I want an AF-S 50 for my D700 - 1.4 or 1.8?

[maitani]

out of the AF nikkors the 50 1.4 (non ultrasonic) AF-D is my favourite.
very reliable focusing, tiny and sharppp, and still has an aperture ring..

 

[enero]

I agree with maitani, the af-d was a great little and reliable lens. The 1.4g I had was generally much softer than the af-d. And the 58/1.4D I feel is a big pain in the ass to use as anything other than a portrait lens. The copy I had missed its focus more than it ever got it. Never again. My favorite af 50/1.4 has to be the old sigma 50/1.4 ex. It's big but it was always spot on and IMHO, much nicer "bokeh"

 

[kuzano]

Depends on mfr.

Depends on mfr.

I generally use MF glass on my DSLRs with only a few exceptions, but now that I've gone full frame with a D700 I want to pick up a modern AF-S 50 for everyday usage. I think I want the 50/1.4G *, but I keep seeing comments from people here and there that have owned both the 1.4G and 1.8G but prefer the 1.8G. I'm looking more from the perspective of character than absolute performance.

Can anyone who has experience with both offer their impressions of each? I've been reading online reviews until my eyes bleed.

* A bald faced lie - what I really want is a 58/1.4G, but the price of admission is giving me agita.

Two common conceptions are that no lens is at it's best at the largest aperture. So moving up the aperture scale (down in size) approaches a sweet spot. Some mfrs prove this wrong, but not many.

Secondly the large aperture does improve bokeh, and perhaps the less than sweet spot is not as big a factor.

I know of one particular couple of lenses that always broke the rule for me.

The Olympus OM Zuiko lenses in the 70's offered a 50mm 1.4 and a 50mm 1.8. The 1.4 (3 generations) generally failed to be as sharp at 1.8, as the 1.8 at it's largest aperture. So for sharpness, the 1.8 was the better buy and the sharper lens at equivalent f stops. The 1.4 only offered a bit better bokeh, at the sacrifice of quality.

So, even now people purchasing the higher priced f1.4 are buying a lesser image quality lens than the 1.8. All that for bokeh and never testing the quality of the lens. Interestingly, as these lenses are popular for adapting to various mirrorless camera's, the 50 f1.8 is also actually a smaller lens.

So the 50mm f1.8 is smaller, less expensive, and higher quality for relative f stops, than the f1.4. It took until serial numbers over 1,000,000 for Olympus to make the f1.4 equal to the f1.8. Just try to find one of those.

Now the Zuiko 50mm f1.2 is another story, and one that will "thin down" your wallet considerably.

So your question has many factors to consider in answering, but it's likely the f1.8 shoots sharper than the f1.4 set to f1.8. Consider that?

 

[Beemermark]

I have an old 50mm f1.4 that I should use more often. When I use it with my D700 it gives me an impressive, shallow DOF... and I really like it.

Ditto. I have the same set up. Bought the G just out of curiosity. Sold the G. Kept the older 50/1.4 AF which has the same rendition as my 50/1.4 AI-s. The G was huge also.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

50/1.8G.
Sharp and best bokeh of the Nikon 50 AFs. Lightweight and balances perfectly on my F100.