Is the Nikon AF 50mm F/1.4 as bad as they say?

[jdrose]

Hello,

 

I am looking to get a prime for my D50 in the 80mm area. 75mm is just fine.

 

I have been looking at the reviews of the Nikon AF 50mm F/1.4 and many

writers are complaining about the chinese build, terrible flare, and sub-par

softness at wide-open. Is it really that bad? It is only $100 more used than

the 50mm F/1.8. Should I spend the extra coin and see for myself?

[roger_s]

In terms of AI-S versions, I started with the 50/1.8, and it gave brilliant sharp contrasty results. Then I was sucked in by NAS (Nikon Aquisition Syndrome) and thought that the 1.4 would be better -- after all, it appears on all their brochures. So I sold the 1.8 and got the 1.4. Never was happy with it. I really suggest going with the 1.8. After all, it is only a half-stop faster at widest aperture, which is really nothing, in most situations. Even in low light, with DSLR, you can compensate by shooting at a higher ISO, so in my view the half-stop extra a widest aperture is not worth it.

[User_276104]

You really can't go wrong with the 50mm f/1.8 (D or non-D) for a lot less.

 

I bought an MF 50mm f/1.4 years ago and was always happy with it, but just recently bought a used AF 50mm f/1.8 (non-D) for $50 and it is noticeably sharper/cleaner/etc. on my D-SLR than other lenses.

 

My recommendation is to save the $$$ for something else and get the less expensive f/1.8.

[charles_miller]

JD,

 

Who are "they"?

 

"They" used to complain about the build quality of the 50mm f1.8 AF models, and praise the f1.4 AF models. It is possible that lenses made anywhere could have quality control problems. But it is hard to believe that a people who build "Think Pads" couldn't assemble a camera lens properly.

 

You probably should look at Bjorn Rorslett's web page and peruse his lens ratings before you decide.

[oliver pera]

JD, I love mine being sharp from 2.8 on and being sharp enough at 1.4. I use it very often in low light at 1.4 and if the focus is dead on, the image characteristics are all I want. Contrast is quite low at 1.4, but in an indoor situation with low light it works for me and renders the skin tones very nicely. More important for me is that ghosting rarely occurred, shooting against light sources in a room never produced ghost lights as it did with other lenses. Color characteristics are very pleasing for me. It is one of my favorite and most used lenses, I even prefer it to my 50 1.4 Summilux (pre-Asph) for my Leica M.

[Karim Ghantous]

It's true that this lens is not sharp or contrasty wide-open. But the results are beautiful, just beautiful, especially in natural light portraits. I love this lens!

 

Funnily enough the results I don't like are the sharp, contrasty results when you stop down. Why? Because the aperture isn't nearly circular and out-of-focus point sources become geometric shapes. I don't like that.

[Peter_in_PA]

I have the 1.8. It's excellent. I've used the 1.4. It's excellent.

 

Is it as "bad" as they say.

 

Check out http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html

 

Bjorn says both of these lenses are pretty much ideal, I think. They're probably as bad as he

says... meaning good, great... excellent...

[cliff_lesergent]

"<i>I have been looking at the reviews of the Nikon AF 50mm F/1.4 and many writers are complaining about the chinese build, terrible flare, and sub-par softness at wide-open. Is it really that bad?</i>"<p>

You can safely ignore these "reviews" - they're written by people who have obviously never seen or used the lens.

[louise1]

I have the Nikon AF 50mm F/1.4 and I love it. Images are crisp, sharp and rich. It was a

recent purchase and I'm glad I bought it. Although, I tested both lenses at the store, and

thought the 1:8 was perfectly great. I bought the 1:4 and haven't really looked back. I

haven't noticed any terrible flare yet. And to be honest I haven't found a need to shoot

wide open yet.

 

I looked at a lot of comparison images and saw that the bokeh on the 1:4 was more

beautiful than on the 1:8, and I liked that. Ken Rockwell has a decent review here http://

www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/bokeh.htm

[ellis_vener_photography]

I just finished using one for a month with a D2Xs. It is a fine lens.

