Nikkon 50mm f/1.4D vs 50mm f/1.8G?

I'm considering getting a 50mm as my first prime lens but I'm not sure which one would be best. The obvious choice seems the 1.8G as it will autofocus with my D3200 but for not much more money I could get the 1.4D.

So my question is what are the key differences in terms of image quality between these lenses?

If there is minimal differences between them then my preference would be the cheaper, fully compatible 1.8G.

The other option is to get the 1.8D which is very very cheap and have more money in the account to fuel future NAS purchases, like a macro lens.

I think you answered your question...

So I'm assuming there isn't going to be a great deal of difference in image quality then?

Honestly, I reckon your best bet would be to at least try the 35mm DX lens first and see how you like that one, as it's probably going to be more versatile and serve you better than a 50 BUT, if you simply want a really sharp, cheap prime than go for the 1.8D or 1.8G over the 1.4G, which in reality is just going to cost more for hardly any real world benefits!

D12345678 said:

Honestly, I reckon your best bet would be to at least try the 35mm DX lens first and see how you like that one, as it's probably going to be more versatile and serve you better than a 50

Click to expand...

I do intend to try both the 35 and 50 out before going for either one. I'm gradually narrowing down my options and I'll rule out the 50 1.4 on your advice and some other reading I've done. I like taking shots of birds and other wildlife so I do like the idea that the 50mm get me just a little closer than the 35mm, without me having to swap lenses. I've also read that the 50mm generally gives better "bokeh". Is the 35mm more versatile because its better for landscapes and taking shots in tight spaces because of the wider angle? Anything else that makes it more versatile? Thanks

Hi Elliot,
Either the 50mm or the 35mm (1.8 G's) on your camera will be great, and very sharp. While you are correct that the 50mm will get you "closer" to wildlife, it isn't what would commonly be called a wildlife "Birding" lens. Unless these birds are very, very tame (Or caged!) you will find they are very small in the frame.

Surely your 55-200mm would be better for wildlife?

Hi Steve,

I do intend to use my 55-200mm for the majority of wildlife photography I'll do. In practice I suppose it will be quite rare that I get a bird close enough to get a decent shot with a prime, so not really worth basing my decision on. I'm still working out precisely what I want and need from a lens. I think a lens which is fast, sharp and performs well in low light is what I want. Different people seem to have different opinions on which is faster, sharper and better in low light, the 35 or the 50.

Elliot87 said:

I do intend to try both the 35 and 50 out before going for either one. I'm gradually narrowing down my options and I'll rule out the 50 1.4 on your advice and some other reading I've done. I like taking shots of birds and other wildlife so I do like the idea that the 50mm get me just a little closer than the 35mm, without me having to swap lenses.

Click to expand...

The 50mm of any speed would be one of my last choices for a wildlife/bird lens. Unless the animal is absolutely huge, dead, or in a cage, particularly a bird, you will not get close enough with the 50mm to even be able to identify what animal it is.

35mm and 50mm lenses are mainly portrait lenses or just everyday walk around lenses to capture either a close up portrait or a landscape scene. On a DX crop sensor camera the 50mm is probably the best choice for portrait as it effectively becomes equivalent to a 75mm lens as to what you capture.

35mm can be used on a DX camera as portrait but, in my opinion, may be just a tad too wide angle and may distort features negatively unless you shoot the portrait just right.

If you plan to do a lot of bird photography you need to look for a lens nothing under 300mm focal length on the long end. 200mm will work but you will find yourself wishing you had a lot more.

If you don't want to have to swap lenses a lot look at a zoom lens in the range of 18-300mm.

Now, on the difference in quality between the several 50mm lenses mentioned, you will notice some difference in quality but I have read the 50mm f/1.8G is about as sharp as they come. I have the 50mm f/1.8 D lens, the older lens, and it is tack sharp. Very satisfied with it. The f/1.4 versions may actually lose some sharpness at certain f-stops that the f/1.8 may not lose. If you don't really need the low light capability save the money and go with the f/1.8 version.

People have different opinions on lenses, both 35mm and 50mm and how they perform, because everyone uses their lenses differently and not all of them use them correctly. A properly exposed image using a 35mm f/1.8 lens should be just about the same quality as one shot with the 50mm f/1.8 if both are properly used and properly exposed.

