50mm 1.4D or 1.8D?

Which one of these do you think is the better performer for gen photography and outdoor portraits? I plan to put it on F4 and a F100?

You mean 50mm. In the AF (D) variety of these lenses, i found that, regardless of any optical advantages of either lens, the f/1.8 was more reliable or easier to use. This is because the f/1.4 has significant focus shift. Without AF fine tuning, my f/1.4 lens focused accurately at f/2.8, but front-focused wide open. If i tuned focus for accuracy at f/1.4, it would then back-focus at f/2.8. However, i don't know if the focus error is large enough to matter on film.

 

In their manual-focus variants, i find the f/1.4 to be a superior lens because it is sharper than the f/1.8 lens and has nicer (indeed, very nice) bokeh. When focusing manually, i can adjust focus on the fly to be accurate at any aperture.

Edited January 17, 2021 by chulster

You mean 50mm. In the AF (D) variety of these lenses, i found that, regardless of any optical advantages of either lens, the f/1.8 was more reliable or easier to use. This is because the f/1.4 has significant focus shift. Without AF fine tuning, my f/1.4 lens focused accurately at f/2.8, but back-focused wide open. If i tuned focus for accuracy at f/1.4, it would then front-focus at f/2.8. However, i don't know if the focus error is large enough to matter on film.

 

In their manual-focus variants, i find the f/1.4 to be a superior lens because it is sharper than the f/1.8 lens and has nicer (indeed, very nice) bokeh. When focusing manually, i can adjust focus on the fly to be accurate at any aperture.

did not realize I put 55 instead of 50, thanks

I've never used the 1.8, but have a 1.4D which was a great disappointment on film when my wife bought it for her F100, because, unlike chulster's sample, this one back focused. It's pretty nice now on a digital camera with fine tuning at around -9, and I haven't noticed any objectionable focus shift, but I would worry a little about consistency. For general photography on film I never found anything that surpassed the 50/F2 AI.

I have an old AI f/1.4 and owned a standard AF f/1.8 non-D for awhile. I eventually sold the f/1.8 for lack of use; nothing wrong with it in my opinion. For my use I really don't find f/1.4 any more useful than f/1.8 to warrant the extra cost.

 

Eric Sande

In the past where film was SLOWer than today, and we often shot in low light, the f/1.4 was the standard, simply for the speed.

The difference between f/1.8 and 1.4 is just under a stop. Not a heck of a lot, and if you don't often shoot in LOW light, you may not notice.

Today, I am more inclined to go for the f/1.8.

Frankly, f 1.4 and f1.8 has a DOF too narrow for portraits. Also, why do you need to carry around heavier glass of the 1.4? F1.4 will be more expensive as well. One other advantage with cameras looking through the lens however, is you can see better in lower light with the 1.4. So that may be advantageous to you except you mentioned outdoor use.

 

Having said that, I don't know if one lens is sharper than the other. My points are based on all other things being equal.

I have been amazed by the rich colors and the sharpness of the 50mm1.8D. And the bokeh is lovely. My Leica and Minolta 50s can't match it for that.

I can't imagine the Nikon 1.4 could beat it either.

 

BTW, I'm on my third 1.8 D, with my fingers crossed. I keep dropping them, and they are not tough. My 1.8 AIS 50mm is very sturdy, and I use it when I don't need AF. (Nikon must keep making the 1.8 D's because of all the klutzes out there.)

Interesting that this thread is going the opposite direction of some previous threads on the 50mm's. On film back in manual focus days, my fav was the 50/1.4SC, though the 1.4AI was a little sharper. I always thought the 1.8AI produced a very sharp but "hard" look. I enjoy people photography, so the more genteel 1.4's were first choice for me. And, like MC above, I do like the MF 50/2, also.

 

(repeat of previous posts in other threads, sorry) My son played basketball in very poorly lit gyms around a decade ago, requiring f/2 or 2.2 settings and ISO's that cameras of the time could not really achieve. When I converted to AF and digital around that time, I bought a 50 1.8D. Using the 1.8D, I always thought my shots were a little soft, but attributed it to camera noise reduction and/or motion blur.