[mark pav]

I have the 50mm f1.4D and it's probably my sharpest lens. Stopped down to just f2 gives amazingly sharp portraits. However, it's slow and noisy when focusing compared to my AF-S lenses, but there's really nothing out there that I know of that would replace it and be better.

[wj_lee]

There is a good comparison:

 

http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/50mm_vs_50mm

50mm f1.8 vs 50mm f1.4 Nikkors Photo Gallery by Miljenko Devcic at pbase.com

 

I don't think 1.4 is worse than 1.8, just that it cost twice as much and people are expecting twice the performance. But really you are paying more for a faster lens.

[robert_finkelman]

Those who say that the 1.8 is superior to the 1.4 are generally people who cannot or would not pay for the 1.4. Though it is safe to say that the 1.4 does not deliver twice the performance of the 1.8, thus not really justifying twice the price, I can assure you that the 1.4 is indeed the superior lens.

 

As far as build quality is concered, the 1.8 is the cheapest piece of crap in the entire Nikkor line-up, with the entire unit, save for the lens-mount, being low quality plastic. It even lacks a focusing window.

 

Even though the 1.8 is a remarkably good lens for the money, there is a reason why it is the cheapest lens Nikon offers. Don't believe the hype, the 1.4 is the better lens.

 

Rob

[therion256]

I upgraded from the AF50 f/1.8D (made in China) to the AF50 f/1.4 (non-D, made in Japan) and so far I'm quite pleased with the change. It's definitely not "twice the performance." From what I see in my shots so far, the images are at least on par with the 1.8 version...and of course you get the extra 2/3 stop for more available-light photos.

 

I didn't like the build quality of the 1.8 at all...I felt like I could crush it in my hand without much effort. However that "crushable" 1.8 lens put out some very fantastic images on the D200. It's great as a starter lens or even for some professional uses. Definitely an awesome "bang-for-the-buck" factor.

 

If build quality really matters, there are always the AI(s) versions of the lenses if you're willing to manually focus and have good enough eyes for that sort of thing. The 1.4 is of good build quality, though not an all-metal barrel like the AI-s versions.

 

Those who complain about softness of the f/1.4 may have gotten a bad sample...see Bjorn's reviews of the various "50's" at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html

[bernard_korites]

I have the 50/1.8, the 50/1.4 and the 45/2.8. I use the 50/1.8 indoors as my available light lens and it gives great results. I tested the 50/1.8 against the 45/2.8 and found the 45/2.8 to be far superior to the 50/1.8 in term of color and contrast so now I use the 45/2.8 as my outdoor lens. The 50/1.8 sits on the shelf.

[therion256]

Hi Bernard:

You said nothing of what you do with the 50 f/1.4 lens...I hope it's not sitting on a shelf also...

[mars790]

i agree with many of the posts, especially Robert F.'s views on the subject.

 

if, like me, you like to shoot 1.4 - 2.8 to get smooth and creamy bokeh (the background

blur of colors and those - hopefully- pleasing circles of light - go with the 1.4. i tested

these lenses out, mostly to compare the bokeh of each, and it was a clear choice. they're

both sharp as stated above, so this was a deciding factor. the build quality sealed the deal.

 

i just picked up the 85 1.4D, one of Nikon's best lenses for bokeh, but i won't hesitate to

use my 50 1.4 when needed.

[jeff h.]

I have a Nikkor 50/1.4D that I love so much I call it my most treasured (Nikon) lens, not

for its price but for the images I've gotten with it. When I go back through my albums and

see a photo that really brings back memories or emotionally resonates with me, it was

most likely taken in low (ambient) lighting on my 50/1.4D.

 

I started out with a Nikkor 50/1.8 (AF, non-D, this was before there was a 1.8D) and did

not like it: marginal build quality, crummy fondling characteristics, and I wasn't getting

shutter speeds or results I could live with in low light situations. It was sharp when lighting

was good, but the results were just not making me happy. I got rid of my 50/1.8.AF. Then

I found a 1.4D (made in Japan), didn't hesitate a moment to buy it, and I couldn't be more

pleased with it. "They" bemoan the terrible bokeh of the 1.4 compared to the 1.8, but I've

always thought that the bokeh looks pretty nice on this lens (but hey, in the interest of full

disclosure, I also tolerate the bokeh on my 500/8 mirror lens).

