Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF or 50mm 1.4 AF-S?

[Wolfgang8810]

Which should I go with? Are there any quality differences?

The only reason Im considering the 50 .14 AF is due to my film photography that I still do. I have an EM, FM, FE3, N80, and D90. I still shoot film from time to time and I know with the G series lenses this will not be possible on the older bodies. If the AF-s version is significantly better for digital Ill go that way though.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Wolfie.

 

[Garbz]

The AF-S lens is optically sharper at f/1.4 but you couldn't tell them apart once the apertures is closed down a bit. I'm in the same boat as you, and to me a minor difference in sharpness does not warrant breaking backwards compatibility.

The release of the AF-S doesn't change the fact that the AF is a great all-round lens which many a people have relied on for years.

 

[Wolfgang8810]

The AF-S lens is optically sharper at f/1.4 but you couldn't tell them apart once the apertures is closed down a bit. I'm in the same boat as you, and to me a minor difference in sharpness does not warrant breaking backwards compatibility.

The release of the AF-S doesn't change the fact that the AF is a great all-round lens which many a people have relied on for years.

AF it is. Thank you for your reply. :thumbup: pics when it gets here.

 

[ddbowdoin]

have you considered the 1.8? it's a hell of a lot cheaper at around 120 bucks.

 

[Garbz]

It's also a completely different class of lens. Much cheaper yes, but all plastic design, about half the edge sharpness wide open, and if you're manually focus inclined it actually feels like a toy to use.

Fantastic budget lens though, and by far the best bang for buck quality wise stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller.

 

[ddbowdoin]

It's also a completely different class of lens. Much cheaper yes, but all plastic design, about half the edge sharpness wide open, and if you're manually focus inclined it actually feels like a toy to use.

Fantastic budget lens though, and by far the best bang for buck quality wise stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller.

Yeah, I agree. I was just throwing it out there, I'm cheap. I wish I could afford some of the set ups people have here!

 

[jkevin]

not to take over this thread but i was convinced that a 50mm 1.8 was the lens to have(for a 50mm) now am i right in reading that a 1.4 is better?

 

[JohnS.]

1.4 is better. But the the AF 1.8 is an all-around best bang-for-your-buck lens. If you can afford the 1.4, surely go for it.

 

[Jcampbelll]

I'm getting the AF 1.4 for X-mas.

 

[djacobox372]

The build quality of the 50mm 1.4 is very similar to the 50mm 1.8.. I don't see much difference--the 1.4 is still a very "plasticy" lens.

Image quality is a bit soft at 1.4 and 1.8, and there's some chromatic aberation until around f4. The AF-S version supposedly improves on these things, but I haven't tried it.

 

[Wolfgang8810]

Already own the 1.8. I understand there are some issues with fall off, edge sharpness, and CA when shot wide open but unless shooting an event at night I wont be shooting at 1.4 constantly. F4 is even a wider than I normally shoot. But Having the ability to open the lens up opposed to jacking up the ISO is something I am seeking.

Thanks guys.