Just don't think a 50mm is going to be a good wildlife lens if you plan to get good close detailed shots. Any animal smaller than a Bison, at any comfortable distance, will simply be part of the background when shot with the 50mm.

How about close up wildlife photography, taking snaps of butterflies and bees etc.? I intend to save up for a macro lens but in the meantime would like to get some nice shots of bugs too. For this I'm assuming the 50mm would edge out the 35mm in terms of not having to get as close to butterflies which are likely to fly off. Again I could use my 55-200mm for these but I want the sharpest image possible. I've considered the 40mm "micro" but I'm doubtful its as sharp as either the 35 or 50 and not an ideal macro lens for things that are going to jump or fly away. Thanks for your patience, I should really just get to a good camera shop and try them out.

Seems to me that your biggest concern is actually wanting to do macro stuff. So considering that you've already got the 18-55 lens, you may even be better off simply forgetting the whole 35/50 idea and putting the money towards a real macro? That way you'll still enjoy the versatility and wider aspects of your 18-55 and the longer reach of your 55-200, then eventually a macro to suit your budget? If not then, once again, just try to test out both the 35 DX lens and either the 50D or G models in a shop before you commit to the purchase. My hunch is that you'll end up going for the 35 if that's the case. The 50s may be very sharp, but so is the 35!

Elliot87 said:

How about close up wildlife photography, taking snaps of butterflies and bees etc.? I intend to save up for a macro lens but in the meantime would like to get some nice shots of bugs too. For this I'm assuming the 50mm would edge out the 35mm in terms of not having to get as close to butterflies which are likely to fly off.

Click to expand...

If the only choice was between the 50mm and 35mm, then sure, 50mm wins. But, with either of those two lenses you will not get close enough to a wild animal or insect to make a good shot that fills the viewfinder. Even if you could, neither of those lenses focus close enough. You need to have about three to four feet between you and your subject for minimum focus distance. I have tried to shoot butterflies with my 300mm lens and getting close enough to them with that lens, to fill the viewfinder, was a chore. You can shoot the shots, but, to get a good tight shot afterwards requires such a huge crop of the picture that you lose any resolution and quality that would make the shot worth keeping. You need to be able to pretty much fill your viewfinder with the subject, all while keeping a distance from the subject so as not to scare it away. That is difficult with any fast moving or flying animal or insect. Also, you have to keep in mind that getting really close to a subject will cast shadows across what you want to photograph. This is why macro lenses are not always ideal for many things. Lighting is key with close up photography.

Elliot87 said:

Again I could use my 55-200mm for these but I want the sharpest image possible. I've considered the 40mm "micro" but I'm doubtful its as sharp as either the 35 or 50 and not an ideal macro lens for things that are going to jump or fly away. Thanks for your patience, I should really just get to a good camera shop and try them out.

Click to expand...

I would take the 55-200mmlens over the 35mmor 50mm any day for wildlife photography. Properly used it produces pretty good images.

Best thing to do is sit down and figure out what your exact interests are, how you want to see your wildlife in frame and how much of any one type of animal or insect you will photograph the most. Choose a lens that will allow you to capture good tight framed shots of that subject without having to stand on top of it or kill it so it will not run away.


I would be willing to help you with this in a way that will give you a good idea of what you will see.

Give me an example of an animal or insect you would likely photograph and I will shoot that subject, or something very similar, with all four of my lenses and let you see what an uncropped image would look like through each and at what distance I was from the subject.

I have the following lenses at my use:

- Nikon Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5
- Nikon Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5 Macro
- Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D
- Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR f/4.5

You might well be right about that. I'm looking forward to taking delivery of a tripod this week, so I can see what my current lenses are really capable of in terms of image sharpness. I definitely want a prime and macro and in the long term a better quality zoom lens. I think I'll go for a prime and get some extension tubes whilst I save for a proper macro.

This forum is fantastic, never expected so much rapid feedback.

Really good advice Mike! Think I'll forget about primes and wildlife for the time being and focus on what I've got already.

Elliot87 said:

Really good advice Mike! Think I'll forget about primes and wildlife for the time being and focus on what I've got already.

Click to expand...

You need a good prime. Everyone should have at least one sharp prime lens. However, if you are interested in macro, most good quality true macro lenses are themselves prime and make excellent standard prime lenses.

