Should I upgrade my Nikon 50mm 1.8 D for the 50mm 1.4 G? Is the bokeh worth it?

[sleist]

Sigma has some fine lenses. I personally own the following well regarded Sigmas:

50mm f/1.4
30mm f/1.4
150mm f/2.8 macro

I get great results with all 3.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Sigma has some fine lenses. I personally own the following well regarded Sigmas:

50mm f/1.4
30mm f/1.4
150mm f/2.8 macro

I get great results with all 3.

Seems it will have to the Sigma then...

I came across these reviews, which point out exactly what Sigma has done. And how Sigma has been very savvy!

Review Of The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S | ishootshows.com ..
This review shows that Nikon have improved the lens design, but really havent changed that much from the D version. And more stunningly it shows that the bokeh characteristics of the 1.4G are pretty much EXACTLY the same as the 1.4D. Due to the fact they are such similar designs.. apart from the 9 rounded blades that mean circular highlights! Other than the circular highlights though, nothing has changed.

Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 » Ryan Brenizer — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.
This review explains why the new Sigma is something unique and different, Sigma has spotted that Canon and Nikon have been very lazy in their 50mm lens design. Not bothering to invest in R and D in the design for about 30 years, this is understandable as Zooms are now more popular but sadly Nikon and Canon have been revealed as slightly complacent. I've even read that the 50L 1.2 is not so great either! So it excites me that I can get a Sigma 50 1.4 with comparative quality to a Canon L lens in terms of IQ.

The only arguments I have heard on the Nikon side are that the Nikon is sharper across the frame, but who needs sharpness across the frame when you are doing portraits? I don't!

The Nikon 85 1.4 AF-D is not completely sharp across the frame, but it was built for portraits and has good Bokeh. The 85 1.8 AF-D on the other hand is sharp across the frame, but the bokeh on the 1.8 to me is just plain POOR! The words Busy and Harsh come to mind when describing the Bokeh on this lens. The 85 1.8 is not a portrait lens in my amateur view as the bokeh is poor, I could get just as good results with my 70-300 VR for portraits stopped down.

Don't get me wrong though, Nikon makes some of the best glass there is! The sharpness is incredible. It pains me to buy a Sigma over a Nikon lens, but it looks to be my only choice. Anyway, sorry to write such a long and boring post, hopefully someone takes something useful from it.

 

[molested_cow]

After reading a few reviews that I can find online, I just placed a bid on the F1.4 AF-D.

Reasons:
The Sigma definitely sounds impressive, but the soften corners is a consistent complain. Since I am using the lens on full frame, I'd probably find it annoying. The weight also throws me off. I really appreciate light weight lens, so if I have a choice, I'd go with the lighter one.
The AF-S doesn't seem to be THAT much better than the AF-D. The main advantage is you can over ride the AF as opposed to having to switch it to MF. IQ isn't really better than the AF-D, Bokeh isn't improved much either. Plus, the distortion is worse than the AF-D.
The AF-D is a good lens and very affordable. Over all, this is the best option for what I am looking for even though it's an old design ( not that the AF-S is any newer).

 

[sleist]

I shoot DX (D90) and will continue to do so (D400 is my next body most likely) so the edge sharpness is not as much a factor for me.
Besides that, I tend to choose lenses that have a certain character to the images that they produce. Edge to edge sharpness is not an issue for me with my fast primes.
I also have some very sharp glass at those same focal lengths that I can turn to if I need a different result.

I have a kit that really works very well for me. It's split into two sets with respect to lenses:

2.8 zooms and fast primes which all take 77mm filters -
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1
Sigma 50mm f/1.4
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D

A travel kit with a smaller fast prime that take 62mm filters (except the 30mm):
Nikon 18-105mm 1:3.5-5.6 DX VR
Nikon 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 VR
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DX

Really all I need/want is a 1.4 TC and a small macro to pair with the Sigma 150mm macro and I'm all set on glass.
Well, except for the 24mm f/1.8 DX that Nikon will announce ...

My point is really to say that edge to edge sharpness does not always matter - especially with portrait primes.
I must say though that as good as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is amazing. An excellent DX street lens.
5mm wider does make a difference - to me anyway.

 

[Markw]

That's an extremely smart thing to do, sleist. I find it a major pain to carry around my entire bag everywhere I go. As you can see in my signature, I have a lot of lenses. Half of them are quite large and heavy, especially with my camera. I love the idea of having two separate lens sets for two different needs. I don't think I could learn to deal with the CA and distortion of a hyper zoom after using solely the 80-200/2.8.

I do have one question, though. Why not get the Tamron 18-270VC or Sigma 18-250OS, etc? It would be much easier to carry two lenses rather than the three. Just out of curiosity.

Mark

 

[sleist]

I do have one question, though. Why not get the Tamron 18-270VC or Sigma 18-250OS, etc? It would be much easier to carry two lenses rather than the three. Just out of curiosity.

Mark

The biggest reason was the 18-105mm that came with the D90. It's a kit lens and it has a plastic mount, but it takes great shots when used in it's comfort zone.
It's good enough to not spend money replacing it with another variable aperture superzoom. I'd rather put my money into a set of f/2.8 zooms (which I did) or other stuff I need, than replace a decent lens with the similar performer for more money.
The biggest decision was between the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 17-55mm f/2.8DX. I decided I would go wide and got the 17-55 and I'm very happy I did. I would have missed the 17-23mm zone - particularly in DX.

I really like the 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 VR too. I got is as a light weight alternative to the 70-200mm f/2.8 and it has not disappointed.

