The 50mm conundrum

Deuce808

Senior Member
Being ever the deal hunter I've run across these and just so happens I've got a couple extra hundred to play with.

Nikon 50 1.8g special edition used $170
Nikon 50 1.4g used $250
Nikon 50 1.8d used $90
Nikon 50 1.4d used $260

if you had a choice which would it be? Would having a abundance of 52mm filters sway that decision? I've got a 3200 and a 7000 so I could use either. Does the focus ring turning on the d lens get in the way? How often do you forget to switch to manual when trying to fine tune your shot?
 

hrstrat57

Senior Member
I think I like the first one on a D3200.

I love D glass (see my signature) and the 50 1.4 D is spectacular but isn't D glass an issue with 3000 and 5000 series cams?
 

480sparky

Senior Member
What abundance of filters do you have, and what would those filters bring to a digital camera?

The only reason you would choose the f1.4 is you either shoot a lot in low light, focus manually, or have money to burn.
 

10 Gauge

Senior Member
I'd probably go for the 1.4G as well if the budget allows. However some tests have shown the 1.8G to be sharper wide open up until f8/9 where the 1.4g then takes over.

There's something special about shooting below f1.8 though.... I just picked up an 85 1.4D and can't wait to do some shooting with it.
 

Deuce808

Senior Member
I think I like the first one on a D3200.

I love D glass (see my signature) and the 50 1.4 D is spectacular but isn't D glass an issue with 3000 and 5000 series cams?

for some reason no ones signature is showing today...

as far as the autofocus issue, I could use the 50 on my 7000. The only concern about d lenses is the rotating focus ring, I have a tendency to keep my fingers on the ring. I fing that I often need a little tweak of the ring to fine tune the shot. That makes the g lenses great because there's no need to remember to flick a switch, also I'm concerned that in the heat of the moment I may hold onto the ring and try to autofocus or I may try to turn it with the bodies af engaged. On the flip side the hard stop at infinity is a help if I shoot a city scale at night and the d lenses can use 52mm filters. I've got a cpl, variable nd, +3 nd, red intensifier, starlight, plus a extra uv.
 

Deuce808

Senior Member
As far as the 1.4 vs 1.8, if I'm finding I'm having to boost my ISO to 6400 to keep my shutter speed at 1/80+ on my 35 1.8, at 1.8, on my 3200, how much would the 1.4 help me? Would it allow a lower ISO or is the 1/3 f/stop just not enough to make a difference at that point?
 
Last edited:
Just checked KEH
Better or comparable prices on all the lenses than what you describe......and multiples of all it appears.

huh.png
Really? I am not seeing anything close to these prices.
 

T-Man

Senior Member
Another thing to consider is the 50/1.4 G has 9 aperture blades and the 50/1.8 G has 7. A higher number of blades usually produces a more rounded aperture opening, which typically produces smoother, less "geometric" looking bokeh, all else being equal.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
As far as the 1.4 vs 1.8, if I'm finding I'm having to boost my ISO to 6400 to keep my shutter speed at 1/80+ on my 35 1.8, at 1.8, on my 3200, how much would the 1.4 help me? Would it allow a lower ISO or is the 1/3 f/stop just not enough to make a difference at that point?



1/8 to 1/4 is only ~1/3 of a stop. So you're not going to gain much in terms of shutter speed or ISO. And do you really want to shoot it wide open?
 

Deuce808

Senior Member
1/8 to 1/4 is only ~1/3 of a stop. So you're not going to gain much in terms of shutter speed or ISO. And do you really want to shoot it wide open?

I shoot the 35 1.8 wide open a lot. I was having trouble with blurry pics until I was told to keep the shutter speed about double the lens length. That forced my ISO way up bringing in noise. I don't post process so I'd like to keep the in camera shot as good as possible. Using the 2x rule I would be shooting at 1/100 and up in the 50 so I would assume that it would at least need the 6400 but was hoping to be able to bring down the ISO. If it won't come down to say 3200 then I will have to say the extra $ for the 1.4 isn't justified for me. I also read reviews that it isn't that sharp at 1.4 anyways. I guess the softness would lead to some good portraits with blended light though.

That being decided (well still waiting on confirmation that the ISO won't drop enough) does anyone ever have issues with the d lens focus ring rotating and all that jazz?
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Noise will depend on the camera used, especially at 6400. Upping to a better body will reduce it.

Shooting wide-open just to maintain shutter speed (or for any reason, actually) will result in very shallow DOF. Even a 35mm at 1.4 has very little. Going to 50 will reduce it even more.

You may want to practice your hand-holding technique. Any time you can improve that your images will be the better for it.
 

Deuce808

Senior Member
Noise will depend on the camera used, especially at 6400. Upping to a better body will reduce it.

Shooting wide-open just to maintain shutter speed (or for any reason, actually) will result in very shallow DOF. Even a 35mm at 1.4 has very little. Going to 50 will reduce it even more.

You may want to practice your hand-holding technique. Any time you can improve that your images will be the better for it.

well not only to maintain shutter speed, I tend to be a bokeh whore. I don't mind the polygon shapes, I like the round shapes, the only shapes I don't like are the mirror lens donuts. The type of bokeh would really depend on the shot too. Portrait, smooth, round, creamy. Street or playing around, polygons add a little more interest. But I agree I may end up hating life with too shallow DOF and it would be a waste of that lens if I never shoot it at its max.

For now it's a debate of the d lens + some extras (i need a level head for my monopod) or the g lens + I have to get a uv filter since I don't have anything in 58mm.
 

hrstrat57

Senior Member
You won't have auto-focus with the d lenses on your 3200. And you will find the 1.4g to be sharper than the rest. Second choice would be the 1.8g

Got some specs on this? Just curious thought 1.4 D was right there on sharpness but I've never seen a head to head comparison. Would be fun to read.
 
Last edited:

T-Man

Senior Member
Actually, out of curiosity, I just checked and Nikon's MTF graphs show better resolution across the whole field for the f/1.8G than the f/1.4G. DXOMark basically echoes this with a much higher sharpness and overall performance score for the 1.8G than the 1.4G. I am very surprised by this!
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
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.
 
Top