I sure do not want to try to talk you out of wildlife photography. It, to me, is the only thing that excites me with my photography. What I do want to do, though, is try to help you now using what I have learned so you don't make an expensive mistake.

I can tell you for a fact that for most wildlife needs, 300mm is on the very short end of what is recommended and needed. If you shoot with anything shorter, your shots end up being cropped to make them close up shots and you lose all the quality. It is just not worth it and is so frustrating.

Using my 70-300mm lens, I have to be no farther than about 4 feet from a normal small size bird, such as a Red Bird (Cardinal), to make the bird fill the viewfinder. It is extremely difficult to get that close to a wild bird. It takes a lot of thought into a feeder and blind setup so you can shoot through a small hole.

Those type shots them become "not so natural" looking because they aren't very natural.

Mike D90 said:

I sure do not want to try to talk you out of wildlife photography. It, to me, is the only thing that excites me with my photography. What I do want to do, though, is try to help you now using what I have learned so you don't make an expensive mistake.

Click to expand...

I appreciate it and I don't think you could talk me out of wildlife photography, it might just be a while before I have glass that is up to it. I think over the next year I'll be on a steep learning curve and at the end of it should have a much better idea of what suits my needs. I might well get a 35mm or 50mm to help me learn and get a good variety of shots. Hopefully having a less than ideal 200mm lens should make me think more about how to get close, so when I eventually get a 300 or longer I'll be well set to get some really good images.

In the mean time I will probably have to crop images and I'm glad I went for the 3200 over the 3100 as the 24mp should help a little in retaining some quality I hope.

Mike D90 said:

You need a good prime. Everyone should have at least one sharp prime lens. However, if you are interested in macro, most good quality true macro lenses are themselves prime and make excellent standard prime lenses.

Click to expand...

How would you rate your Nikon AF Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5 - 4.5 "D" IF Macro? I assume it would be manual focus with my D3200 but would you recommend it? It seems like I could get one relatively cheaply.

Elliot87 said:

How would you rate your Nikon AF Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5 - 4.5 "D" IF Macro? I assume it would be manual focus with my D3200 but would you recommend it? It seems like I could get one relatively cheaply.

Click to expand...

It is not as sharp as the prime macro lenses such as the 90mm or 105mm macro, but it has impressed me as to what it can do. Yes, it would be manual focus only on your camera as it is the older "D" lens that requires the camera focus motor.


What I like about it is it will focus as close as down to .5 inch in macro mode at 105mm length and still very close even when in standard mode. It is actually sharper when used in macro mode. It is a slow focus lens though and a little noisy with auto focus. In manual focus it is very fast to focus and turning the focus ring is touchy as it is a high ratio. It is not particularly fast at f/3.5 but I rarely shoot in low light. I do not do a lot of really close macro stuff so this lens does exactly what I need it to do.

I do recommend it if the budget does not allow for a really fine true prime macro lens and even recommend it over a macro if you don't need to do very close up micro work. I think I gave about $130 USD for mine but I did get an exquisitely clean lens.


Here are a couple shots with this lens in macro mode.

Elliot87 said:

How about close up wildlife photography, taking snaps of butterflies and bees etc.? I intend to save up for a macro lens but in the meantime would like to get some nice shots of bugs too. For this I'm assuming the 50mm would edge out the 35mm in terms of not having to get as close to butterflies which are likely to fly off. Again I could use my 55-200mm for these but I want the sharpest image possible. I've considered the 40mm "micro" but I'm doubtful its as sharp as either the 35 or 50 and not an ideal macro lens for things that are going to jump or fly away. Thanks for your patience, I should really just get to a good camera shop and try them out.

Click to expand...

You existing 18-55 kit lense is quite good for close up shots. The magnification at 55mm is about 0.3, so on the DX sensor - 24mm x 16mm, objects upto 16*3=48mm (or 2 inches) should fill up the whole space. You can check my shots of insects and flowers here
http://nikonites.com/wide-angle/21129-18-55mmg-vr-ii-3.html#axzz32EEjvzuZ
http://nikonites.com/macro/21534-insects-non-macro-lenses.html#axzz32EEjvzuZ

Till you get a dedicated macro lense, the 18-55 coupled with the 24MP sensor does quite a passable job.