AF-S 50 f/1.4G's advantages over the AF-D 50 f/1.8 ?

<p>Since the 35 DX is essentially out of stock everywhere, I'm currently looking at the 50 f/1.4G lens as an alternative to the 35 and more or less a replacement to my 50 f/1.8 AF-D. </p>

<p>So in what ways (be specific, and respond if you've used both the f/1.8 AF-D and f/1.4G 50s) is the newer AF-S lens superior than the older f/1.8 lens? I especially want to know the new lens' advanatge in terms of optical quality. </p>

<p>*It's obvious that the f/1.4 lens is faster and has SWM, but are these two the only advantages? </p>

<p>* The 50 f/1.8 seems to be quite soft until f/2.8, vibrates and make some noise during AF (especially in C mode), its aperture ring acts up (mine does), and sometimes the AF system refuses to confirm (this happens to none of my other lenses).</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I don't own 50/1.4G but I do have 50/1.4D.<br>

The most valuable this lens can do over 50/1.8D is its edge sharpness. If you are shooting portrait quite often you should understand that you usually focus on the the upper part of the frame i.e:in the eyes, forehead, etc.. The 50/1.4D beat the 50/1.8D on edge sharpness no question about it. My results are similar to the photozone's test result. 50/1.8D is superb at center, but very week at edge while 50/1.4D holds quite constant performance from center to edge.<br>

I heard, the 50/1.4G is even better. Not only it has better focusing (SWM) but also does it has better performance against bright light. The old D 1.4 and 1.8 develop nasty flare and ghosting under this condition...but again, this lens is supposed to be used under dimmed light?<br>

I was lucky to find a good copy of 35/1.8G..after cruising camera stores in town.It is even better. Edge sharpness is superb, better than 50/1.4D (which I find good enough for my standard). Plus It has closer focusing distance than the 50. If I need to emulate the view of the 50, I can just get closer. 35 DX is worth to wait.....</p>

<p>The 50/1.8D that I have is very good to excellent from f/2.5 (to f/11) but the 1.4G is better at wide apertures and not noticeably worse stopped down (on D3). I haven't had any edge sharpness issues with the 1.8D, assuming that I don't shoot wider than f/2.5. The manual focus precision and mechanical quality of the 1.4G are better than that of the 1.8D, which has a wobbly barrel. Autofocus accuracy is better with the 1.8D, though, but in practical applications both work well. The 1.8D has virtually no distortion while the 1.4G has some especially at short distances.</p>

<p>In my experience, the main benefits of the AFS are bokeh and construction quality. In a second step focus accuracy (at least less hunting -no hunting, to be precise- than with my 50/1.8AFD), and SWM operation.</p>

<p>About sharpness, my AFS is not much sharper (if so) than my 50/1.8AFD in the center, didn`t tested it on the corners; actually, I don`t bother about corner sharpness at wider apertures. The same for distortion.</p>

<p>I agree with Ilkka, if I need sharpness I must close it from f2.8 on.</p>

<p>Only my the first three reasons makes this lens worth to me.</p>

<p>Bokeh is a bit different.</p>

 

<p>Any 50 is not an alternative to the 35. They are two very different lenses!</p>

<p>There's a detailed visual comparision of lens sharpness here:<br>

<a href="http://www.smartpict.com/lenstest/Nikon_50_18_VS_50_14/US_test_Nikon_50mm_14_VS_18.php">http://www.smartpict.com/lenstest/Nikon_50_18_VS_50_14/US_test_Nikon_50mm_14_VS_18.php</a></p>

<p>There is a big advantage for nikon: price.<br>

Advantage for you? Unless you need the f1.4 and/or the possibility to override focus in the AFS version I would stick with the old and wobbly but cheap AFD f1.8 version.<br>

And I say this not minding to pay a lot more for a lens if needed :-P (NAS victim)</p>

 

<p>The comparison David posted is interesting me because although I haven't had the 1.4G, I've had the 1.8D and the 1.4D and I found the 1.4D to be much better. Look at that comparison. The 1.8D is clearly softer at wide apertures, but even beyond the point at which the tester begins to call them equal, the 1.4G still has significantly more punch, more contrast, and to my eyes a bit more sharpness. My observation was that the 1.8D was quite soft wide open - maybe mine was worse - still quite soft through about f/4 (erasing its speed and subject isolation advantages over a slow zoom), and not very contrasty overall, anywhere in the range. That matters a great deal to me so even at its low price, I didn't think the lens was worth keeping.</p>

<p>By comparison my 16-85 VR was a better lens for almost anything, because I never wanted to use the 50/1.8 wider than f/4, and the 16-85 was sharper and more contrasty/better colors. My 50/1.4D on the other hand was an excellent lens, much like what is shown in that comparo. The 1.4G should be even better - a bit better optically, much nicer focusing thanks to AF-S.</p>

<p>Would I buy the 40/1.5G? Not for DX. Too expensive for me for a focal length I don't use much. Instead I have the 35/1.8G, which I like very much and is cheap (be patient).</p>

<p>My humble .02.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As far as I can read the photozone test for the 3 current nikon 50 mm lenses, for the center part the 1.8 is accually the sharpest of the three. For the border the newer one is marginally sharper at 1580 LW/PH and both af-d lenses are about equal wide open that is.<br>

From f4 and even more 5.6 they all are to be considered equal.<br>

As for vignetting apart from wide open where the AF-s has about 1/2 stop and the others 2/3 of a stop after that at f2 they all are equal.<br>

All in all the common nowledge that only when you abolutely positively need the highest sharpness wide open and every sparkle of light you can get there is no reason to get anything else than the 1.8(other than the possibility of autfocus on the D40/60 class of bodies)<br>

