Nikkor 50mm/1.8D or the 50mm/1.4D

im looking to get a 50mm lens cause i dont have one. can someone

explain to me the main differences between these 2 other then price.

what makes teh 1.4D cost almost 200$ more?

You're getting one because you don't have one.

But do you really need one then?

 

The 1.8 is actually sharper at 1.8 than the 1.4 is at 1.4.

So I really don't know why the 1.4 is more expensive.

 

If what you really need is a general purpose lens, I

have a personal preference for the 35 f/2. My normal

perspective lens is the 85. If you need something

inexpensive and fast for available light, get the 50 f/1.8.

well i guess i woudl LIKE it more then i technically NEED it but i take alot of nature shots and i want a good sharp lens with a good field of view and a friends dad who used to be a professional photographer recomended that i get a 50mm lens so i figured id look into it.

Hi Adam,

 

If your camera can meter with Ais lenses, why not try the 50/1.8 Ais?

 

I'm in the market for one as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Al

If it turns out you particularly don't use the 50mm that much, then having a $100 lens sitting in your bag isn't as bad as have a $200-$300 dollar lens sitting in your bag 8)

 

I used the 1.4D and the 1.8D for a short period on the D100. Personally I thought the 1.8 gave better saturation and contrast at the same settings compared to the 1.4. It also looked a wee bit sharper from f4-f5.6 and down. I would say you couldn't ever regret spending $100 on a 1.8.

thats a good point Matt 100$ isnt that bad if it goes unused

 

and Al is there a signifigant diff between teh 1.8D and 1.8ais that i shoudl know about

Adam, the lack of depth of field at f1.4 can be a great tool for interesting shots. Whether you use it a lot under this circumstance, or need the 1.4 for low light shooting, well that's up to you. My guess is that you wont even ever wish you had a 1.4 once you're shooting the 1.8

I had the 1.4D for a few years. It was a nice lens but do to a bit of softness at 1.4 I sold it. Now I use the 1.8D and for my money it is sharper. Unless you need an f-stop of 1.4, save the money and get the 1.8D. After you see the results you will be glad you did.

1.8D is excellent.

Adam,

 

I have no qualms about getting the AF50/1.8 as opposed to the AF50/1.4 due to the price/performance ratio; the 1.4 just can't do enough to justify my spending more on it.

 

Between the AF50/1.8 and the 50/1.8 Ais, I'd prefer the latter. Reason being that the AF version is really plasticky and rumour has it that it isn't made in Japan (I heard it's assembled in Thailand). Some has said that the 50/1.8 Ais performs better than the AF version. Personally, I prefer the feel and build of metal barrel and from where I reside, the price difference between the two is less than USD20.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Al

(NT)

Adam, pardon that last fragment

The f/1.4 seems to have an image circle problem at some apertures. (if you use a "full frame" camera" -- do we have to say that these days - doh ;-) Get the f/1.8 - great lens, great price

<em>"The 1.8 is actually sharper at 1.8 than the 1.4 is

at 1.4. So I really don't know why the 1.4 is more expensive."

--Steve QL<br>

</em><br>

The primary advantage of the 50/1.8 will be at f/1.8 to f/2.8, at

close focus distance and the 50/1.8 lacks linear distortion while

the 50/1.4 has some barrel distortion.<br>

<br>

The bigger optics are more expensive to make. Faster lenses are

more likely to have internal flare wide open costing contrast,

resolution and color saturation when wide open. There is no sense

to buying the 50/1.4 unless you are going to shoot it wide open.

Neither lens is a slouch from f/4.0 to f/11. If you sometimes

need the f/1.4 and sometimes want the better image quality it

makes good sense to own both.<br>

<br>

I paid $50.00 for my 50/1.8 AI and $89.00 for my 50/1.4 AIS, both

near mint, used. I also have a AF 50/1.8, also bought used. The

50mm is about the longest lens I can hand hold in really low

light. I like to have at least one of these with me at all times.

If the ambient light is attractive but low with one of these I

dont need to use flash as soon.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave.

"The 1.8 is actually sharper at 1.8 than the 1.4 is at 1.4. So I really don't know why the 1.4 is more expensive."

 

I wonder how the 50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.8 would fare against the 50mm f/1.8 wide open. I think that might be one reason why it is more expensive. David Hartman gives some other valid reasons as well.

 

IMO, the wider lenses of course don't do miracles wide open, but they aren't all too bad when they are stopped down a bit, and in some cases they have an advantage at some of the wider apertures than some of their slightly slower cousins.

There is rarely a use for 1.4 anyway. Get the 1.8 and spend the difference on something else. For the record, it's made in China, but, it doesn't look any less solid than Nikon's other AF lenses that say "Made in Japan". In fact, the one I have seems tighter than some of the Japan-made lenses (no play at all when I pull on the focus ring). It IS very sharp, and it autofocuses instantly. In the days when a 50mm was all I had, I used to think that this was the single most uninteresting focal length. Now, it's the one I use the most, despite it being by far the cheapest lens in my bag.

Funny, I think my 50/1.4 is sharper at f/2 and f/2.8 than the 50/1.8. The 50/1.8 is sharper at close distances, and from f/4 to f/8. It's also more contrasty.

 

The f/1.4 is meant for low-light photography while the f/1.8 is a general-purpose lens.

Basically, IMHO, it all boils down to whether or not you think you'll need that extra fraction of a stop that the f/1.4 offers. If you think that you'll do enough low-light shooting or will be shooting wide open to decrease DOF often enough, then you'll definitely want the f/1.4 verion. If not, then you'll be happy with the f/1.8 version and have some extra cash to spend on film. I currently have the f/1.8 verion and am going to be picking up the f/1.4 version for low-light shooting, and I expect to be plenty pleased with it's performance.

 

In terms of comparative sharpness, from what I gather, at f/1.8 the f/1.8 version is a little sharper than the f/1.4 version is, and that the f/1.4 version catches up at either f/2.8 or f/4. From there on, it's pretty much a dead heat. But keep in mind that if you're shooting at f/1.4 or f/2, though, image sharpness is obviously not your main concern (otherwise you'd use a tripod and stop down to increase sharpness) and enough of your image will be out of focus that a tiny bit of softness shouldn't really be a problem.

 

And, on a related note, it's worth taking the time to mention that not only does the f/1.4 let you throw more of the image out of focus, the bokeh (that is, the appearance of the out of focus elements) is markedly nicer on the f/1.4 version throughout the range.

 

If you mostly shoot landscapes or architecture, I'd imagine that the f/1.8 would be the way to go for you, as it's cheaper, lighter, and you aren't likely to be doing too much shooting at f/1.4. If you mostly prefer low-light and people photography, then you would probably be very happy with the f/1.4.