50mm 1.4D or 1.4G

<p>I'm considering buying a Nikon 50mm 1.4 lens. Besides the motor, is there any reason to get the 1.4G over the 1.4D? I'll be using it with a D90, so the motor difference doesn't matter to me and there's a very big price difference between the two lenses. So I'm wondering if the price differnece also buys a better lens.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I have the 1.4G, sold the 1.8D to buy it....image quality difference is minimal, obviosly a step up from 1.8 though. But its also about the feel of the lens and the G is nice, it is balanced, faster to focus imo. if your not strapped for cash go for the 1.4G, if so then the 1.4D or even the 1.8D is best value of all</p>

<p>I`m with Sean, my choice could be between the 1.8 and the AFS... with the AFS you have manual focus override and a better construction.</p>

<p>The 50/1.4G AF-S has improved wide open sharpness over the old one. It focuses more quietly and the barrel doesn't wobble like it does on the 1.8D and 1.4D. Bayonet hood and other goodies provided.</p>

<p>I think the 1.8D is the best of the autofocus Nikon 50's at small apertures (f/4-f/11) and it has minimal distortion unlike the 1.4's. However, the AF and D versions are annoying in terms of their manual focus characteristics and also have relatively noisy AF. The AF-S is an improvement in so many areas that I've been delighted with it.</p>

<p>Do a search:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061901nikon50greview.asp</p>

<p>I use a 50mm f/1.4 AF (non - D) and love it. I've handled the new 50mm f/1.4 AF-S in store only, but definitely like it a lot too. Is the lens worth the extra money? That's up to you to decide. The screw focus system of the AF is louder than the silent wave inside the AF-S. And the manual override is a great feature to have in certain situations. As Jose's opinion about the AF-S having 'a better construction', I don't agree.</p>

<p>I'm very curious about Ilkka's comment about increased sharpness of the AF-S over the AF / AF-D. I don't have enough personal experience to confirm or deny this. Do other people find this to be the case?</p>

<p>Chris, photozone.de confirms that outside of the center of the DX area the 1.4G shows higher MTF than the 1.4D. I use FX and find the 1.4G maintains remarkably even sharpness across the frame even at f/1.4. It's the first 1.4 lens I actually can shoot comfortably wide open without concern that the image quality might be less than desirable. In fact the 1.4G has essentially retired my 50/1.4 ZF.</p>

<p>You might question what is the need for edge sharpness at f/1.4 but this isn't just about the very edges and I often have important compositional elements outside of the DX area. In available light I may have to place focus on a person near the edge of the frame for compositional and content reasons and it's remarkable how well the 1.4G fares in these situautions.</p>

<p>If you need the manual aperture control of the D series instead of G, then your decision is made. G won't work. When you do interval shooting, G is not a good choice due to the slight variation from frame to frame of camera controlled aperture settings. Having that aperture ring is a big deal for some shooting.</p>

<p>The AF-S is a little bit sharper wide open, has manual focus override, and is slightly larger/heavier.</p>

<p>Really I'd be choosing between the Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D (cheapest, small and lightweight) and the Sigma 50/1.4 (best in class wide open, heaviest and most expensive). The AF-S falls somewhere in between the two.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... between the Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D (cheapest, small and lightweight) and the Sigma 50/1.4 (best in class wide open, heaviest and most expensive). </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. At Amazon.com, the Nikon af-s is $477, and the Sigma is $439. </p>

<p>Ah, the weekly 50mm question. I'd go for the Sigma 50mm f1.4 over the Nikon 50mm f1.4D. It has the modern lens coatings for one thing.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>CC,</p>

<p>Thanks for the correction. I'm not sure why you would go for the AF-S over the Sigma then unless you're a Nikon purist.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments. I currently have the 1.8D which is what I'm considering replacing. Ilkka's comment about my lens having better distortion at smaller apertures makes me wonder if I'm better off keeping my 1.8 (granted that you don't buy a 1.4 to shoot at 11). I do plan to do interval shooting, so Aaron's comment strikes a chord, but I also use it on A-priority so I don't think that will actually be a problem. I'm enough of a Nikon purest that I won't consider sigma, at least for now. I'm not concerned about the noise (assuming it's not louder than my 1.8), and the 1.8 seems to focus fast enough, so from the comments here, it sounds like I should really be choosing between keeping my 1.8D or replacing it with the 1.4D.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for your help.</p>