I often go out with just one lens though. It makes me think more about the shot than whether or not I have the right lens on the camera.
The kit setup is nice though - particularly when I'm going someplace new. Brought to Boston a couple weekends ago. The 70-300mm was great and I was glad for the reach beyond 200mm for many keepers.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Impressive list of lenses Sleist! I am now saving up for my new Sigma 50 1.4. Sleist what do you think of the Tamron 90mm Macro? Any thoughts on this? Did you consider the Nikon 105 Macro 2.8?

Molested Cow, good lens to buy. Hope you enjoy it!

But as I mentioned in my post, corner to corner sharpness is not too important to me. The Sigma will mainly be my portrait lens, I want good Bokeh. I guess its just like the 85 1.4D not having corner to corner sharpness but having good bokeh and the 1.8D has corner to corner sharpness but has shockingly bad bokeh!

 

[sleist]

The Tamron 90 is a great performer. Very pleasing bokeh and sharp as a tack. My son and I both have Nikon bodies - mine is a D90 and he has the D5000. I bought him the Tamron for Christmas and I was very impressed with the image quality.
It's very light and a bit cheap feeling with regard to construction. I wouldn't think it could take much abuse, but then I don't abuse my kit. The only tangible drawback to the design of the Tammy is the fact that the barrel extends as you focus it.
Some people feel this is a huge negative, but I never felt it got in the way the few times I used it.

I would have no problem buying any of the following macro lenses:

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 (OS or older non-OS)
Tamron 90mm f/2.8
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR micro.
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 non-VR

I love the older 105 non-VR nikkor. I f you can find one used and in d=good condition, don't hesitate.
The bokeh on the older lens is supposedly better that the updated VR version, but I have never used the new one so can't speak from experience.
I have used a friends older version (I don't think its 1:1 macro, but I would need to check on that) and I loved the results.
I think you can pick these up for between $400-$500 depending on condition.

These were taken with the older non VR Nikkor 105mm f/2.8:

Have fun!

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Thanks again Sleist.

If I could have any I would get the New 105 2.8 VR. But seems a bit pricey, so this may have to wait for abit! I will definitely check out the 105 2.8 AF-D. Beautiful samples, seems a reasonable price too.

One last question for you, do you find the Tamrons autofocus fast enough? I always hear people banging on about how slow and poor the AF is. Only reason I ask is because I feel the Tamron at 90 (135 DX equiv) could make a great headshot portrait lens. Would it be fast enough for a faster moving portrait shoot?

 

[ghache]

I have the 50 1.8 D and did shoot quite alot with it. I recently got the 50mm 1.4 G. I did my first shoot with it last saturday and so far i like it. Bokeh is not as "creamy" as my 85 1.4 D but it is similar to the 1.8 D. i wouldnt upgrade for the bokeh but for the speed and built quality. Is it worth the extra 300$ ? i dont think so.

if you have alot of space to play with, the 85 1.4 D is amazing,

If i can get my hands on the sigma 50 1.4 and test it i might just sell both nikon (1.8 and 1.4) and get the sigma.

 

[sleist]

The focus will be slow on any true macro lens. That's a good thing with macro, but not so good for fast moving objects. Some macros may be faster than others, but they will all be slow compared to a non macro prime.
I can't remember if the Tammy has a focus limiter - I want to say yes. This will reduce the distance the lens will hunt within if it misses focus, but will do nothing for the basic speed.
Portrait shots are not too demanding when it comes to focus speed so I don't think it will be a problem. Don't expect to shoot sports or running children.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I have the 50 1.8 D and did shoot quite alot with it. I recently got the 50mm 1.4 G. I did my first shoot with it last saturday and so far i like it. Bokeh is not as "creamy" as my 85 1.4 D but it is similar to the 1.8 D. i wouldnt upgrade for the bokeh but for the speed and built quality. Is it worth the extra 300$ ? i dont think so.

if you have alot of space to play with, the 85 1.4 D is amazing,

If i can get my hands on the sigma 50 1.4 and test it i might just sell both nikon (1.8 and 1.4) and get the sigma.

Yes, I assumed the bokeh on the 50 1.4G would be a huge improvement, due to 9 Aperture blades. Seems though that is the only thing that did change, the characteristics of bokeh as shown on Ishootshows.com is exactly the same and the lens design has hardly changed at all. This is why I'm going to do the unthinkable and go third party with the Sigma 50 1.4.

And yes I have discovered that I was being wishful in assuming the 85 1.8D would offer me as good bokeh as the 1.4D. But you live and learn!

The Sigma 85 1.4 sounds like a very interesting lens aswell, really seems to a great budget alternative to the AF-S G. But if I won the lottery tomorrow, I would be getting the Nikon 85 1.4 AF-S G lens. hehe.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

The focus will be slow on any true macro lens. That's a good thing with macro, but not so good for fast moving objects. Some macros may be faster than others, but they will all be slow compared to a non macro prime.
I can't remember if the Tammy has a focus limiter - I want to say yes. This will reduce the distance the lens will hunt within if it misses focus, but will do nothing for the basic speed.
Portrait shots are not too demanding when it comes to focus speed so I don't think it will be a problem. Don't expect to shoot sports or running children.

Just an update Sleist, as a thank you for the advice. I have gone with the Tamron 90, and got a great deal on a used one.

I'm going to hopefully find a good deal for the Sigma 50 1.4, I was going to consider biting the bullet and getting the Nikon 105 2.8. But from what I've read the Tamron matches these lenses in terms of quality, I got the tamron for £190.00 and the best deal I found on a Nikon 105 2.8 VR is £500.

It does pain me in a way though, I do keep thinking of that beautiful Nikon build quality! But you can't have it all for half the price. haha. I will upgrade eventually If I actually become good at macro photography.

My 85 1.8 AF D is now up for sale and the 50 1.8 AFD is going to be following it most likely. If anyone wants a good deal on either of these lenses which have been kept in great condition.