d90 50mm lens choices

[jack_b1]

<p>I'm considering the purchase of a 50mm Nikon lens for use on my d90, what differences pro and con should be considered before I purchase. Options being considered are the 50 1.8 d, 50 1.4 d, and the 50mm g lens. Other than than the price what are the benefits?</p>

[yann1]

<p>I can speak for the 50mm 1.8 D, it's the one I have and I use quite often on my D90. An excellent lens for an unbeatable price, sweet spot at f5.6 I believe, but check that at 1.8, not bad isn't it ?<br>

The 1.4 is more professional, well built, but I'd rather spend money on something else personally...</p><div></div>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>58mm f1.4 Voigtlander. Personally, i've never liked the 75mm equivalent perspective, always found it a little short. The 58mm, an 85mm equivalent, suites me a lot better.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Question is a bit, where do you want to use the lens for?<br>

Assuming you have a zoom already, are you using 50mm a lot, and if so, for what? These lenses are sufficiently different.<br>

Also, if you come from film, 50mm on the D90 is not your classical 50mm prime. If that's what you are after, the Nikon 35 f/1.8 or Sigma 30 f/1.4 are your best bets.<br>

Personally, I agree with Joseph on the 50mm being a bit short on a DX camera. It falls in between uses.</p>

<p>So, if you really want 50mm, my take on the different versions:<br>

50 f/1.8: cheap, not very good at wide apertures, lots of bang for the bucks. If you shoot landscapes, this is the one to get.<br>

50 f/1.4D: better at wide apertures, better build, nice balance $/€-performance.<br>

50 f/1.4G: better at wide apertures, better build, manual focus override (useful with a fast prime).<br>

Sigma 50 f/1.4: best at wide apertures. If you want it for portraits, I'd check this one.</p>

<p>(<em>mainly drawn from experiences of others on the forum here, I only own the f/1.8 and worked with the f/1.4D on occassions</em>)</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>The 50G and 50 AF-D have more aperture blades for smoother and more circular bokeh, and perhaps slightly less diffraction issues when stopped way down. AF-D probably focuses faster than the 50G, but the 50G focuses more silently and has full time manual focus available (focus clutch mechanism).</p>

<p>The 50 1.8: well it's a lot cheaper. I don't think the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is huge, so having 1.4 available isn't critical.</p>

<p>Don't forget the Sigma 50 1.4 either. (bigger, heavier, looks great on DX cameras, relatively fast focusing compared to the Nikons, autofocus doesn't work in live view for some cameras, great wide open, not so special stopped down).</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 50 is an odd in-between size that I don't mind using on DX for some things, but as a "standard lens" the 35mm f1.8 is almost perfect. That's the one I'd get first. Since I got the 35, I almost never use the 50 at all.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Agree w/Peter. I have the 50/1.8 and the 35/1.8, and I can't remember the last time I used the 50 on DX - but it handles a lot of 35mm film.</p>

<p>But if the 50mm is what you're looking for - well, how much do you want to spend? They're all excellent, each step up in price gets you a bit more usefulness, but for most people I'd say that when in doubt the 1.8 is the way to go. It's a very sharp lens with great color rendition and pretty good bokeh that's cheap and doesn't weigh anything - what's not to like?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>IME you have to look <em>really</em> close to see the difference in IQ between f/1.8 and f/1.4 versions of Nikon's 50mm lenses. Which one is better for you really depends on how much low-light work you envisage doing, because once any of these lenses is stopped down to f/4 or below I would challenge anyone to definitively tell the difference between them at any normal viewing size.</p>

<p>If you're not into low-light work or pixel-peeping, then it really doesn't matter which lens you choose, so you might as well go for the cheapest option. As for the Sigma "looking good" on a DX camera - someone is obviously using their camera the wrong way round. From the viewfinder end you won't really notice much difference! (Now prepare for the barrage of shots showing fairy-lights in the corner of the frame, etc.)</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Dissenting opinion here, if I really had a need to get a good 50mm prime for use on dx, I'd choose sigma's 50/1.4 - the bokeh is to die for. That said, I do use the 50/1.8AF-D on my dx camera for walkaround as a shot tele. Which I hardly ever use. I am not a fan of it's bokeh, but it's very affordable. YMMV, some people are absolutely in love with the 50mm FL on crop, me... not so much.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>Like others have said, I rarely use my 50/1.8 on DX. It's a remarkable little lens and it's hard to argue with the price, but the 75mm equivalent focal length just isn't very useful to me. I also have the 35/1.8 and it's also a great performer. It's usable wide open, although it it has some CA issues that need attention in post processing, and reaches peak performance around f5.6. At around $200, the 35 is also a good bargain considering what you get.</p>

[peter_eisenburger]

<p>It depends on what you do and what you want, also on which lens collection you have got already.<br>

You might want to take a look at this review:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/<br>

The Amazon user reviews are also very helpful.<br>

I just acquired the 50 mm 1.4G. Too early for me to give substantial insight. I still have to find out whether the difficulties to track moving objects and autofocus on them stems from the lenses or from the camera (D90). I nearly suggest, it's the camera, though I use dynamic and continous AF.<br>

