Nikon 50mm 1.4AFG- Is it worth the upgrade?

[leonard_forte2]

I have a nikon 50mm 1.4 afd and would like to get the 50mm afg. Wuld the upgrade be worth the prce? Will I really notoce any difference,

particularly wide open? Thanks

[istvan_l_rincz]

<p>I have the af-s 50/1.4 and I am really satisfied with it. The big difference will be the fast Silent Wave motor that focus faster than the older mechanical lens. The lens feels a bit plastic what I not really like but the quality and bokeh is fantastic. I would buy it again.</p>

[leonard_forte2]

What I dont like about the 50mm afd is the wobbly barrel. I read that its not wobbly on the afg.

[michael_bradtke]

<p>You might like to take a look at this<br>

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/04/round-which-nikon-50mm-lens-should-i-buy<br>

When I was looking for a AFS 50 I ended up with the 1.8. I was looking for faster AF and the 1.8 does better then the 1.4</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>50mm is one of my favorite's focal lengths an I tested many lenses. IMHO without to go on the exotic expensive side, the three best lenses are:<br>

Sigma 50/1.4 - best for portraiture and for use at f/1.4 - f/2.8<br>

Nikon 50/1.8 AF-S - best all-around lens <br>

Nikon 50/1.2 AI-S - very nice character in low light, especially at f/2 - f/2.8<br>

Strictly between 50/1.4 G and 50/1.8 G I'll pick the later at any time. Faster AF, pleasant bokeh, less expensive. </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Mihai<br>

If you can get hold of one you might really like the Nikon 50mm f/2. Of all the 50's I own it is the sharpest of the bunch wide open. Its a small well built lens that will surprise you.<br>

And just so you know what I have to compare it against I have in order of sppe.<br>

50mm f/1.2 AI-S<br>

55mm f/1.2 AI-ed<br>

50mm f/1.4 pre AI<br>

50mm f/1.4 AFD<br>

50mm f/1.8 AI<br>

50mm f/1.8 AFD<br>

50mm f/1.8 G <br>

50mm f/2 AI<br>

55mm f/2.8 Micro AI-S<br>

60mm f/2.8 AFD</p>

<p>You might say I have a thing for lenses in that focal length.</p>

<p> </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Wow Michael! I considered that I have a bunch of 50's, feeling guilty... but looking at your list I start to feel better. Honestly I was looking for a 50/2 but I had no chance yet to add it to my huge stable with this FOV... Apart of the three lenses I listed above I have between 40 and 60mm probably half from the total number of lenses I own :) Here is a draft from my memory:<br>

CV 40/2<br>

Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P - a stunning little performer even on D800<br>

50/1.8 AI "long nose"<br>

50/1.8 AI-S <br>

Zeiss 50/2 MP<br>

C/Y 50/1.8 Leitaxed<br>

55/1.2 AI<br>

58/1.2 AI-S<br>

CV 58/1.4<br>

I owned and parted with 50/1.4 AF-S and 50/1.4 AF-D. Believe me or not... but each one is different and every time when I need something in this focal range I have no hesitation to pick the right tool.<br>

I'll look more for that 50/2 - I can find a place for it :))))</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Ok Mihai<br>

You are as bad as I am. I have to tell you I have lusted after the 58mm f/1.2 but just can not justify it.<br>

I did forget to list my 58f/1.4 it has a truly unique look to it.</p>

<p>Here is a link for a 50 f/2 this is an older version then the one I have</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK06999047905N?r=FE</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Would I notice any difference ? - perhaps not.<br>

You do not say what camera you use. Mechanical drive auto focus varies with the camera models. More PRO models have vary fast mechanical focus drive, so you may not see much of speed increase with the AF-S over AF.</p>

<p>I just read a review stating that the AF D lens is sharper than the AF-S G lens. What do you know ?</p>

<p>Is it worth the price ? - depends.</p>

<p>Last question is if how you use the lens, if you have any additional equipment that depends on the aperture ring on the lens barrel? Do you use macro with the lens inverted and mounted via filter thread ? Do you hook up a telescope or a spotting scope, microscope, etc. ? Do you plan to use extension tubes, bellows etc.? - if yes, then the aperture ring will come handy.</p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>There is very very little difference between my 50/1.4AiS and my 50/1.4AFS versions wide open (mainly due to the 7 vs 9 diaph. blades, only slightly noticeable at certain highlight spots), so I think the AFD version will show even a smaller (if any) difference (exactly same specs as the AiS).</p>

<p>The AF on the AFS is slow, silent, highly accurate (well, not "highly" or "lowy", mine is -always- dead on). I like the construction far more (inner barrel focus, there are not telescoping elements, just add a protective filter to have a "sealed type" IF lens), the hood is of a right design. The MF ring is not a huge deal, no special improvement here.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Leonard:</p>

