Hello all,

I am considering the purshase of a 50mm prime in the months to come and I am wondering about the value of the f/1,4 version over the f/1,8. From what I have seen/heard so far, the f/1,4 seems to be better built (externally at least) and is nearly 3 time pricer than the f/1,8. On the other hand, the current f/1,8 would apparently be the best Nikkor lense ever in terms of optical quality. Any comments on that?

Personally, I am all about optical quality and I don't really mind the flimsy plastic feel of the f/1,8 but I wouldn't be bothered to pay the extra for the f/1,4 if it was optically better.
The lense would be used on a D70 in the short run but it would meet a D200 soon enough (hence my concern about the best possible optics...).

On a side note, does these two lenses benefit from silent wave motors for the autofocus?

Feel free to share your views on the topic.

best regards

Seb

Hello all,

I am considering the purshase of a 50mm prime in the months to come and I am wondering about the value of the f/1,4 version over the f/1,8. From what I have seen/heard so far, the f/1,4 seems to be better built (externally at least) and is nearly 3 time pricer than the f/1,8. On the other hand, the current f/1,8 would apparently be the best Nikkor lense ever in terms of optical quality. Any comments on that?

Personally, I am all about optical quality and I don't really mind the flimsy plastic feel of the f/1,8 but I wouldn't be bothered to pay the extra for the f/1,4 if it was optically better.
The lense would be used on a D70 in the short run but it would meet a D200 soon enough (hence my concern about the best possible optics...).

On a side note, does these two lenses benefit from silent wave motors for the autofocus?

Feel free to share your views on the topic.

best regards

Seb

Neither lens has the silent wave motor. And while the silent focusing would be nice, I find it hard to believe that it would make a substanial difference in the AF speed.

I opted for the 50mm f1.4 myself. It was 2.5 times as much as the f1.8 version, but I've never regretted it. I'm one of the rare birds that shoots wide open (astrophotography), so I like having the extra half stop of light. Also, when shooting indoors, I like knowing that I can open up that extra half stop if it's really dark.

My two cents worth.

:-)

Actually you're getting 2/3 stop more light with f1.4 vs. f1.8 - and the point is that a little bit can help a lot in low light. That's why I bought the f1.4 version myself, the AF version non-D. There are situations when you can hardly see what you're shooting, let alone having the AF system find something to focus on. 2/3 stop may also make the difference between a handholdable shutter speed and a soft image.

The F5 could focus this thing so fast that you'd think it would go spinning right off the camera! The F5 has so much torque because it was designed to drive big lenses before AF-S came out (AF-S having the AF motor built into the lens). Anyway... It's a lightweight lens and doesn't have a very long throw for the focus ring so it will focus quick on anything. It's obviously very fast optically, and this helps the AF speed too.

I've never owned the f1.8 version, but it is built differently. I doubt you'd ever wear it out, and even if you did you could replace it and still spend less than the f1.4, if that's your concern.

Neither lens has the silent wave motor. And while the silent focusing would be nice, I find it hard to believe that it would make a substanial difference in the AF speed.

I opted for the 50mm f1.4 myself. It was 2.5 times as much as the f1.8 version, but I've never regretted it. I'm one of the rare birds that shoots wide open (astrophotography), so I like having the extra half stop of light. Also, when shooting indoors, I like knowing that I can open up that extra half stop if it's really dark.

My two cents worth.

:-)

Thanks Speed,

For having rented two Nikkor lense with Silent Wave (the dx12-24 and the 17-35 f/2.8) I can say that they focus really fast. In the case of the 50mm prime, I guess that I was mostly interested about the silent nature of the Silent Wave motor...

According to your general experience, do you feel that your 50mm prime own an advantage in terms of picture quality while compared to other lenses you are using?

Seb

Actually you're getting 2/3 stop more light with f1.4 vs. f1.8 - and the point is that a little bit can help a lot in low light. That's why I bought the f1.4 version myself, the AF version non-D. There are situations when you can hardly see what you're shooting, let alone having the AF system find something to focus on. 2/3 stop may also make the difference between a handholdable shutter speed and a soft image.

