nikon 50mm 1.4 or nikon 50mm 1.8 ???

[lookupinwonder]

I owned both. The f1.8 is sharper.

 

As an available light shooter (concerts) I am going to tell you that half a stop really doesn't matter much. Save yourself a bit of money and get the f1.8. If you later really feel the need for a f1.4, you can always sell it.

 

In my opinion the 50mm f1.8 is the best lens I have ever used for the Nikon system. Strangely enough, it was also the cheapest...

[owen_omeara]

Phoenix>

 

It is. in fact the, Nikkor 50 mm. f/1.4 and I now use it at least twice as often as any other lens I own. Like I said I never

owned the f/1.8 so it is hard to compare. I also have the Nkkor 85mm. but it is the f/1.8 and I love it as well. Both work

beautifully with the DX format and are very sharp and clear. I have heard nothing but good about the f/1.8 version of this

lens as well and for the money it is, no doubt, a great bargain.

 

-Owen

[studor13]

"If the 1-8 is close to this in sharpness, color and clarity,..."

 

Please.

 

At f/3.2 - which is my preferred aperture - the 50mm f/1.4 isn't even close in terms of MTF figures, according to

Photozone.

 

Granted, Owen's shot shows that the lens is good @f/1.8, but I don't even like to shoot the 50mm f/1.8 at f2.5.

If I really wanted to get the bokeh factor kicking in, I prefer the 105mm f/2.5 @f2.8.

 

The only reason that I can think of for paying $200 more than the AFD f/1.8 is if you really need/like to shoot

@f/1.4.<div></div>

[kurt_keener]

If you can wait for the AFS 50mm 1.4 is going to be a good bet if not get the 1.8 its only 100 bucks.

 

I also just baught a d700 the only lens that I have settled on is the 70-200 vr. I would like to round out my bag what other lens have you desided on? 17-35 2.8, 28-70 2.8....

[sven keil]

Price-sharpness relation is better for the AF-50mm/1.8. There is an early AiS version of this lens which still beats the new AF-version in terms of sharpness (according to my experience). If it will be the 50mm/f14, I would wait for the new AFS version and listen what the others say. Although the latter performs excellent on DX (D300 etc), on FX (D3 & D700) you get some light fall off towards the corner. I have experiences with D70s/D700 and all the three mentioned lenses on all bodies. For more details you may take a look at Bjoern's website (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html). You find a resolution figure at http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Ew8i

 

M.

[owen_omeara]

Andy:

 

I agree 100% on the 105 f2.5. It is wonderful.

 

-Owen

[ilkka_nissila]

I really like the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D for pictures from f/2.5 to smaller apertures; great sharpness and contrast. The f/1.4 AF-

D is slightly better than the f/1.8 at wider apertures but inferior at small apertures. The 1.4 AF-D has lower overall contrast and a hood is

more often needed than with the f/1.8, which has a recessed front element.

 

I use the 50/1.4 ZF for low light work, it's a bit sharper than the Nikkor and easier to focus manually. I use the f/1.8 AF-D when I need

autofocus and/or when I really want to minimize the weight in my bag and don't expect to be shooting wide open.

 

A new 50mm f/1.4 AF-S Nikkor has been announced and is expected to be coming out in December. You may want to consider as it

probably autofocuses more accurately and quietly than the AF(-D) versions, and allows easier manual focusing than previous autofocus 50

mm Nikkors. The optics may be improved also, but we don't yet know. Of course, it's more expensive than its predecessors. ;-)

 

Then there are the various manual focus 50mm Nikon lenses which are great mechanically and available readily at low

prices. Someone else can brief on the merits of the various Ai(-S) 50mm Nikkors.

[jwallphoto]

I use an old Ai-S 50/1.4 on my D200 and like to refer to it as my 4x5 lens. ;)

 

FWIW, the new AF-S lens takes 58mm filters vs. 52mm for the older Ai-S version.

[t_c16]

This lens hardly leaves my camera. I've gotten incredible photos from this one small lens with my D200.

Go get it!

[osfania]

I have used just about every 'normal' lens Nikon makes, from the Series E 50/1.8 to the Nikkor 50/1.2, I currently own

and use the 50/1.4AF (not the newer G version).

 

As with most primes, your sweet spot for sharpness is about two stops down from wide open to about f/8. This would

be about f/2.8 to f/8 on the 50/1.4 lens. This matters much more than which lens you choose. This is also why fast

primes are preferable over slower primes. This doesn't seem to matter as much in the pro zooms, but most all lenses

will start to lose shaprness at stops smaller than f/8 due to lens diffraction.

