50mm1.4 vs 1.8 conclusion

[rjacksonphoto]

I have the 50 f/1.8 AF-D, the 50mm f/1.4 Ais, the 35mm f/2 AF-D and Ais, and the 35mm f/1.4 Ais, all Nikkors. I'm leaving at 5 AM for 10 days in Kauai. What's in the bag for low light with my D200? The Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's a chunk of glass but produces really nice images.

[robert_marotz]

Lots of variation from person to person. I've used or owned most of the 50s and now own an old AIS 50/1.8, an AI 50/2, and I just recently purchased another 50/1.8D.

 

In my experience, there's not a whole lot in it. My 50/1.8D was sharper than the 50/1.4 and the colors warmer than the 50/1.4, the older slow 50s, and the 45/2.8p. Edge performance was ho-hum until f/2.8, which I can live with.

 

When I picked up a new F100, I debated for about 2 minutes about which normal lens I should get for it. I *could* have gotten the 50/1.4 or the 45/2.8, but I got another 50/1.8. Why? Because I don't care much about the insignificant differences between them, and rather enjoy the humble 50/1.8's character versatility. Although I used to scoff at the plastic construction...they've proven more durable than most of my all-metal manual lenses, so now I appreciate them a bit more.

 

The 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 45/2.8 all have weaker contrast and sharpness, harsh "bokeh", and some degree of light falloff wide-open. The contrast and sharpness goes up, "bokeh" gets smoother, and light falloff disappears a stop or two down. In my opinion, the lenses have more similarities than differences, and the price is not an indicator of optical qualities.