The F5 could focus this thing so fast that you'd think it would go spinning right off the camera! The F5 has so much torque because it was designed to drive big lenses before AF-S came out (AF-S having the AF motor built into the lens). Anyway... It's a lightweight lens and doesn't have a very long throw for the focus ring so it will focus quick on anything. It's obviously very fast optically, and this helps the AF speed too.

I've never owned the f1.8 version, but it is built differently. I doubt you'd ever wear it out, and even if you did you could replace it and still spend less than the f1.4, if that's your concern.

Thanks Another View,

I am not really concerned about the price difference betwen the two (as pretentious as it may sound lol...). I don't want to spend less for something that would not fully satisfy me, that would be a waste. I understand the significant advantage of the f/1,4 in speed. I was curious to know if the f /1,8 was optically better (sharper) as some people seems to think.

Seb

Thanks Speed,

For having rented two Nikkor lense with Silent Wave (the dx12-24 and the 17-35 f/2.8) I can say that they focus really fast. In the case of the 50mm prime, I guess that I was mostly interested about the silent nature of the Silent Wave motor...

According to your general experience, do you feel that your 50mm prime own an advantage in terms of picture quality while compared to other lenses you are using?

Seb

Hey Seb,

I'd have to say yes, there is an advantage with the prime. It's a small one compared to a good quality lens (like my Sigma 28-70 f2.8), but there is a difference. And frankly, I can't tell any quality difference between it and my 80-200mm f2.8. But that's a $900+ lens with top of the line optics.

I can't compare the quality between the f1.4 version and the f1.8 version, because I haven't used the latter. And everyone that's commented on one or the other has raved about how great that particular lens was. Maybe someone on PR has used both and can comment on the comparision for you.

Sorry I couldn't be more help, but there's what I've got for you.

Seb, when I bought my tokina 12-24 which is pretty sharp i tested it against a 50 1.8. the 50 was sharper @ f1.8 than the 12-24 @ every aperture. I shot a section of newspaper using a tripod.
If there is A difference in sharpness between the 1.4 and 1.8, I doubt that it would be noticeable in print. I'm not sure but I think that both lenses can out resolve the sensor on both cameras.
The 1.8 is small and light but solid. If you break this lens you would likely break the 1.4 also.
One thing, I can grab the lens barrel and wiggle it slightly, but it doesn't move when I shake it.
Mark.

I had the 50mm 1.8 for a few years and realy liked it. It is as sharp as you hear and really light and compact, too. I sold it for a zoom and recently sold the zoom and purchased the 50mm 1.4, which hasn't arrived yet. I had a Canon 1.4 several years ago and it rocked. From everything I read, the Nikon 1.4 is an excellent, very sharp lens in its own right and only suffers from comparison to the 1.8. We'll see.

Even though the price difference is big in relative terms, it's not that big in hard dollars. The 17-35 2.8, for example, sells for $1,500 while the 18-35 is around $500. Still three times as much, but at $1,000.

Thank you guys for your support. I'll be renting the 50mm f/1,4 (the f/1,8 doesn't seems available for rent downthere) sometimes in late march or april when the good weather comes back so I can go out for a serious shooting session. I am curious to test it before taking a final decision. I'll let you know what I ends up with!

regards

Seb

I understand the significant advantage of the f/1,4 in speed. I was curious to know if the f /1,8 was optically better (sharper) as some people seems to think.
Spending more to get what you need isn't pretentious. That's why I bought it too, and really I've never seen a lens that someone physically wore out from over use. An Iraq PJ might be a different case...

I've never shot with the 1.8 but have had two versions of the 1.4 (AI manual focus and AF non-D). They're all good. I usually use fast primes in cases where I have to because of low light. In those cases, I don't think you'll see any optical difference between the two (or three, as I noted).

I've heard of people doing tests by photographing a newspaper (roughly full frame) taped to the wall, and see how the center sharpness is versus the corners, etc. In low light photography you don't always have the luxury of a tripod and a controlled environment so these tests are basically pointless in my case, because of how I planned on using the lens. Really, the 1.4 is very sharp and the 1.8 can't be that much better. If you need that extra 2/3 stop then that would be much more important than any slight loss of sharpness.