The 50mm conundrum
- Thread starter Deuce808
- Start date
ScottinPollock
Banned
Yeah... I am afraid I don't always "see" what DXOMark measures (not to mention that, like audio gear, specs don't always tell you the whole story). Never had the 1.8G, but had the 1.8D and the 1.4G, and the latter was much better (not at f1.4 mind you, but definitely from f2 on up).
ScottinPollock
Banned
LOL... But it kinda bugs me that Nikon continues to "dumb down" the newer, even pro lenses. No aperture ring, no distance scales, or if they're there they are dumbed down themselves. There may be a good reason for doing this (other than cost saving), but I dunno.
Is Canon doing this as well?
Yep specs can often mislead.....my only eyeball test is my 50 1.4D vs my son's 50 1.8D. 50 1.4 D wins my eyeball test with creamier bokeh but nothing wrong with any of these lenses I'd guess. As an old school guy I admit the distance scale window is important to me just looks better....more old school. I wouldn't trade my Nikon 50 F 1.4 AF D for any of the others. Love it.
Especially love how my local LCS threw it in as a freebee when I bought the used D300 ! Shot nothing else for the first month, It remains my favorite bit of Nikon AF kit.
I only have/had the 1.8D lens. For around a 100 dollars it's really a no brainer.Couple this with the D750 and you could chronicle the sleeping habit of bats in a dark cave.[/QUOTE
Pete, I know funny and that's funny.
Instant classic!
As someone who dabbles a bit in the audio gear world too, I can definitely relate!
FIRST HAND INFO:
All I can speak to is the fact that the 1.8G is a workhorse on my D7100. Nice bokeh, sharp focus, easy touch-to-fine-tune manual focus ring. I have no complaints.
SECOND HAND INFO:
A lot of research (God Bless Google) in a few minutes shows the 1.8G to be consistently sharper than the 1.4G through f8, even with it through f11, and slightly behind at tighter apertures (but not a lot). Most places call both lenses "incredibly sharp" though, so I doubt most folks would notice the differences mentioned above. I'd call it a tie.
The 1.4G gives a slightly smoother bokeh look, but on most of the comparison photos I found, it wasn't immediately noticeable, and most reviews called it negligible. Taking the time to compare side by side, though, the 1.4G wins that battle, but only slightly.
A LOT of reviews mention how much slower the 1.4G focuses when compared to the 1.8G. I haven't compared them personally, but if so many people are saying it, there must be something there? All I know is my 1.8G locks focus in half a heartbeat in most situations... even if the 1.4G took twice as much time, it still couldn't take THAT long, could it?
LONG STORY SHORT:
With prices that close to each other, I'd probably buy the 1.4G if they're all in good condition, but you definitely won't be disappointed with the 1.8G if you go that way, and you'd save $75.00. I'd also say that I'd take either of the G series lenses over the D's there any day of the week.
All I can speak to is the fact that the 1.8G is a workhorse on my D7100. Nice bokeh, sharp focus, easy touch-to-fine-tune manual focus ring. I have no complaints.
SECOND HAND INFO:
A lot of research (God Bless Google) in a few minutes shows the 1.8G to be consistently sharper than the 1.4G through f8, even with it through f11, and slightly behind at tighter apertures (but not a lot). Most places call both lenses "incredibly sharp" though, so I doubt most folks would notice the differences mentioned above. I'd call it a tie.
The 1.4G gives a slightly smoother bokeh look, but on most of the comparison photos I found, it wasn't immediately noticeable, and most reviews called it negligible. Taking the time to compare side by side, though, the 1.4G wins that battle, but only slightly.
A LOT of reviews mention how much slower the 1.4G focuses when compared to the 1.8G. I haven't compared them personally, but if so many people are saying it, there must be something there? All I know is my 1.8G locks focus in half a heartbeat in most situations... even if the 1.4G took twice as much time, it still couldn't take THAT long, could it?
LONG STORY SHORT:
With prices that close to each other, I'd probably buy the 1.4G if they're all in good condition, but you definitely won't be disappointed with the 1.8G if you go that way, and you'd save $75.00. I'd also say that I'd take either of the G series lenses over the D's there any day of the week.
I ended up getting a Japan copy 50 1.8d as part of a trade, I also sold the 3200 and both NAI lenses, and picked up a second 7000 body/grip for a steal.
At first I like the 1.8d, it was small, light weight, seemed to focus great and had a different feel to the pics. Then after about a 100 shots or so I began to notice the bokeh sucks. Particularly when there's something straight edges in the background, the further away it is, the worse it looks. A tree trunk, some garden tools in a far corner, street posts, etc. All had a hard edge, almost double blurred edge at times. The highlights also came out looking busy. I found that I had to drop my in camera sharpening way down to get it to smooth out. As opposed to my 85 1.8g which has ultra creamy bokeh. Even my 35 1.8g is better at smoothing out the backgrounds.
I might have to contact the guy with the 1.4g and give that guy a shot. Anyone with an idea of how the 50 1.4g compares to the the 85 1.8g at bokeh? If it's not as good then I might as well skip it, stick to my 85 when I crave the bokeh, use my 35 as my general, and keep the 50 d for when I go on hikes or as a lens I could use as a beater since it was basically free.
At first I like the 1.8d, it was small, light weight, seemed to focus great and had a different feel to the pics. Then after about a 100 shots or so I began to notice the bokeh sucks. Particularly when there's something straight edges in the background, the further away it is, the worse it looks. A tree trunk, some garden tools in a far corner, street posts, etc. All had a hard edge, almost double blurred edge at times. The highlights also came out looking busy. I found that I had to drop my in camera sharpening way down to get it to smooth out. As opposed to my 85 1.8g which has ultra creamy bokeh. Even my 35 1.8g is better at smoothing out the backgrounds.
I might have to contact the guy with the 1.4g and give that guy a shot. Anyone with an idea of how the 50 1.4g compares to the the 85 1.8g at bokeh? If it's not as good then I might as well skip it, stick to my 85 when I crave the bokeh, use my 35 as my general, and keep the 50 d for when I go on hikes or as a lens I could use as a beater since it was basically free.