Is there an image quality difference between the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D and the 50mm f/1.4G?

<p>Is there a difference in image quality between the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D and the 50mm f/1.4G?</p>

<p>Are there any limitations when using a f/1.4D on a Nikon D50?</p>

<p>Not really. They're very similar lenses, and they'll both work just fine on your D50. Ironically, the newer AF-S "G" version may actually focus more slowly than the screw-driven "D" version. Depends a bit on the body you're using - I don't know how torquey the D50's AF motor is. <br /><br />In practical terms, you may prefer the <em>quieter</em> AF behavior of the G vs. the mechanical noises made by the D. In some very quiet settings (say, during a wedding ceremony), those screw-driven lenses can sound like a small kitchen appliance. The G lens will seem essentially silent, by comparison, just like Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM, which is the other important contender in this category.</p>

<p>Dpreview did a review on both of these lens. Check them out. IMHO, I think folks here who own the 50/1.4D may think the improvement at large aperture worth the switching trouble. At least that is true for me. You may not get much subjective 1st person reviews.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=53,28&fullscreen=true&av=1,1&fl=50,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=53,28&fullscreen=true&av=1,1&fl=50,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4</a></p>

<p>I did not used 50 /1.4 D but I'm not very impressed by the G version. It is definitely a good lens but does not show anything special to me... not like the 50/1.4 from Sigma or that Nikon 50/1.2 AIS.</p>

<p>Regarding your question... maybe is helpful to read the reviews of the two lenses on photozone.de which is also a reliable source of information.</p>

<p>Photozone "highly recommend" both versions and in the verdict of the G version they say:</p>

<p>"For most applications the silent wave AF drive is fast enough. Combined with the high build quality this results in an attractive package that might not necessarily tempt those who already own the older AF-D 50/1.4 lens, but probably all others looking for a fast standard prime. Highly recommended!" </p>

<p>I had them both but kept the AF-D version. The G version is slightly better in terms of overall IQ, although one might find the bokeh a bit harsh below F/2. Now this "slighly better" might not be relevant in day to day usage. However when it comes down to focus performance the "D" version appears to be notably better, especially in low light.<br>

I would definitely not put my money on the Sigma since it is well known to be slightly worse for edge-to-edge general use; compared to the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G AF-S the Sigma is less sharp wide open in the center, about as sharp at f/5.6, but in the corners the Sigma never matches the Nikkor, always trailing a bit behind it. On the other hand the Sigma seems faster when talking about the focus speed. Sigma is well renowned for their ability to manufacture identical products but with varying levels of quality. The probability of getting a lens that yields an adequate result is as high as the probability of getting a lens that fails to perform properly. Sigma has yet to polish their manufacturing process, issues like failed- focus, back/ front-focus , needs to be addressed.<br>

<br />

 

</p>

<p>I prefer the f1.8 AF-D 50mm over the f1.4D version. What makes you think you need f1.4? Have you used the f1.8 version and found it doesn't work for you?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>compared to the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G AF-S the Sigma is less sharp wide open in the center,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is not ture. According to dpreview, the reverse is true. The Sigma is best appreciated for photographing people when corner performance is not critical and when creamy bokeh is highly desirable, which the Sigma is much much better.</p>

<p>Indeed, Janos - you've got that backwards. The Sigma is better behaved, wide open, than is the Nikon. It has less distortion, focuses faster, and has much better looking bokeh if you care about that sort of thing. It's something buy specifically <em>because</em> you want to shoot with it not stopped down. For lots of stopped-down shooting, the Nikon is the better choice.</p>

<p>Thank you guys for your comments. I really appreciate the fact you want to get it right so the reader has the information at its best. Let's suppose for a moment we put aside my experience with the 3 lenses.<br />But then please allow me to quote some lines from Thom Hogan's review, whose character for me is beyond reproach.<br />Allow me to quote:<br />"<em>Sharpness</em>: Like the new Nikkor it competes against, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM doesn't knock the ball out of the park. Indeed, looking at test results and images gave me a bit of deja vu. On DX cameras the corners were visibly softer at f/1.4 and the center wasn't pushing what the D300 could resolve. I had to stop down to f/5.6 to get the best possible results from both center and corner.<br />......................................................................<br />On the other hand, the corners never quite come up to excellent levels, always being significantly softer than the center. On FX bodies the problems with the corners are just amplified. I'd say corners are decidedly poor at f/1.4 on the D3x, but then, what exactly are we expecting here?<br />............<br />Compared to the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G AF-S the Sigma is less sharp wide open in the center, about as sharp at f/5.6. But the Sigma ramps faster from the poor f/1.4 results to the good f/5.6 results.<br />....<br />In the corners, the Sigma never matches the Nikkor, always trailing a bit behind it. The Nikkor manages to get good results at f/5.6, but the Sigma still has low contrast and a bit more blur. "<br />end quote<br />Please check it out for yourselves at: <a href="http://bythom.com/Sigma-50-HSM-lensreview.htm">http://bythom.com/Sigma-50-HSM-lensreview.htm</a><br />So at the end of the day it is a matter of preference. I vote for the Nikkor 1.4 (AF-D).<br>

Appologies for the inconvenience.</p>

<p>It's no inconvenience, Janos. I was speaking from personal experience when I referred to the Nikon 50/1.4 G and the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM. I've used both, and kept the Sigma for the exact reasons I cited. I wanted a lens in that class specifically to shoot it wide open or close wide open. It focuses more quickly, it has less distortion, and renders OoF backgrounds much more appealingly than its Nikon counterpart. I love Nikon lenses, usually, but this one was a qualitative, hands-on easy decision.</p>

<p>I fully agree with Matt. For a pixel peeper Sigma may not be the lens he need but in the real world the images coming from this lens offers a look&feel that's special and desirable. Nikon versions gives technical correct images but without this special character. </p>

<p>I think the basis for a decision re the sigma is not preference, its usage. Mine is used primarily wide open for portraits for the sweet bokeh. For $80 more a few years ago, If I want an environmental shot extremely sharp from edge to edge, I have the 1.8 and its killer at 5.6, 8 where I tend to be for such shots. It lacks the pleasing bokeh but it matters less because I am looking for deep dof. </p>

<p>I agree with you the Sigma is the best out of the 3 for portraits.<br />I use for portraits the Nikkor 85/1.4 (cream machine) or the Nikkor 70-200mm, since 50mm in my view, is a bit short on my D3. I prefer them on my D300 as well as I do not like to sit on the top of my model's head, and like to give them some room to breath. This way I do get better results.<br />But I think we are going slightly off topic as the OP wanted feedback on the Nikkor 50mm's.</p>

<p>Thank You.</p>