Nikon 50mm 1.8 vs 1.4

[eajames]

I've found that I use a 50mm equivalent on 4X5 for landscapes far more than any other

lens - I was surprised to discover this. Yes, the 55mm Micro is a great all-around lens -

my current preferred dSLR kit includes the 14-24, 35mm f1.4, the 55mm 2,8 Micro, and

the 70-200mm VR. I'm not sure that touting the 55mm MIcro is useful to the OP but it my

be a good option for some. I believe that they are still available new for under $400.

 

Oskar's comments are quite useful - his synopsis sums up what I've gleaned from reports

and photo.net threads. It doesn't make the decision much easier. Oskar: do you think

that the 1.4 has a bokeh advantage over the 1.8?

[nickc1]

Never used a 1.8, but as I have a D40x I can't take advantage of AF-D and AI(s) anyway so I bought a pre AI 50 1.4. Great lens - costwise 49 GBP retail and I could have had the 1.8 for 39 GBP (about 100 USD and 80 USD) - Makes you think doesn't it! On the F2 and F3 I usually use a handheld meter, and focus manually, so no difference. On the D40x the focus assist helps, but at f1.4 the finder is bright enough to be perfectly useable.

[nickc1]

Ought to have added; I bought the lens for the film cameras, but only afterwards thought 'Oh, that will fit on the D40x too!" Dohh!

[ronald_moravec1]

The focus screens in todays camera do not make a brighter image with a lens faster than 2.8.

 

1.4 have less quality than the 1.8 at stops to 2.8 or 4.0 where they even out.

 

So unless you really need 1.4 over 1.8, save the money.

[oskar_ojala]

<i>do you think that the 1.4 has a bokeh advantage over the 1.8?</i>

 

<p>Hard to say...I mostly use the 1.4 and I'm not thrilled about its bokeh, but when stopped down a bit the bokeh becomes acceptable. There was a nice article about this somewhere, but I forget where it is. In my view the 1.8 is pretty much the same, neither one is that exciting in terms of bokeh. It's best to compare shots of each available, but note the aperture used.

 

<p>If bokeh is a strong consideration, then the 45/2.8 or 50/1.2 are strong candidates, but they're a bit more special in many ways.

[cmulcahy]

50mm 1.4

 

at f/1.6 ISO 320

http://www.photo.net/photo/6801673

 

at f/2 ISO 800

http://www.photo.net/photo/7029697

 

at f/2.5 ISO 320

http://www.photo.net/photo/7038309

 

 

Are there two lenses that get compared more to each other then these two? It's funny.

[mathew_chandler]

<p>It is amazing that all of these answers came within 1 day and 30 minutes. lol.</p>

<p>Well, over a year later, I'm not sure if anyone will respond, but what would the consensus be? It sounds like its split half and half. But let me try to sum up the article, and as I'm amateur at best, please feel free to correct me.</p>

<p>-The 1.4 is sharper from 1.4-2.8? And after that the 1.8 is slightly sharper?<br>

-They have about equal bokeh, but the 1.8 may be slightly better?<br>

-Large benefit of the 1.4 would be night shooting? But how much better? If considering the AF-S 1.4, is it $300 better?<br>

-One last stab at a clean conclusion would be awesome. Thanks guys.</p>