Which Nikon 50mm to buy??

[jackieclayton]

i will using it on my new D700 (thanks hubby!!) but I'm not sure which one to buy! I've read countless reviews that everyone likes the 1.8 (much cheaper) and also rave reviews for the 1.4G (much pricier). Can anyone vouch for spending an extra $300? Is it worth it or is the 1.8 just as satisfying?

 

[epp_b]

I would get the 50/1.8, it's just too cheap to pass up. It's a little soft wide open, but stop it down to f/2.5 or so and its razor sharp. If you need another stop brighter, the D700's ISO performance is so good that it doesn't matter if you crank it up a stop. And do you really need paper-thing depth of field?

 

[JerryPH]

Neither.

Get the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 and I will tell you why. I know over 10 photographers that bought both the Nikkor 50mm F/1.4 *and* the Sigma 50mm F/1.4. All, and I do mean all... sold the Nikkor and kept the Sigma 50mm F/1.4.

I also own the Sigma and absolutely love what it does for me. It is sharper at F/1.4 than the Nikkor, has a warmer feel (typical Sigma trait) and a more pleasing bokeh.

If you have a camera like the D700... don't be putting one hundred dollar lenses on it... it's a waste of the camera's capabilities!

 

[itznfb]

I would definitely go with the Nikkor 1.4G.
I've had the exact opposite experience with the Sigma. In my comparison I found it to be soft and colorless. Similar to the 18-50mm at 50mm.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I love using the 1.8D lens, for the price it's wonderful... You can find them for under $140 brand new, find out if you like it - if you do, great - if not you can sell it for $100 - $125 pretty quickly, but I doubt you will want to.

I think it does a fine job.

Some quick samples shortly after I got it, just messing around:

 

[Derrel]

What do you want the lens for? The screw-driven 50mm f/1.8 AF or AF-D and th 50mm 1.4 AF or AF-D models focus much faster than either the AF-S G Nikkor or the Sigma 50mm 1.4.

If you want the lens for rapid focus acquisition, you want a screwdriver lens. if you want the lens for neutral image color, you want the Nikkor. If you want a yellow cast, the Sigma's great for that.

There are currently three Nikon choices: two screwdriver lenses, 1.8 and 1.4, and the new AF-S G model, plus the Sigma 50mm 1.4. If you want a low-profile,unobtrusive lens, the Sigma is positively huge--the largest 50/1.4 ever made.

Since you're asking questions, I'd suggest a 50/1.8 would be perfectly fine. Unless you want an AF-S Nikkor or a Sigma, I would suggest buying a used 50mm lens--they are cheap and plentiful on the used market, and a new one is not worth the price premium over a clean used model.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Both on my D700, I've used the Sigma, used the 50G, bought the Nikon.

I couldn't rely on the Sigma's AF, and the lens sort of defeated the purpose of a 50mm for me because it was so big. It's a beautiful lens though when the stars and planets align and it looks sweet on a D700.


Reasons for the Sigma:

It takes 77mm filters. so if you have big glass already, its great for your polarizer and ND filter.

It's got slightly smoother Bokeh. Slightly.

It's slightly brighter then f/1.4. Again, Slightly.

It's slightly wider then 50mm. But only if you look for it.

Short focus throw. AF is quick, for sure.

It doesn't vignette so much. But on FX, the corners are crap regardless of aperture. DPReview and SLR Gear both confirm this.

The overall look. It's smooth, and pretty sharp wide open near the center. Where you're most likely going to use a fast 50mm.



Reasons for the Nikon 50G:

It's small. That's one of the reasons for a 50mm, it's discreet.

It's sealed. Ass-gasket and all, put a UV filter and the hood on it, and you can shoot in the rain!

Handling. Both the 1.4D and 1.8 have rotating focus rings, making camera positioning a pain in the rear because you've got to watch your fingers.

AF-S (even though it's slower to rack in and out). It is so dead on, it's uncanny. And what good is f/1.4 if it's going to be out of focus?

Long focus throw. Manual focus is cake on this.

The overall look. I love the bokeh wide open, and the vignetting wide open. Not to mention, this thing can cut glass at anything between f/2 and f/11, then past f/2, the Nikon's more uniformly sharp (dpreview.com - Lens Review - Fullscreen)

Oh yeah, and with a D700, it's like night vision.

f/1.4, ISO6400, 1/45th of a second. The only lighting was a string of shop lamps at 9:30 at night. If I had used the big-ass-holy-grail-motha-fu*ker 24-70, i'd have to shoot at ISO 25,600 to get the same exposure. Yeah right. 25,600 looks like dog sh*t. Basically, when the sun went down, i would have had to put my gear away and I would have a massive midrange stuck in peoples faces in the meantime.

