50mm f/1.4 vs. 1.8, D vs. G for novice

<p>I have a friend who just acquired a used D90 with a couple of mediocre Nikkor zooms, and he'd like to pick up a 50mm AF prime. He's been looking at 50/1.8's and 50/1.4's, both D and G, and it's not clear which one he should get.</p>

<p>I'm a Canon user (who, incidentally, has a nice collection of MF Nikkor primes), so I have no experience with Nikon's AF offerings. As far as I can tell, the D's perform pretty much as well as the G's on APS-C bodies, and are significantly cheaper, so it seems he should get a D.</p>

<p>Unsurprisingly, 50/1.4's sell for quite a bit more than 50/1.8's, but they're obviously only a little faster. My friend likely won't be doing a ton of low available light work anyway, but he is concerned about image quality. So do you think it would be worthwhile for him to get a 50/1.4 instead of a 50/1.8?</p>

<p>The 1.4's are usually made to a higher spec than the 1.8's in addition to being a bit faster. Personally I'm a big fan of the 1.8G. The difference in image quality between that and the 1.4G isn't huge, and it's a pretty big improvement over the 1.8D. The 1.8G has excellent contrast and sharpness and really nice bokeh. The G versions have newer optics than the D versions and have AFS (internal silent motor - the D versions rely on the motor in the camera, and the D90 is one of the models that has a motor in the camera, but the AFS lenses are much quieter).</p>

<p>Even though I own lenses like the 17-55 2.8 AF I can say with-ought hesitation that the 50 1.4 is the sharpest lens in my kit. It is wonderful even wide open. It focuses very fast and quietly. The bokeh is wonderful for portrait work and the colors and contrast are fantastic.I think this lens is one of the best Nikon Bargains on the market. The 1.8 is an excellent lens but it will not touch the 1.4. It is my favorite lens.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick responses, guys. Excellent info about the focus motor differences, Andy. Being a Canon guy, I wasn't aware of that issue. And, Owen, which 50/1.4 do you have, D or G?</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of the 50 f/1.4G. Just finished up a basketball season and took hundreds (500 or more) of photos with the lens. The parents of the players loved their pictures. I also have the 50 f/1.4D and imo the G lens is the better of the two but the D can be picked up at low prices.</p>

<p>Another important difference between D and G. Because the D lenses are mechanically coupled to the AF motor in the body, you're either in AF mode, or MF mode, period. With the G lenses, you can be in AF mode, and then just grab the focus ring and override the camera's AF system to fine-tune focus at will. That can come in surprisingly handy with some situations - though the D90's relatively small viewfinder can make MF challenging. <br /><br />Another difference: the mechanical drive train in use with the D flavor is noticeably louder than the G versions' internal ultra quiet motors. With some subjects, and in some shooting circumstances, that can make a world of difference. <br /><br />I've got a 50/1.8 D which pretty much collects dust these days. I went with Sigma's 501/4 because of how well it behaves wide open. Nikon's 50's are built more around general use, where Sigma's fast primes are built assuming they'll be used fast and shallow. </p>

<p>So someone has to talk about money. If your friend is on a budget he/she can't do much better than the "plastic fantastic" F1.8D. Everything everyone else said is true but you can get one of these for about $100.00. It is sharp as a tack. So if he has the money he gets the F1.4 Afs for sure. If not he can work his way down the line. If he doesn't have a good Nikon flash then the only choice is the F1.8d and the new flash. See what I mean? Its all about money</p>

<p>the 50mm 1.8G is on sale until this saturday (2 days) for $200 compared to the 50 1.8D which is $135. now, I have used both the D and G a lot and have found the G to be better. I bought both when the G first came out to decide between the 2 and did a lot of comparison shots. at f1.8, the G is a lot better. much sharper. the AF on the G is a little bit faster, not by much, but, it is a lot quieter. I like to say this a lot on here, but, for the money, the G is a better buy. oh, and the bokeh is better on the G. more round bokeh on the G.</p>

<p>Unless your friend is a serious photographer I doubt he'd notice the performance difference between the 1.8 and 1.4, but he would notice it in his pocketbook. I understand the G is said to be somewhat better than the D....again I'm not sure that the differences are all that meaningful to non pros who already have a body capable of driving the D version. I use mine on both film and digital bodies. I've only used the 1.8 D version, and people seem amazed that I can achieve intense sharpness and contrast with it. The truth generally is that it is in the lighting and shadows, as well as my (especially in portraits) frequent use of a tripod.</p>

<p>Mark. I am sorry, I have the D which I think is as good or better than the G but others may disagree.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>I find myself posting this a lot lately. 1.8D left, 1.8G right.</p><div></div>

<p>The 1.8G looks a lot better. much sharper and the color contrast is better. Nice comparison, Andy.</p>

<p>Yes, thanks for the most illuminating comparison, Andy.</p>

<p>The G is clearly sharper, and has higher contrast and smoother bokeh.</p>

<p>Andy's photo reflects my findings... the 50 f/1.8G is really worth the extra money compared to the 50 f/1.8D. The D isn't very sharp below f/2.8, while I have little issues using the G lens near wide open. The bokeh difference.... well, no comparison really.<br>