 

Fell into a deal on a 1.4D, and found that it was a much better performer at around f/2 than the 1.8D I had. My bball photos definitely improved. Maybe I had two lemon 1.8D lenses (the aperture blades failed in the first), but my experience is that I prefer the 50/1.4 over the 1.8D. The 1.8D is sharp at f/4 and smaller settings, maybe sharper than the 1.4.

 

I did replace the 1.4 with a 1.8g. Main advantage of the 1.8G is a more rounded aperture circle at more open settings, reducing the stop signs in OOF areas. My recommendation would be to try both the 1.4 and 1.8 screw drive lenses, keep the preferred one and flip the other.

Nikon Nikkor AF 50 mm f/1.8D review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Nikon Nikkor AF 50 mm f/1.4D review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.8G review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.4G review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

These just about sum up peoples views of Nikon 50mm AF lenses.

 

Not that resolution is everything by any means, but it's a reliable, comparable metric..... and also shows why quite a few people deserted Nikon in the hunt for a sharper 50mm.

 

You can also see how much 'better' the Z model is.

 

Nikon Nikkor Z 50 mm f/1.8 S review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Although there is much more IQ fall off away from the frame centre.

I would be surprised if there was a noticeable difference in finder brightness between F/1.4 and F/1.8 lenses. A while back I did some totally unscientific checks on Nikon, Minolta, Canon and Pentax SLR's, viewing the same scene at F/1.4 and at F/2. I couldn't see any difference, except for the Pentax MX which was just about perceptibly brighter at F/1.4.

These just about sum up peoples views of Nikon 50mm AF lenses..... and also shows why quite a few people deserted Nikon in the hunt for a sharper 50mm.

Indeed. I was never too fond of the 50mm focal length to begin with, and the performance (or lack thereof) of every Nikon 50mm (various AF 50/1.8, AF-S 50/1.8, 50/1.4 Ai) lens that I purchased nonetheless or that "fell into my lap" as part of a camera purchase, was either hardly used or rather quickly disposed of. Not sure I will hold on to the Sigma ART 50/1.4 much longer - and so far I have resisted the call of the Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar 50/2.

It's not a definitive or precise test, but here was my take on the f/1.8

AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D - the later version of one of the first AF lenses

 

I guess, but do not know from personal experience, that the f/1.4 may have better bokeh.

For outdoor portraits, my go to Nikon lens is a 85mm f1.8. I have a 50mm f1.8 but to use it and fill the frame I have to get too close to the person. The 85mm is light weight and very easy to use and I like the way it blurs backgrounds.

 

I agree with others that paying for extra light gathering capabilities like a f 1.4 is rarely needed these days. Now it that lens has better color, sharpness, then that is another matter.

I got the 50 f/1.4D when I bought my F100 new, years ago. It took a little adjustment when I switched to digital, what today is called focus shift. Having said that I've never found it to be wanting...I easily get sharp contrasty images on film which I can enlarge to 20x30 inches, although honestly doing portraits at f/1.4 is an iffy thing due to such narrow DOF. My original choice in this lens was based on the assumption that it was probably better corrected for aberations than the 1.8, but I'm not so sure these days that that really matters.

 

AF-Nikkor 50/1.4 (1st version) Wide-Open, ISO 16000, Nikon Df. Shot at night, on the Navarre Beach Pier.

I've had this lens for almost 30 years now. It is the old style, plastic window, made in Japan. I also had the AF-Nikkor 50/1.8 second version, sold it- prefer the Bokeh on this one.

My current 50mm f/1.4 lens is the Nikkor S.C from circa 1974. I assumed it had the same optical formula as the AF (D) 50/1.4, but according to the internet this is incorrect. This make sense to me, because I like the images from the S.C better than those I used to get from the AF lens.

 

Here's an example of the gentle bokeh of the S.C at f/2. (Unfortunately it is the nose of the subject that is in sharpest focus, not the eyes; but oh well.)

 

 

 

Here's another one just for fun. This was taken at f/2.8 with about 50mm of extension added. It could have been sharper if it were not handheld.