<p>I have the same lens that you have and the barrel is as solid as a rock. his could be a sample problem. I love the 1.4 AFD. and have never thought about upgrading it.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Jose, what difference can the number of aperture blades make <strong>wide open</strong>? The aperture will be as round as the lens elements themselves.</p>

<p>+1 to settling for the f/1.8G version or your existing AF-D lens.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Of course you`re right, wide open the aperture should be perfectly round. I wanted to mean at wide apertures. My excuses. I think have some pics in my computer, I`d try to find them to show here.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I gather the Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM is way sharper wide open than the Nikon.</p>

<p>...and subsequently costs a-lot more......and I'm about to raid the piggybank..:-)</p>

[andylynn]

No it isn't. The Nikon 1.4G is a bit sharper in the center and much, much sharper on the edges and corners at most

apertures. The Nikon 1.8G is slightly sharper than the 1.4G at some apertures and slightly less at others. The Sigma

produces more CA but less vignette and slightly better bokeh. Maybe. In some situations, wide open or almost wide open.

 

I wouldn't recommend the Sigma for most people. Actually, if you don't need it to go to 1.4, I don't see much downside to

the 1.8G lens. It's half the price or less and you almost never notice the difference.

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I guess this review, with numbers, has got it all wrong then.</p>

<p>For the Sigma... <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/177.4-Lens_review-Sigma_50_mm_f_1.4_EX_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html">http://www.lenstip.com/177.4-Lens_review-Sigma_50_mm_f_1.4_EX_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html</a></p>

<p>For the Nikon... <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/162.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.4G_Image_resolution.html">http://www.lenstip.com/162.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.4G_Image_resolution.html</a></p>

<p>I'll just use one quote from the Sigma review.</p>

<p><em>"It’s clearly Sigma’s advantage over the Canon 1.4/50, which was able to reach just 40 lpmm. <strong>Nikkor,</strong> Pentax and Sony might compete with Sigma in record breaking by f/4.0 – 5.6 but by f/2.8 they are<strong> significantly worse</strong>."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Andy, how do you think Sigma can sell<strong><em> ANY</em></strong> of these 50mm lenses if their's is <strong>£369</strong> and Nikon's is <strong>£279</strong>? Go figure!!</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Interesting. It looks like Lens-Tip test the Sigma on Canon cameras, the Nikon on a D3X.</p>

<p>Photozone.de test both lenses on a D3X, with slightly different results. Actually, photozone scores the Nikon much higher than the Sigma for the much better corner rendition. Not a huge difference in center resolution, I guess, given the conclusions.</p>

<p>Bokeh looks to make a difference. As fas as I have seen, the Sigma looks way better, although some images show bizarre CA issues. The Nikkor enjoy the typical "nervousness" we are used to.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Infact, the selling price for 2nd hand Sigmas on eBay, is more-or-less the same as new Nikon lens pricing. </p>

<p>So, given £280 to spend on a 50mm 1.4 for their Nikon DSLR, people are choosing a 2nd hand Sigma with no warranty over a new Nikon....that's gotta mean something about the quality of the Sigma!</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>I have both. To me, the AF-D is a better lens and cheaper. I dislike the size of the 1.4 AFS. Also, the 1.4 in both varieties is not sharp until its at 1.8 anyway. A 1.8 AFS can be used fully open. There are loads of articles on this very topic.<br>

<br />If I had my time again I would have just got the 1.8</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>FWIW, finally I have just taken a couple pics (not able to find the original ones). Focus (Live View) is on the word "tones" (below "selenium").<br>

First, wide open, 100% crop, D700 at 4-5 feet:</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>Now, same at f2. Not a huge difference (to me), just the more round blades on the AFS makes it a little better. I wonder how different the AFD could be optically (same optical specs as the AiS).</p><div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Jose, nice pics. Shows how much the blade shape influences the appearance of OOF point light sources. </p>

<p>Still curious how Sigma manage to sell any of their 50mm 1.4s @ 30% more $$$$ than the Nikon lens if it's so bad???</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Not that bad, just a different performer; time ago Matt Laur posted several pics showing the difference between Sigmas and Nikkors. At the highlight spots, the Sigmas were evenly filled "neutral type" circles, while the Nikkors are the classic doughnuts or rings. It makes the Sigmas to also show a softer rendering in "the other" areas, while the Nikkors use to show double lines as soon as they can... typical of super-sharp lenses.</p>

<p>With this two lenses, we have the option of two different spherical correction choices. And I think border/corner sharpness is irrelevant for those who look for the highest bokeh quality. People who like to have something different or specialized use to "enjoy" a penalization, that`s usual... <br /> (Sincerely, I don`t care so much about it. I hate highlight spots <em>everytime!</em>)</p>