papo
Established
I had the G a few years back for my digital stuff and it was a great lens but the D is cheaper so i wonder how much of a difference it even makes when shooting film?
Thanks you guys!
Thanks you guys!
Ong
Well-known
What body are you using?
Remember that the G lenses will only work on Nikon F4 bodies and later due to the lack of an aperture ring.
Remember that the G lenses will only work on Nikon F4 bodies and later due to the lack of an aperture ring.
papo
Established
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Never had the G, but owned the D for many years. I don't know why, but I never bonded with that lens. It was adequate. And boring. Again, very subjective evaluation, but just found it dull.
SaveKodak
Well-known
I can field this one as someone who has used both!
The G basically upgrades the lens to the new AF system, so silent drive, about the same speed, but I think more accurate. The bokeh has been smoothed out. The D has very classic bokeh, with hard edged bokeh balls. I guess this is a preferential thing. The G has better flare characteristics for sure, there have been a lot of improvements there. And for digital, the chromatic aberration has been greatly reduced with the G.
The sharpness is essentially the same. This lens came out before some of the new Zeiss and Sigma designs came along and made sharpness such a huge deal, so the Sigma 50 will still out-resolve it by A LOT wide open. OTOH, the Nikkor is wayyyy smaller, and the D is smaller still!
Conventional wisdom actually is that the 1.8 G is in many ways a sharper, better lens. Of course the 1.8 G doesn't have to resolve at 1.4, so when stopping down the 1.8 they equalize somewhat. As someone who owns the 58mm, and previously had owned the Sigma 50mm & both the 1.4 D & G, I can say that they're all great choices. I often get a little GAS for the 1.8 or 1.4 simply due to size reasons. It would make my SLRs incredibly compact. I would probably not go back to the D unless I got it for a scream or needed it for an older Nikon, but I would have a tough time picking between the 1.8 and 1.4 G. They both feel fantastic on an F6 or D750 in ways my ART lenses DO NOT. If the 1.8G line wasn't the same cost as the ART lenses roughly, I might have chosen them for my 24 & 35.
Hope that helped!
The G basically upgrades the lens to the new AF system, so silent drive, about the same speed, but I think more accurate. The bokeh has been smoothed out. The D has very classic bokeh, with hard edged bokeh balls. I guess this is a preferential thing. The G has better flare characteristics for sure, there have been a lot of improvements there. And for digital, the chromatic aberration has been greatly reduced with the G.
The sharpness is essentially the same. This lens came out before some of the new Zeiss and Sigma designs came along and made sharpness such a huge deal, so the Sigma 50 will still out-resolve it by A LOT wide open. OTOH, the Nikkor is wayyyy smaller, and the D is smaller still!
Conventional wisdom actually is that the 1.8 G is in many ways a sharper, better lens. Of course the 1.8 G doesn't have to resolve at 1.4, so when stopping down the 1.8 they equalize somewhat. As someone who owns the 58mm, and previously had owned the Sigma 50mm & both the 1.4 D & G, I can say that they're all great choices. I often get a little GAS for the 1.8 or 1.4 simply due to size reasons. It would make my SLRs incredibly compact. I would probably not go back to the D unless I got it for a scream or needed it for an older Nikon, but I would have a tough time picking between the 1.8 and 1.4 G. They both feel fantastic on an F6 or D750 in ways my ART lenses DO NOT. If the 1.8G line wasn't the same cost as the ART lenses roughly, I might have chosen them for my 24 & 35.
Hope that helped!
Huss
Veteran
I bought the 60 2.8D AFS over the G because I thought I wanted the aperture ring. But it is so poorly implemented- nasty plastic with no smoothness. It feels like plastic binding on plastic and nothing like a smooth metal ring on an AIS lens, or pretty much any metal lens with an aperture ring.
So when I bought a 50 1.8, I made sure to get the G model. Main thing is they have better coatings and are more flare resistant.
I researched the Nikon 50 1.8 vs 1.4 and the overwhelming consensus is that unless you need the 1.4 aperture, the 1.8 is the one to get.
So when I bought a 50 1.8, I made sure to get the G model. Main thing is they have better coatings and are more flare resistant.
I researched the Nikon 50 1.8 vs 1.4 and the overwhelming consensus is that unless you need the 1.4 aperture, the 1.8 is the one to get.
Ranchu
Veteran
Get the G. I really liked the 1.4 wide open, it keeps its contrast.
Ranchu
Veteran
Also, the D lenses make an ungodly chattering noise on your face.
papo
Established
uuh, i like that kinky kinda stuff
no really, image quality while shooting film is all that matters to me.
pvdhaar
Peter
And they're built far less tough.
Case in point; last week, my D750 with 50/1.8 D fell to the floor from less than 2ft. Fortunately, they landed lens down, so the D750 was fine. But, as the lens wasn't focused at infinity, the helicoid took the impact, and the result was that the focus and aperture mechanism are damaged even from this moderate drop. The focus is very rough, and the aperture lever hits the end of travel between f2.8 and f4 already.
The 50/1.8G that replaced the damaged D, has the moving parts completely inside a fixed outer tube; a lot more robust, and it probably would have survived this moderate hit.
Given the structural similarities between the 1.4 and 1.8D, I suspect that the situation wouldn't have been much different in case of a 50/1.4D on the camera.
james.liam
Well-known
I'd have gone for a Sigma ART 50/1.4 instead. Aside from the 50/1.2 and NOCT, never found any of the other Nikkor 50/55/58 all that interesting. Had the 45/2.8 for a while; the novelty of its tininess was offset by a less-than-sharp performance wider than ƒ/5.6. Likewise for the 50/1.4 AIS; exceedingly competent but no compelling personality.
lawrence
Veteran
I have owned both and the 1.4D seems to me superior in build to the 1.8D which, with the exception of sharpness, is perfectly horrible. I agree that the D build is not up to the G, however.
pvdhaar
Peter
Yes, true. The 1.4D is nicer built than the 1.8D. The similarity I refer to is that they both extend when focusing closer and the helicoid absorbs the power exerted by compression instead of the outer barrel.
Steve M.
Veteran
If you can live w/ f2 and manual focus, I honestly don't think Nikon makes anything better than the old non AI (or converted to AI) H 50 2 lenses. That's just my opinion from shooting nearly every manual and auto focus 50 lens Nikon ever made.