I just wish the 50G had a petal hood like the sigma, that would be choice.

 

[epp_b]

Jerry and Switch, you are killing me with these phenomenal photos!

 

[JamesMason]

1.8af imho. All that money for 1 extra stop, nah.

Would not go for the g ethier, slow foucs and cheap feeling to it

 

[jackieclayton]

ugh... now i'm really torn. I think I care more about focus than I do speed, i'm really going to be using this lens for portraits... the lighting is a toss up (indoors and out, but like others have said the D700 has amazing ISO). Perhaps I'll try out the 1.8 since it's super cheap and then grab a 1.4G later if need be. Cost isn't that much of an issue (ok, yes, i need to pay off the camera body i just purchased, haha) and of course I don't want cheap glass on a $2500 body, but i just didn't know what some of your personal experiences were with both of them, if the extra $$$ is even worth it...

 

[JamesMason]

Jerry and Switch, you are killing me with these phenomenal photos!

agreed

I don't want cheap glass on a $2500 bodyQUOTE]

the 1.8 aint "cheap" glass in the sense of "cheap" Its just good vaule

 

[Sw1tchFX]

ugh... now i'm really torn. I think I care more about focus than I do speed, i'm really going to be using this lens for portraits... the lighting is a toss up (indoors and out, but like others have said the D700 has amazing ISO). Perhaps I'll try out the 1.8 since it's super cheap and then grab a 1.4G later if need be. Cost isn't that much of an issue (ok, yes, i need to pay off the camera body i just purchased, haha) and of course I don't want cheap glass on a $2500 body, but i just didn't know what some of your personal experiences were with both of them, if the extra $$$ is even worth it...

If money isn't that big of an issue, then just get the sigma or nikon and save yourself $130 in the process.

 

[itznfb]

the 1.8 aint "cheap" glass in the sense of "cheap" Its just good vaule

Well. The fast glass and quality images you can get out of the 1.8 doesn't make it appear as cheap. However it does have a cheap plastic body and absolutely no weather resistance and does feel very cheap.

 

[JerryPH]

The screw-driven 50mm f/1.8 AF or AF-D and th 50mm 1.4 AF or AF-D models focus much faster than either the AF-S G Nikkor or the Sigma 50mm 1.4.

Has to be camera dependant... becuase I own the F/1.8 AF and the Sigma F/1.4 and tested it side by side with the Nikkor F/1.4G. There was NO difference in focus speed on my D700 to the F/1.4 Nikkor.. the F/1.8 Nikon lens is slower to respond, and if anything, the Sigma also hunted a lot less than the Nikkor F/1.4G in low light shooting (like at weddings).

There are currently three Nikon choices: two screwdriver lenses, 1.8 and 1.4, and the new AF-S G model, plus the Sigma 50mm 1.4. If you want a low-profile,unobtrusive lens, the Sigma is positively huge--the largest 50/1.4 ever made.

It's no 70-200 lens... but it is big, and I *love* that 77mm opening. I bet that huge opening lets in a lot more light than the Nikkor and is likely why it is better under low light situations.

Since you're asking questions, I'd suggest a 50/1.8 would be perfectly fine. Unless you want an AF-S Nikkor or a Sigma, I would suggest buying a used 50mm lens--they are cheap and plentiful on the used market, and a new one is not worth the price premium over a clean used model.

... if you can afford a D700... you **should** be able to afford to put good glass on it. You don't see many F1 racers on the track with bicycle tires on them for good reasons.

 

[JerryPH]

I couldn't rely on the Sigma's AF, and the lens sort of defeated the purpose of a 50mm for me because it was so big. It's a beautiful lens though when the stars and planets align and it looks sweet on a D700.

What's not to rely on? I am not the only one using the Sigma and none of the wedding photographers that own the Sigma (and had the Nikkor 50mm F/1.4G at the same time) had any focusing issues with it locking in on a target in perfect focus first time out.

This is the first I have heard of this.

The "race" in this case is indeed very close, but the Sigma does edge out the Nikkor in several areas... and it was $20 less to boot at the time I bought it (I *wish* I'd had bought it a week earlier, it was an additional $30 less at the time on Amazon... no regrets, though)