got a free 1.8D. After shooting with the 1.8D for a couple of weeks, I traded it toward a new 1.4D.<br>

I don't know any specifics about the AF-S model.</p>

<p>Vikas, You state you are new at photography. While equipment babble is a popular sport here on pnet with "IQ" always bantied about, take my advice and don't worry about it and don't fall into the trap of thinking one of these lenses is going to make a big difference in your photography. It's a common newbie misstep. Nikon makes good lenses. Buy the best you can afford and make wonderful images with it but most of all have fun. I'm not saying there aren't differences, but at your level those differences are unimportant.</p>

<p>"equipment babble" - I like that phrase.</p>

<p>I get what you are saying. A very dear friend of mine who has been clicking on DSLRs for 15 years says the same thing and I get that. But just that coming here on pnet to learn and you hear so much abt what is good for portraits and what is good for walkaround etc makes me wonder what to get.</p>

<p>But I will keep your advice in mind.</p>

<p>But sounds like everyone agrees that 1.8 is a good buy, however 1.4 is better lens and expensive too. </p>

<p>Thanks Ed, Peter as well. </p>

I wonder if the comments here about the better IQ of one of these lenses over another applies to a DX camera, which won't use the edges.

 

--Marc

<p>The one complaint that I hear about the 50mm f/1.8 as a portrait lens is that some people say it has bad bokah (the rendition of the out of focus background). Personally I doubt that you'll see much difference between them. The problem with a forum like this is that if you get 10 responses, you'll get 11 different opinions, and all will be sincere. You could go with a majority opinion ( the 1.8 is a better buy, the 1.4 is a better lens) or you could test the lenses yourself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The one complaint that I hear about the 50mm f/1.8 as a portrait lens is that some people say it has bad bokah (the rendition of the out of focus background).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Usually it is spelled "bokeh" ;-). But yes it is quite bad, the fact is, it is quite bad on both the 1.8 and the 1.4D. It is, they say, better on the 1.4G, but not great there either. The only 50mm I hear systematically praised for the bokeh is the Sigma 1.4, so if portrait is the main target, that should be the better choice, but it is big, and expensive.</p>

<p>On the OP question: you should prefer the 1.8 over the 1.4 for price, and that is it. Everything else is better on the 1.4D and even more on the G. Much better? I would say no, not life changing. But with the 1.4G around, you might perhaps find a 1.4D cheaper, or used in very good conditions: in this caqse I would go that way.</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>The 50 f/1.8's only meaningful advantage over the 50 f/1.4 is its relatively minimal amount of distortion. (aside from the fact that it's cheaper and it's sharp when stepped down) On the other hand, the 50 f/1.4 is faster, which allows more developed bokeh and better performance in low light.</p>

<p>In my opinion, if you get it specifically for portraits, any 50mm is not the lens to get. They're just this bit too short. If budget can handle it, a 85 f/1.8 is a much nicer portrait lens - but not as cheap as most 50s.<br>

But for the price alone, there are little reasons to not get a 50 f/1.8. Stop down to ~f/2.8 and it's about as sharp as lenses get. Bokeh is bad, then again being a bit mindfull about the backgrounds can go a long way in avoiding that ugliness.</p>

<p>Shou / Wouter - if I am reading you correctly, are you saying that 50mm 1.4 has more distortion and is less sharp than 50 1.8 ?</p>

<p>I don't want to get 50mm 1.4 for more than double the price of 1.8 and find out that 1.8 was better... that was the main reason I asked the first question.</p>

<p>Some one also mentioned Sigma 50mm 1.4 which is of course pricier than Nikons. Any thoughts ?</p>

<p>Wouter - when you said 85 f/1.8 is better than 50 f/1.8 for portraits, did you mean it on a DX body (like D90 I have) or non-DX ?</p>

<p>Vikas,<br>

Indeed I mean for DX, 85 is a bit long-ish but the bokeh of that lens is way better than the 50s, and I like its perspective better (more flattering for faces). I find 50mm (75 on DX) just too short.<br>

As for the distortion of the f/1.4 versus the f/1.8, I did not state anything on that. I only have the 50 f/1.8, so I cannot say much sensible on the f/1.4's.</p>