 

I also have the 45/2.8P and love it for its compact size and the images I get in close to

medium range photos (where the Tessar design really shines), but it is a full two stops

slower, so it's nowhere near as capable (or easy to manually focus) as the 1.4 (or 1.8) in

low light.

 

If you are receptive to the perspective of a 75mm lens (50mm on a D50), then I

wholeheartedly recommend that you get the Nikkor 50/1.4D lens and enjoy the beautiful

images it creates.

[bernard_korites]

Kevin-

 

Re "I use the 50/1.8 indoors as my available light lens ...."

 

Sorry, that should have been 50/1.4. At my age I get a little confused sometimes.

[gaius1]

<a href="http://www.grh-photo.com/14-OCT-2006/">Some pictures from the weekend</a> with this lens, on TMZ. It is far from the most expensive of my lenses, but it is the one I use most. If gives me the images I want in situations that other lenses can't, I couldn't ask for more than that!

[bernard_korites]

Guy-

 

Those are great pictures. Who cares what lens was used, it's the content that matters.

[janvanlaethem]

"As far as build quality is concered, the 1.8 is the cheapest piece of crap in the entire Nikkor line-up, with the entire unit, save for the lens-mount, being low quality plastic. It even lacks a focusing window. Even though the 1.8 is a remarkably good lens for the money, there is a reason why it is the cheapest lens Nikon offers."

 

I have the early 50mm f/1.8 AF, the one with a really thin focusing ring, which I bought new with my F801 back in 1989. Remember those days when camera bodies came with a 50mm prime lens? That was long before the introduction of D-lenses. Incidentally, I recall the 50mm f/1.8 to co-exist for quite some time together with several AF-D primes, before it finally got its D-version.

 

Granted, it is one of the cheapest standard lenses on offer, but I believe this is due to the lens design itself. I would have to dig up the little instruction book that came with the lens to find out, but I don't think there are that many glass elements in what is a very simple and straightforward design. The more glass elements and the wider the aperture, the more difficult and expensive it gets to produce a lens. After using the f/1.2 AIS for a while, I'm always surprised at how light and small the f/1.8 is in comparison.

 

I can't comment on the construction of the later 50mm f/1.8 AF and AF-D lenses, as I haven't used these. But I must say my 50mm is a very sharp lens, that gets a lot of use when I want to travel light, normally in a two lens set up, together with a 24mm. It's a great lens for outdoor shots in good light.

[john schroeder]

I have had the 50mm f1.4 for years and am very happy with it. It is perfectly sharp when stopped down. Build quality is fine and I have never had a problem with flare. Having said all that the f1.8 is a better value. The extra 1/2 stop isn't worth the extra $200.00.

[hique]

Thats pure bullshit.

 

If a 50mm 1.4 is not good so almost anything is good.

 

Softness and flare wide-open? Of course...we can always expect some at 1.4. How many 1.4 lenses are tack sharp at 1.4 with no flare?

 

The 1.8 version is also very good. Both are excelent. If you get any, you will have better photos than using a zoom.

 

You won't regret.

 

Ps: Chinese build means nothing. EVERYTHING is asian-built today :)

[ruslan]

The matter is that 50/1.4 is FF lens. If used on DX sensor, it decreases its resulution by approx. 40%. Big part of the image does not reach the sensor. Do not sell it - wait for FF digital body by Nikon. On FF it is an excellent, very crisp lens. I would not use ANY FF lens on DX sensor, because of above - mentioned. My 50/1.4 (non D version) is MADE IN JAPAN. ) I got it absolutely new. The previous owner was a zoom-geek. See the bridal portait from Bob Atkins article about Canon EOS 30D (with 50/1.4, full res) - very soft at 2.8. I printed it in pro lab. My film pictures at 2.8 (Nikkor 50/1.4) is much sharper.