F/1.4 or F/1.8

[jbylake]

Yes, I've read a LOT about the sigma lens. I don't know if it's worth more than $400+ more than the Nikon, though. I'm leaning towards the Nikon f/1.4, but wish I could read some forum members who own these lenses have to say.

Derrel has both, the Nikon 1.4 and 1.8, and I'm hoping he see's this to give me his thoughts, since he's not reviewing just one or the other, but can compare them side by side.

J.

 

[Derrel]

Let me correct a misunderstanding: I have the 85/1.8-G and the 85/1.4 AF-D. What I meant to convey above was that I am less impressed with the 50/1.8 G than I am with its longer family member, the 85/1.8 AF-S G, which is an amazingly sharp, light, and easy-to-use lens that has astounding optics for the price. It is very sharp, very crisp, a very high-resolution lens.

The 85/1.8-G is an amazingly good 85mm lens. It's sharper and higher in contrast and more even in illumination than the 85/1.4 AF-D, which is still however, a gorgeous portraiture lens, with softer edges, a lot of light fall-off, and a very sharp center image area, and really smooooth, creamy bokeh. The new 1.8 G is much "harder", more sterile, more of the new Nikkor look. I've seen the images from its faster partner, the 1.4-G...the two are fairly close. Neither one is "worlds apart" from its contemporary sibling. I saw very little reason (none) to buy an 85/1.4-G when I own what I think is a better beauty lens in the old Cream Machine, the 1.4 AF-D, which is one-third of Nikon's 85-105-135 AF-D trio of lenses designed to create three-dimensionality, rather than to score into the stratosphere on resolution charts, which the new 1.8 and 1.,4 models were clearly designed to do.

With the 50/1.8 G, I've noticed that at wider apertures, the corners/edges are NOT that good on 24MP FX. Take a look...this is typical for it at f/2.5 and f/2.8...with LR sharpening at 52 and a 1-pixel radius...meh...some 100% screen caps with that setting AND the LR 50/1.8 G lens correction profile enabled.

 

[jbylake]

Let me correct a misunderstanding: I have the 85/1.8-G and the 85/1.4 AF-D. What I meant to convey above was that I am less impressed with the 50/1.8 G than I am with its longer family member, the 85/1.8 AF-S G, which is an amazingly sharp, light, and easy-to-use lens that has astounding optics for the price. It is very sharp, very crisp, a very high-resolution lens.

The 85/1.8-G is an amazingly good 85mm lens. It's sharper and higher in contrast and more even in illumination than the 85/1.4 AF-D, which is still however, a gorgeous portraiture lens, with softer edges, a lot of light fall-off, and a very sharp center image area, and really smooooth, creamy bokeh. The new 1.8 G is much "harder", more sterile, more of the new Nikkor look. I've seen the images from its faster partner, the 1.4-G...the two are fairly close. Neither one is "worlds apart" from its contemporary sibling. I saw very little reason (none) to buy an 85/1.4-G when I own what I think is a better beauty lens in the old Cream Machine, the 1.4 AF-D, which is one-third of Nikon's 85-105-135 AF-D trio of lenses designed to create three-dimensionality, rather than to score into the stratosphere on resolution charts, which the new 1.8 and 1.,4 models were clearly designed to do.

With the 50/1.8 G, I've noticed that at wider apertures, the corners/edges are NOT that good on 24MP FX. Take a look...this is typical for it at f/2.5 and f/2.8...with LR sharpening at 52 and a 1-pixel radius...meh...some 100% screen caps with that setting AND the LR 50/1.8 G lens correction profile enabled.

OOOps! I need to read more closely!

 

[hamlet]

I dont think that 1.4 is a must, but its nice to have when you're hungry for light and you know you can use it when you really need it.

3 examples of when i needed 1.4 was when i was in a cathedral, an amusement park and a train station at night without a tripod.

 

[sashbar]

I shot a Tattoo Convention recently exclusively with a 56 mm prime, no flash, and lots of shots were taken wide open. f/1.2 is more useful than some think, never mind f/1.4.
These are all 56 mm f/1.2

 

[D-B-J]

Get the 1.4 if:

1. you shoot a LOT in low light or
2. you like spending money on status symbols.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Sigma's 35 1.4 Art lens is incredible. Yes, it's almost 1k. Yes, it's big and heavy. But at 1.4 it's sharper than many 1.8 versions are at 2.8. You pay for quality; build, optics, handling, materials, etc.

Buy the 1.4 if you want a monster lens that's incredible. Buy the cheaper version (1.8) if you don't care about image quality that much or can't afford the 1.4

Jake

 

[Alex123]

If money is not a problem for you - buy 1.4. Here is a good review of Nikon 50mm 1.4D Nikon 50mm 1.4d review | Reviews and tests of photographic equipment - onfotolife.com

 

[astroNikon]

If money is not a problem for you - buy 1.4. Here is a good review of Nikon 50mm 1.4D Nikon 50mm 1.4d review | Reviews and tests of photographic equipment - onfotolife.com

Thanks, this is the second time you've posted this.
Why don't you provide your experience with these lenses?

 

[pixmedic]

If money is not a problem for you - buy 1.4. Here is a good review of Nikon 50mm 1.4D Nikon 50mm 1.4d review | Reviews and tests of photographic equipment - onfotolife.com

Thanks, this is the second time you've posted this.
Why don't you provide your experience with these lenses?

If you compare 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 from nikon.....
I had both lenses. At the same time even. I would go to the 1.4 first every time. It focused a little better,felt like a better build, and was a little quieter.
Nothing wrong with the 1.8 though. Got plenty of use out of it as well. The 1.4 is inexpensive now so unless money is just that right there's no good reason not to get the 1.4, in my opinion anyway.
The 1.4 is still a pretty small lens too.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[fmw]

The difference is about 1/2 stop. If you had to underexpose by 1/2 stop you could probably fix that satisfactorily in post production.

 

[Braineack]

The 50mm 1.4g is a waste of money.

using tapatalk.

 

[Stradawhovious]

They are ALL fantastic lenses.

I have both the 85 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8. I use them both a BUNCH. I rarely shoot either of them wide open, and even when I do they are plenty sharp enough for usable images.

I have toyed around with the 1.4 variants of each, and honestly, I don't see the "wow" factor that would make me force open my wallet and shell out for them. I could see the benefit of the 50mm f/1.4, but truth be told I'm not in a position in my talent to make full use of it. I couldn't justify the 85 at all.

My pair of 1.8s cost me $600 NIB. ($500 for the 85 and $100 for the 50).

The pair of 1.4s will cost cost over $2k. ($1600 for the 85 and $425 for the 50). That's a lotta dough. If you have the discretionary income for it, I don't see why you would regret the f/1.4 variants. The extra mortgage payment I made but going the route I did justifies my decision. YMMV.

 

[Vtec44]

Also just an FYI, the 85 f1.4G is not a run and gun lens. It focus is not accurate for event photography when shoot wider than f1.8. It's an amazing portrait lens and I love it. The 50mm and 35 f1.4G are fast and accurate focus. I got my 50 f1.4G on sale for $350 and I use it for most of my work.