The old 50 mm 1.8 AF (no D) was my first Nikon prime at all. You won't be disappointed with that either. I was happy with that lens for 10 years. Alone, look at the price! <br>

The 1.4 G is more professional in many ways, and since I sent back my D7000, I have free money to invest ;)</p>

[mart_e]

<p>I've used the 50mm 1.4 AF-D and the 1.8 AF-D. I had borrowed the 1.8 initially and then decided to go for the 1.4</p>

<p>I've found that the 2 are broadly similar, although the 1.4 IMO has sllightly better bokeh. I also find that each is not at it's best wide open, so the 1.4 is sharper when stopped down at 1.8, and performs with better IQ at 1.8 than the 1.8 does. It also gives me the 1.4 option (which if you;ve never used it before is tight for DOF you're talking a DOF almost paper thin.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>I am alone, it appears -- I love the 50/1.4D on my D300. I like it much more than than the 35mm at the moment; I've had amazing flings with that lens too though, so I won't write her off.....</p>

<p>With the two samples I have the 1.4D is sharper than the 1.8D at the lower apertures. By F5.6 they're indistinguishable. However as you can see from yann's shot, that just might be my samples, and the 1.8D is no slouch. </p>

<p>People who have the Sigma love it.</p>

<p>Finally, you can compare test results on all these lenses at DXO Mark (google it) under their 'compare lenses" function. As I recollect the new Nikon AF-S 50 doesn't do as well as the earlier AF-D's or as the Sigma. Use the chart for your camera the D90 -- it will default to D3x and while the relative performances don't change that much you might as well get the results that pertain most to your camera.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i really like the d90+35/1.8 combo. i have the 50/1.8 too but i don't use it as much, for all the reasons others have noted.if you want good bokeh, you're better off with the sigma 30/1.4 and/or 50/1.4.</p>

[mark_mitchell5]

<p>Just my 0.02 worth, but I have the 50 1.8D and love it. Many years ago I had a Leica M4-2 and an M4-P with a 75mm and this combination reminds much of that old Leica. The 50 1.4 probably is better, but for the price, which is cheap, I can live with the build quality (which I find ok) and I personally like the bokeh it produces.</p>

[hugo_laporte]

<p>The f/1.8 is great for its price, but the AF 1.4 can be bought for under 300$ new now, so I would definitely get it instead if money wasn't too much of a problem, because of the superior IQ, build quality and maximum aperture.<br>

Still the 1.8 is a great choice, I've used it a year on DX and no complains. Also, if you plan on using it on film or FX format, the 1.8 is very soft in sides and corners.</p>

[bikealps]

<p>I have the 50 f1.8 lens. For 2+ years it has been my most used lens. It's been great for people and portraits. It's dirt cheap and very sharp. Many people claim bokeh is better on the 1.4 lens. Maybe it is, but I never had a problem with bokeh on the 50 1.8.<br>

Now that I have the 24-70 f2.8 lens, I don't use the 50 f1.8 much, but still carry it. The 24-70 does seem to have better bokeh, but what I really love is the zoom flexibility which makes it easier to work faster with people and get the shot.<br>

I'm shooting DX, on a D90. When I upgrade to FX next year, I'll probably stop carrying the 50 1.8 because all my lenses will be effectively a stop faster for both d-o-f and light gathering, and I don't use a "normal" length much.<br>

Whenm I shot film (full-frame) I had a 28, 50, 105, and 300. The 105 was probably my most used length for both macro and portrait/people. On DX, 50 is a good people/portrait lens, but it won't be as useable for me on FX. When I need low light, I generally also need a long lens, and the 70-200 VR2 will do the job. VR makes a huge difference in low light.<br>

I recommend the 50 f1.8 highly.</p>

[silverfox]

<p>I also agree with Peter and the others, the DX 35mm 1.8 is a good lens and pretty cheap, That will behave more as a standard lens, (if thats what you are after). I also use it on the D90. The 50mm range on a DX is pretty good for portraits.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>I guess I'm that other guy that likes the 58/1.4. It's good as a short-tele and for head and shoulders shots. But getting that perfect focus is tough (even on a D200) and it's easy to get color fringing (green/purple) at wide apertures. I've got a 50/1.8E and don't particularly like it (focal length, handling, or bokeh). I've tried the 1.8 AF-D and it's decent, but yeah, lousy bokeh and screwdriver AF.</p>

<p>I like 30 or 35 as a normal lens on DX cameras. If you can put up with the Sigma build quality and quality control, it is capable of producing nice images. Otherwise you've got the Nikon with ugly bokeh or the super mondo expensive Nikon to choose from.</p>

[michael_s10]

<p>I have the 35 1.8, 50 1.4D, 85 1.8 and 105 2.8. For shooting people, the 50 and 105 get the most use. The 35 and 85 have not been on my camera for a year. I used to use the 85 all the time - but the 105 works much better for tight head shots.<br>

This is all on a d90.</p>