<p>Remember the AFs - G will not work on older film cameras. If you intend to use it on a MF film camera you'll need the 50mm afD</p>

<p>Perhaps I should have said "better design" instead of "better construction" (probably the assembling quality and parts could be more or less the same) but anyway, I`m owner of both 50/1.8AFD and 50/1.4AFS... I find the hood, that somekind of "IF" system, focus ring and overall feel (at least as new) to be much better (aside the manual focus override & optical performance as well).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Chris, photozone.de confirms that outside of the center of the DX area the 1.4G shows higher MTF than the 1.4D. I use FX and find the 1.4G maintains remarkably even sharpness across the frame even at f/1.4. It's the first 1.4 lens I actually can shoot comfortably wide open without concern that the image quality might be less than desirable. In fact the 1.4G has essentially retired my 50/1.4 ZF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for the further information Ilkka, I really appreciate it! As for corner sharpness, I'm not a big pixel peeper but agree whole heartedly that there's times when the subject is out on the edges of the frame. Not something I buy a lens specifically for, but something I definitely appreciate when it performs well at the edges. Good to know there's an IQ improvement to go along with it's new body.</p>

 

<p>I was torn between the two as well. I decided to save the money and buy the D. I have been very pleased with it. It is by far the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I know the G is supposed to be optically better from what I have read, but I don't know how noticable it would be unless your were looking side by side.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure why you would go for the AF-S over the Sigma then unless you're a Nikon purist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon is lighter and smaller and has better corner to corner sharpness stop down, according to the review. Thus it may work better if your interest is landscape. The Sigma is optimized to shoot wide open with slightly better bokeh making it much better for photographing people with available light, and it resists flare better than the Nikon.</p>

<p>I too own the Nikon 50/1.8 and love it for its sharpness and small size. However once you see what a modern f1.4 can do, you will never go back. I keep the 50/1.8 for traveling or hiking when weight is a major concern. Between the two Nikon 1.4s, the afs version is much better wide open in terms of sharpness and has better bokeh, although it is slightly bigger and more expensive than the D version. It seems that being able to get good results wide open at low light is the major reason why one should consider a 1.4 lens, I see no reason to buy the older D version over the new afs, considering the relatively small difference in cost and size. </p>

<p>Brian: It's that part about optically better that prompted me to start the thread. All the features don't really matter that much given that my primary camera can fully use the D-series lens. But what I'm concerned with is that I'm comprimising optical quality if I buy the cheaper lens. Is there any documentation of a difference? I wasn't able to find any.</p>

<p>I am starting to think I should keep the 1.8 and buy something like a medium zoom 2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Is there any documentation of a difference?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>They did: http://www.dpreview.com/</p>

<p>Neither of these two</p>

<p>The 35mm DX is way sharper</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any documentation of a difference?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/216-nikkor-af-50mm-f14-d-review--lab-test-report?start=1">50/1.4AFD</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/413-nikkor_50_14g?start=1">50/1.4AFS</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report?start=1">50/1.8AFD</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am starting to think I should keep the 1.8 and buy something like a medium zoom 2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A 24-70 is noticeably sharper in the center, even wide open, but is a very different beast. Horses for courses.</p>

 

<p>The comments about image sharpness in the corners are really a non-starter unless your entire scene is at infinity or you are shooting brick walls head on. Any minor sharpness issue when shooting a test target is not going to be of any importance in the real world (unless you're a measurebator). Anyway the OP is using a DX sized sensor so these non-issues are well outside the image circle in this case.<br>

For all the experts in these lenses that can see these differences which lens was the following picture taken with Sigma, Nikkor AFS, or Nikkor AFD ?</p><div></div>

<p>Ok, I`ll bite. I`m not an expert, nor I have an AFD or Sigma: I`d say this could be perfectly taken with the AFS.</p>

<p>I have already compared this image with others taken by me with the AFS, and that out of focus rings looks pretty similar. The green line on the seat back makes me wonder about the AFD (or the Sigma), it seems to me that it should not be as worse with the AFS.</p>

<p>(Of course I`m playing... I absolutely agree with you.) :)</p>

<p>My view is that it was not taken by the Sigma b/c of the bokeh, which still has visible outlines ... </p>