Nikon 50mm lens question

[blueguy20]

Im looking at both the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D and the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D. Obviously the only basic difference is the extra .4 f stop. Im wondering it's worth the extra $160 or so to buy the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D over the 1.8D. Im thinking the 1.8D is just fine, but im just trying to see if it actually is worth it to get the 1.4, and if so, in what capacity?

Thanks

 

[blueguy20]

Forgot to ask if it will AF on my Nikon D3100? I know it doesn't AF on some Nikon's, not sure about mine though.

 

[xjoewhitex]

That is really the only difference is the .4 stop, which will allow you to shoot faster in lower light. But second question, having the d3100 will limit you to what lenses you can use and still have AF, Standard AF will not work for you, you will either need an af-s or af-i lens.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikkor-AF-S-50mm-1-4G-Lens/dp/B001GNBLN0/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1299311500&sr=8-5

 

[Derrel]

If you want an autofocusing 50mm lens from NIkon on a D3100, you will need to purchase the AF-S G series 50mm /1.4, which is the very-newest Nikon 50mm design.

 

[Jcampbelll]

I wouldn't say that the 1.4 vs 1.8 is the only difference. The 1.4 has way better build quality, the 1.8 feels like a plastic toy. And the 1.4 is sharper at bigger apertures. If you primarily are going to use it for low light, I would definitely get the 1.4. Is it worth the bigger price tag, that is up to you.

 

[Xavi]

The 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX is another lens to keep in mind if you're investing in a prime lens and is priced quite reasonably. Works quite well on my D40x and D5000.

best

 

[blueguy20]

Well im not too concerned with breaking the lens, so i don't think build quality will be too much of an issue here since it's still a nikon lense. Just trying to think if the extra .4 is really worth $200 more. Im still learning with whole DSLR and lens world, so im trying to figure out if there will be an abundance of opportunities where the extra .4 will come in handy and really make me glad i went for the more expensive lens. As far as auto focus goes, now that i know it wont auto focus with my d3100, i still don't think that bothers me too much. Id rather manually focus for a more personal feel to the picture if that makes sense.

 

[RockstarPhotography]

Well im not too concerned with breaking the lens, so i don't think build quality will be too much of an issue here since it's still a nikon lense. Just trying to think if the extra .4 is really worth $200 more. Im still learning with whole DSLR and lens world, so im trying to figure out if there will be an abundance of opportunities where the extra .4 will come in handy and really make me glad i went for the more expensive lens. As far as auto focus goes, now that i know it wont auto focus with my d3100, i still don't think that bothers me too much. Id rather manually focus for a more personal feel to the picture if that makes sense.

Ever spend 17 dollars on a steak that was really good? Ever spent 30 dollars on a steak that just melted in your mouth good?........................thats the difference, there both good steaks, but is it worth that extra money for the melt in your mouth feel?...Thats up to you

 

[SrBiscuit]

now i know what im having for dinner.

thanks rockstar!

*edit*
the lenses....sorry..forgot.

save some loot and pop for the 50 1.8 and manual focus with it...if youre into that sorta thing. :thumbup:

not sure what else youve got in your lineup, but with the money you save you could jump into strobist gear.

 

[PJL]

In an objective performance test (resolution, distortion, chromatic aberration, etc.) between the two Nikon 50 f/1.4 lenses, the Nikon 50 f/1.8 lens, and the Sigma 50 f/1.4, they found the Sigma to be the best overall performer. It's an interesting read.

DxOMark - Nikon Mount

 

[EckoZero]

im trying to figure out if there will be an abundance of opportunities where the extra .4 will come in handy and really make me glad i went for the more expensive lens.

I'm still a photography amateur myself but I do own a f1.8 50mm.

I can honestly say that I have never shot something and thought "damn, my depth of field at f1.8 just isn't shallow enough". The build quality on the f1.8 seems fine to me - I've never had any problems with it at all and versus my kit lens or my newly acquired second hand 30-70mm Nikkor the optical quality of the 1.8 blows them away.

 

[PASM]

A fast lens doesn't only allow you to shoot in lower light..it allows you to shoot faster s/speed in all light.

 

[KmH]

The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is 2/3 of a stop.

$200 for a 2/3 of a stop increase is a reasonable price. However, many have depth-of-field/focus issues at f/1.8, let alone at f/1.4.

See page 167 of the D3100 Users Manual for Nikon lens compatibility information. It is my understanding the complete D3100 Users Manual is on one of the discs you got with your D3100, and is not the hard copy quick quide.

 

[adversus]

KmH is correct, the AF lens won't auto focus on your 3100. The lowest models that will auto focus the Nikon AF lenses are the D90 and new D7000. If you want the 50mm (which in reality is going to be a 75mm on your 3100 body) you need the AF-S version if you want auto focus.

I also own the 35mm 1.8 (which is more equivalent to a 50mm Nifty Fifty on a Nikon crop sensor body) and I love it. For $199 it's a sweet little lens.

 

[newb]

The f/1.4 version has more distortion. If your photographing scenes with a lot of straight lines in them, thats one thing to consider. If you post process, its not that big of a deal. But, its still easier to correct when you have less to begin with.