50 vs. 50 vs. 50

[mnhoj]

Here's a good cut to the chase comparison of the 50mm choices available to a Nikon shooter.

Seven 50mm prime lenses for Nikon F-mount compared by Cary Jordan | Nikon Rumors

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Good info. Thanks for the link.

 

[MrsLittle]

Thanks! Can't wait to get my 50 1.8 g in.

 

[jake337]

I read that and the only thing I didn't like about the comparison is that they did not attach hoods to the 50 1.4 ais and 50 1.2 ais. These two lens worst scores were in the lower aperture ranges(1.2-2.8) shooting into the sun. Hoods would have helped with that. They also scored the best stopped down in terms of sharpness and contrast. Which is where a portrait photog might generally use them the most.

 

[Derrel]

I thought that not using even a $4.00 junk bin collapsible rubber lens hood on the 52mm threads of the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 Ai-S models was an incredibly stupid decision...go to all that work, then consciously elect to fail-boat and be unable to come up with a 52mm lens hood....hilariously inept!

The 50mm 1.8 AF-S G has an aspherical design...and it performs excellently...handily beating lenses that cost twice as much to over three times as much.

 

[Sammie_Lou]

Thanks for posting this. Part of my tax return will be going to a 50 mm lens, but I'm not sure if it'll be the 1.8G or the 1.4G. Is the difference between the 2 really worth the price difference??

 

[orb9220]

Well for many the 1.8G is sufficient. As speed wise only getting 2/3rds of a stop of additional light gathering. And for most f1.4 is problematic with it's down right skinny Dof and have to crank it up anyways to get a usable Dof. So is hard to justify the additional cost of the 1.4.

I couldn't even come up with a measly $200 for the G. But a week ago my friend and fellow shooter sold me his 50mm f1.8 AF-D for $60 and couldn't say No! tho was really hankering for the 35mm f1.8 as when using the 50mm found many indoor or tight situations where I wishing for a bit more Fov. But hey $60! I live with the limitations.

.

 

[Derrel]

Thanks for posting this. Part of my tax return will be going to a 50 mm lens, but I'm not sure if it'll be the 1.8G or the 1.4G. Is the difference between the 2 really worth the price difference??

The newer, aspherical f/1.8 G lens actually out-performs most of the other lenses...honestly, the F/1.4 factor is tremendously overrated, and is mostly a hang-over from the days of old when the f/1.4 lens was a "professional-grade" lens, and the f/2 was "the cheap lens" in most systems (Nikon,Pentax,Canon,Minolta). Then slightly faster 50's, like 1.7's and 1.8's becme the lower-end models... but the thing is, the 1.8-G lens has aspherical element design, good bokeh (I think almost as good as the Siggy), good contrast, good resolution, and is in general a superior optical design...

As far as actually SHOOTING at f/1.4...I have only two 50mm 1.4 lenses: a Nikkor Ai and the Canon EF 1.4...I never use either one at wide-open aperture because the image quality is crap...stopped down to f/2, both are MUCH better...ISO 400 has made f/1.4 sort of like the equivalent of the icebox...

 

[Nikon_Josh]

This is quite bizarre, it does appear as if you are better off getting the 1.8G over the 1.4G. This 1.8G seems to really be a great little lens, no way would I swap my Sigma 50 1.4 for anything. But it's crazy to think I may of been better off with the 1.8G over the 1.4G if I had stuck with a Nikon 50, I thought the 1.4G would remain as the superior Nikon lens in this test, seems Nikon have put alot of effort into the 1.8.

One quick question though, why does my 35 1.8G have noticeable distortion? And the new 40mm Macro lens has hardly any distortion at all. Very strange again!

There's no doubt about it though, the only thing my Sigma has over the 1.8G is quality of bokeh and little to nothing else.