Even on a slowish D80 and in low light (concerts) the 1.8 lens has no problem focusing without hunting.<br>

Erwin</p>

<p>unless you really really need 1.4 or AF-S, i'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to upgrade to the nikkor 50mm G, especially on a DX body. if what you really want is a fast normal prime for DX, why not just get the sigma 30/1.4, which costs about the same as the newer nikon 50?</p>

<p>If you want a 35 f/1.8 and can't find it, why not go for the 35 f/2 ? It's a very decent lens, and not that much more expensive (and cheaper than the Sigma 30 f/1.4 for sure).<br>

So unless you really need 2/3 stops extra at 50mm (which I find a very awkward length on a DX body - not nearly as useful as a 35mm), I'd keep the f/1.8.</p>

<p>>> "Any 50 is not an alternative to the 35. They are two very different lenses!"</p>

<p>In theory, that's very true. The 35 is essentially a normal lens for DX bodies, while the 50 becomes a short tele. There's a perspective difference (relatively minimal). But I don't find either one of the FLs to be superior or more usable than the other. It's trade off. The 35 should be better for candid/indoor/group shots; while the 50 would be far more ideal for head shots: my experience with the 50 1.8 essentially suggests that the 50 on DX is usable for a lot of things. </p>

<br />

>> "Advantage for you? Unless you need the f1.4 and/or the possibility to override focus in the AFS version I would stick with the old and wobbly but cheap AFD f1.8 version.

<br />

And I say this not minding to pay a lot more for a lens if needed :-P (NAS victim)'

<br />

<br />

Walter, you see that the lens I use the most is the 24-70 f/2.8. Aside from the zoom advantage (a range of FL and perspectives to choose from), the lens is also quite sharp wide open. From my experience it's about as good as the 50 1.8 at f/2.8; while the 50 f1.8 is quite bad at f/1.8. At f/1.8, the results are not exactly sharp. So essentially, my 50 1.8's only advantages over the pro zoom are its compact size/light weight and low cost (in case of damage). Meanwhile, the 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't vibrate while focusing (and its AF speed is faster than the 50 1.8), it's weather sealed, its AF works well on the D40 (my 2nd body), seems to have better focus accuracy, and lacks that aperture ring that kept acting up at the worst possible times. Essentially I don't have a lens that performs well at speeds faster than f/2.8.

<br />

Now, I'm looking at the 35 DX (which was cheap enough for me to pull the trigger on it on the spot, but my copy of it was DOA and it has since gone out of stock) and the 50 f/1.4 AF-S. Both of these lenses offer the possibility of producing more usable results than my existing lenses at speeds faster than f/2.8. (f/2.8 is respectably fast, but not fast enough for certain situations)

<br />

<br />

I guess I just want a compact (it will end up on the D40 quite often, as sometimes I can't carry the D300 and 24-70 combo around) normal or shorty tele lens thats provides better results than the 50 1.8 at f/1.8 or faster (down to f/1.4), or be able to produce respectable results at apertures larger than f/2.8.

<br />

<br />

Since I have a motorless body, SWM would be a major plus, if not a must.

<p>

 

 

<br />

 

 

<br>

</p>

<p>shuo, for your purposes, the 35/1.8 would be perfect. but i have to say, having both the 50/1.8 and the 30/1.4, the shorter FL is much more useful on DX IMO.</p>

<p>the 50/1.8 is nice to have for its small size and it's not without utility, but it's not razor-sharp until 2.8 (so it often gets passed up for the tamron 17-50, which is very sharp wide open) and its bokeh can cause shudders.</p>

<p>if i had a FX body, a 50/1.4 would be more appealing to me, but for DX, it looks like there's not too many choices which fit your criteria and will AF on a d40: 30/1.4, 35/1.8, 50/1.4 AF-S, 50/1.4 HSM.</p>

<p>The problem now is that the 35 DX is not really available on the market. Eric, I agree that the wide lens would have better coverage (and is more of an universally useful FL), but the 50 should handle "big noses" and other types of perspective problems better for portraits. </p>

<p>I do have a D300 (aside from the D40), which allows AF with motorless lenses. But the D300 is already too big and heavy for certain situations. So I essentially want a good performing, fast, SWM equipped, and sharp primes lens to go with the D40 (I would be able to take that combo everywhere); meanwhile I also want something that's faster than my 24-70 f/2.8 and gets better results than the 50 f/1.8. (for both the D300 and the D40)</p>

<p>Shuo - been already said above but be VERY careful substituting a 50mm option (however good) in just because the 35mm that you really want isn't immediately available.<br>

On both DX and FX they are <strong>markedly</strong> different focal lengths. And noting that you are a DX shooter, I have both 35/2 and 50/1.4 - and while my 50mm is a good lens when I use it, the 35mm is a hugely more flexible lens for general photography and therefore spends much more time mounted on my camera body than the 50mm does.<br>

Anyway I'm adding myself to those standing by the view that you should first decide clearly what you are making this purchase for and then go for that choice. Compromising just because something else is available is a recipe for dissatisfaction.</p>

<p>Listen to what Bernard says. I've only been playing around with the 35 for a couple days, but have a feeling it may become my most used lens. And the 50 might languish in the bag much of the time. I used to LOVE the 50mm angle of view, and it's nice to have it back again.</p>

<p>But as much as I love my 50 for some things, again... don't compromise... On the other hand, at these prices, buy both!</p>

<p>Bernard definitely has a point. </p>

<p>I visited B&H yesterday, and got to test out the 50 1.4, 35 1.8, and the Sigma 50 1.4. The 35 1.8 seems be very remarkable optically at f/1.8. It's clearly better than the 50 1.8 at f/1.8. </p>