But my choice as a first prime would be the 35 f/1.8 DX - I've always found 50mm on APS-C to be an odd and not very useful focal length. The 35 saw a lot more use on my DX camera.</p>

<p>Good IDea andy, to put up some pics..</p>

<p>Watch them carefully though, if you want to use them as a reference, on the "D" pic sharpness is on the table's edge, and for the "G" pic its on the camera...</p>

<p>I don't think the focus is on the table at all on the "D". the focus is on the camera. It could be that the camera is on the edge of the table? hard to tell. if anything, the "G" is sharper on the tables edge anyway. I would think Andy would take a picture of the camera and not the edge of the table.....that I assume of course. </p>

<p>the "D" is just soft at 1.8. it doesn't get sharp until 2.8. the extra 80 dollars is worth the optically better lens.</p>

The test looks fair enough, the G definitely seems crisper. Thanks Andy for the trouble.

<p>I have a 50mm f1.8D and it takes SPLENDID photos.</p>

<p>I'm sure the G is much better (by some accounts, better than any of the 1.4s.</p>

<p>That said, it does not get much use anymore. The 35mm f1.8G for DX is on my D90 a LOT!</p>

<p>This image was made with the horribly antiquated 50mm AF Nikkor f1.4. No D, G, or S. I think the blurry bits are fine.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9869513-lg.jpg" alt="" width="560" height="700" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 1.8G, 1.4D, and 1.4G are all good. Any of those 3 lenses will perform significantly better than the 1.8D in the f/1.8-3.5 range, IMO. I have owned or used all of them. Currently, I have the 1.8G, which offers (I think) the best balance of speed, IQ, and $.</p>

I have the 50mm 1.8d and use it all the time with my d7000. However I have to say that it is noticably soft at 1.8. Once

you stop it down a couple steps it becomes really sharp. I picked mine up used for $85 and at that price it is a

fantastic value.

 

Mark

<p>This is all about value for money. I own the 1.4D and 1.8D. Both are good and I find both to be decently sharp wide open, but better stopped down. I see no compelling reason to upgrade. (That example photo makes me wonder about sample variation though.)<br>

<br />One other thing - if your friend aspires to join the retro photographers and shoot film, the D (and older non-D) lenses have better compatibility with older cameras, since they have aperture rings.</p>

<p>I am regrettably contributing a response here only because I would like Nikon to continue to make the 50mm D lenses. </p>

<p>I own over a dozen 50mm F/1.4 Nikkors. With at least 4 copies each that I cherry picked from very large sample sizes of the AF-D, AFS G and the AIS MF.</p>

<p>The first thing you, or rather should say, is the poor quality of Nikon construction. Every one of my 50mm G lenses had some decentering issues ( as did almost all of my G lenses from 50 – 14mm). They feel like plastic and much of the lens is. Also, about half of the G lenses have their motors fail with prolonged, but not unusual use. And their have been other issues of design and manufacturing.</p>

<p>Second, so many people seem to be willing to accept the new G lenses distortion. Which can never be put absolute right and has persistently irritated my clients. It is more indicative of America though than Nikon that many choose to accept such a lower standard.</p>

<p>And the image itself is the most difficult part of the 50mm F1.4/G to accept. Shadows have constant color shifts and color casts. You never know what shadow or light will result in what color. A deal breaker for a high end wedding shooter and fashionista like me. Let alone the executive portrait clients whom will absolutely not pay for that kind of stuff.</p>

<p>But worst of all, for me anyway, shooting for highly performed results is the lack of both color depth and color contrast and contrast in general. The colors are lighter and less saturated and, well for lack of a better term, look cheap next to the D lenses, let alone my Leica Summicrons.</p>

<p>I will give the g lens a bit of a nod here…the color is slightly more brilliant, but also less accurate.</p>

<p>Then there is the flare. The D lens could have problems with it. But I could not believe how much worse the 50mm F1.4 G was. So bad, that even in the store when bought my last one, the thing flared from the ceiling lights. Urgh!</p>

<p>On the beach, shooting models in the sun the G is unusable. As it is for me in general now, due to the distortion and image flaws in comparison the D lens.</p>

<p>One thing to note that may or may not account for others seeming to like ( not everybody ) the G lenses, the older D lenses until recently varied in sample quality. The AIS’s varied a lot. Interestingly, as the G lenses get more flawed by design, the recent ( 5-10 years ) D lenses get more consistent.</p>

<p>Urge to attempt tests yourself with a D800E and on film with Velvia 50 so you came come to your own conclusions which would help keep D lenses around.</p>

<p>Lary</p>

 

<p>The 50/1.8D is an excellent lens, particularly on the D90 with its DX sized sensor. It is also inexpensive, compact and lightweight. Also, with its deeply recesses front element, you have a built-in hood, and you won't need a protective filter. Frankly, That's the lens I use on my Df, and I have both the 50/1.4G and 50/1.8G.</p>

<p>Now in 2014, for any beginner/novice (which is specified in the subject of this thread), I would definitely get an AF-S lens. If you get an AF-D version, you are opening yourself up to compatibility issues either immediately or potentially down the road.</p>

<p>For a more advanced photographer who is very familiar with the difference between AF-D and AF-S, G lenses, etc. It would be a different story.</p>