 

If you want killer AF perfomance, buy the new 50/1.4G AF-S. If you want to use this for micro/macro or want killer

bokeh, you may want to consider the Zeiss 50/2 Makro in ZF mount. As a devoted Contax user, even the Zeiss-

branded lenses made by Yashica/Kyocera were unbeatable. I have used the Zeiss 50/2 on a Pentax 14MP camera

and the results were stunning.

 

So here it is: if you want an AF, go with either the new 50/1.4G AF-S; if you want sublime coloration and bokeh, try

either the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 or the ZF 50/2 Makro.

 

Or buy my Nikkor AF 50/1.4 and I will put the money towards the Zeiss! (no kidding, make me an offer)

[asharma]

I have 50mm f1,8, great lens and I am thinking of Carl Zeiss 50mm 1,4. It is manual, but I had heard good thinks about it.

I am planing to use it on D700. Any comments?

[rob_shooter]

<i><b>Moderator's note:</b> Please do <b>not</b> reprint verbatim copyrighted material from other websites here, whether news articles, reviews or advertising copy. You may post a very brief synopsis and a link to the complete text.</i><p><p>

 

For those that may find this of interest I just found this on the Microglobe web site in the UK:<p>

 

http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?pName=nikon-afs-nikkor-50mm-f14g-lens

[andrew_fedon]

Didn't there used to be a 50mm 1.2 Nikkor also ? Real mean looking lens, large front element. I wonder how that would compare, and what ever happened to it anyways ?

[mike_shelley]

Thanks everybody.... I had exactly the same question! I will be off tomorrow to buy the 1.8 ,

I really appreciate the advice of all the experts here.

Never stop shooting the light!

[photo5]

I have been very impressed with the f1.8 50mm Nikkor, in all it's incarnations. I currently own the AI and the AF-D versions.

[mattarlet]

I have the 50 1.8 and I think it's a great lens. I also have the 85 1.8 and I love that one as well. Personally I wouldn't put the extra money into the 1.4, when you can use it towards another lens.

[roger_s]

I too have owned both the 50 mm 1.4 and 1.8

 

There's no correct answer. It depends on how much very low light work you do, such that the miniscule extra speed of the 1.4 is worth it for you.

 

In my case, I used the 50 for environmental portrait work and general photography. Low light work was not critical.

 

I started with the 1.8, and it produced brilliant results. I regret selling it for the 1.4 because the 1.4 was not as sharp or brilliant, and I rarely took advantage of the extra 1.4 speed. I found the 1.4 softer when it is wide open.

[carl_johnson3]

Yes, there is/was a 50mm f1.2 Nikkor Manual Focus. It's still listed as available on the Nikon Usa website. I have it and the 50mm f1.8mm. For all but f1.2 subject isolation the f1.8 is superior.

[mirceaciuca]

Hi

You should take a look on this test.

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

I have both. I love my f/1.8, but the f/1.4 is in test now.

The f/1.2 is wonderfull, if you can life with manual focus. I didnt test this lens, but I read a lot about it. Anyway this lens have different prices.

With f/1.8 I use it beetwen f/2.8-4 where is ok, after f/4 is very sharp. No CA. I prefer sometimes to use a higher ISO and work on f/2.8...

I have also 85/1.8 AF-D. Not impresed about the boken. I have Tamron 90/2.8 who dosent look so good construction or maybe a good lens on other opinion, but I really love this much better than 50/1.8 or 1.4 or 85/1.8...For boken I do love my Tamron 90/2.8 and Nikkor 200/4 IF ED, both macro lenses.

If you want a 50's you could go for f/1.8 and with the difference maybe a 85/1.8 or or something else.

But what for 50mm lens? You want for portrait? Or just because they are /1.8 or /1.4 or you like this focal lengh?

For portrait you can choose: 85/1.4, 105 f/2 DC, 70-200/2.8 VR. Maybe 105/2.5 but manual focus too. If you dont have so much money 50/1.8, 85/1.8 are ok.

I have a question for my self.....why do you want tp get D700...what kind of work? And what is the last Nikon body that you have it or still have it?

Mircea

[stephen_asprey2]

Its only half a stop from 1.8 to 1.4, and the 1.4 distorts wide open. At 1.8 its still not as sharp as the 1.8 is wide open. At 2.8 they are

the same. So unless you absolutely need the extra half a stop, buy the 1.8. I have tried the 1.2 and it was terrible. Read KR's

reviews. The religious here hate him, but I think he tells the brutal truth. If you don't know who KR is email me at

steve1734@yahoo.com.