Nikon 50 1.8 vs Nikon 50 1.4 really that much difference?

[brian steinberger]

I just purchased a Nikon F100 at a really good price. I have other Nikon lenses but have always wanted the 50/1.8. This lens is reasonably priced, but the 50 f/1.4 is at least double the price. Is the 1/3? stop of extra light really worth the extra cost? What are the advantages?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Aloha, you didn't mention whether or not you are looking at the AF lenses. Build quality AF1.4 vs AF1.8, 1.4 is slightly more robust, the 1.8 feels and is mostly plastic, but is surprisingly tough in use.

I prefer the 1.8, MF, Ai version. I have many, many 50's and that one to me has the best balance of speed, sharpness, bokeh, price and build quality. The 1.8 is a 6 element design, versus the 1.4 7 elements, I just prefer the lower level of distortion of the 1.8.

If you plan on using the lens extensively for low light you may want to get the 1.4, but I've done plenty of low light work with the 1.8 as well as the Nikkor f2, which recently has started to creep back into my lens rotation. On screen 1.8 and 1.4 look nearly the same, the 1.2 seems a smidge brighter than the 1.8.

The addicting thing is that 50's can be found for fairly cheap, so its kinda fun to collect a few and see for yourself which ones you like. The old Nikkor S 1.4 has a nice character in B&W, at about f4. Good luck and Aloha

 

[Lee L]

Word is that the 1.4 has a bit of barrel distortion, and is less sharp than the 1.8 at wider apertures. My sample also has noticeable coma at widest apertures. Bokeh on the 1.8 may also be a bit better. The bokeh on the 1.4 shows pinpoint sources past focus with a definite bright edge on the circle, a bit of ni-sen, or double line bokeh. From various posts I've seen, it appears that the 1.8 is a bit more even across the disk. I have shot with both, but the only one I've used recently is a 1980's manual focus AI version of the 1.4. My preferred 50 isn't a Nikon, so I don't have a lot of cumulative experience with either the 1.4 or 1.8.

f:1.4 is more like 2/3 stop faster than f:1.8.

If you want to read comparisons by someone who says manual focus lenses are all obsolete since 1986 (I'll see if he'll sell me an Apo Symmar for $100), see: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm

Lee

 

[ehparis]

I'd shop eBay where a nice AI 50 f1.4 will cost less than $100. I have four 50's (1 f1.8) and see no appreciable difference. The nice thing about the f1.4 is that extra 2/3 stop. I do shoot low light.

 

[brian steinberger]

Yes, I'm looking for the modern AF lenses. Thanks!

 

[Doug Smith]

I've used the AI versions of both the 1.8 and 1.4 and found the 1.8 a bit more contrasty and sharper than the 1.4. However I gave the 1.8 to a friend and kept the 1.4 for the speed. Both are excellent lenses. I currently have the 1.4 AF for the F100 and it is better than either of the manuals in terms of sharpness and 'pop' and I wouldn't give it up for anything.

 

[Mountaineer-American]

What films?

I've used the AI versions of both the 1.8 and 1.4 and found the 1.8 a bit more contrasty and sharper than the 1.4. However I gave the 1.8 to a friend and kept the 1.4 for the speed. Both are excellent lenses. I currently have the 1.4 AF for the F100 and it is better than either of the manuals in terms of sharpness and 'pop' and I wouldn't give it up for anything.

I use the same body & lens with very good results, especially on Portra VC 400. What films do you use?

 

[PhotoJim]

2/3 stop, not 1/3, so the difference in light transmission is a little more than you were thinking.

My 50 is an f/1.4D, admittedly because I really really wanted to own an f/1.4 (although it does occasionally come in handy - when you need f/1.4, you need it). That having been said, the f/1.8 is not a bad lens. Except at f/1.8 I think it's a hair sharper than the f/1.4, although the difference is very very subtle.

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks guys. I made the decision to just go ahead and get the 50/1.8D. I've been looking at prices on ebay and they are very close to the same of just buying a new one. I think I'll order one from B&H for just over $100.00.

 

[marsbars]

I have an older version of the 1.4 NAI and a 1.8 Ai. I would have to say that my preference is the 1.8 for the most part. Of course I don't do much low light work.

 

[Doug Smith]

I use the same body & lens with very good results, especially on Portra VC 400. What films do you use?

I use mostly E100G or E100VS, or when I'm in a Velvia mood Vel50. It's an excellent lens for reversal, enough contrast but not too much. I've shot 400nc and 160VC also with good results using this lens.

 

[IloveTLRs]

I have the 1.8 and it's one of my best lenses (I was too cheap to go for the 1.4.) I've used it on an FM, an F80 (and two non-film cameras) and have always gotten great results.

For such a low price lens it really shines

 

[kennethcooke]

I just purchased a Nikon F100 at a really good price. I have other Nikon lenses but have always wanted the 50/1.8. This lens is reasonably priced, but the 50 f/1.4 is at least double the price. Is the 1/3? stop of extra light really worth the extra cost? What are the advantages?

If you don't think it is worth it then maybe it isn't