-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
50mm 1.4D vs 1.8D
- Thread starter elaxra1
- Start date
Ken Osborne
Forum Enthusiast
Most people seem to agree that from 1.8 to around 2.8 the more expensive lens is sharper and has better contrast. It also has usable and perhaps artistically valuable 1.4. Beyond 2.8 they are pretty much identical.
--
Hours of tedium punctuated by seconds of chaos.
--
Hours of tedium punctuated by seconds of chaos.
I sold my 50 1.8 and bought the 50 1.4. The 1.4 is better from F1.4 to F4, if you shoot above F4 get the 1.8 unless you're rough on your lenses, the 1.4 is much better built.
--
Dennis D
slimandy
Forum Pro
Depends what you want it for. It it is mainly for low-light capabilities, or for narrow DOF, the 1.4 is a clear winner at wide apertures, sharper and better contrast. If you want a compact lens that is very sharp in normal usage look no further than the 1.8, it's superb.
I kept the 1.8 because its small enough and cheap enough to leave in my jacket pocket, yet such a good sharp lens to have. It's low-light performance is good enough when needed if it's not the main reason for owing the lens.
I kept the 1.8 because its small enough and cheap enough to leave in my jacket pocket, yet such a good sharp lens to have. It's low-light performance is good enough when needed if it's not the main reason for owing the lens.
zwieciu
Well-known member
as for the optical quality, here are some samples from both lenses. you can check how they perform at a specific aperture, too:
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/Nikon_50mm_f1.8/
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/Nikon_50mm_f1.4/
I'd say go for the 1.4 if you like primes (as I do). After all, how often do you need to replace a prime? You might wish you had gotten the 1.4 in a few years from now.
cheers,
rafael.
--
------
search full size-images from specific lenses at desired f-stop/focal: http://www.pixel-peeper.com
my photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwieciu
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/Nikon_50mm_f1.8/
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/Nikon_50mm_f1.4/
I'd say go for the 1.4 if you like primes (as I do). After all, how often do you need to replace a prime? You might wish you had gotten the 1.4 in a few years from now.
cheers,
rafael.
--
------
search full size-images from specific lenses at desired f-stop/focal: http://www.pixel-peeper.com
my photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwieciu
I have the following:
AF non D 1.8
AIS 1.8
AI 1.4 SC
I have stopped thinking of sharpness for these guys. There are other things way more important. Chromatic abberation and flare are very different amongst them.
AF 1.8 non D (made in Japan) has the highest of the 3 in terms of CA and flare. This lens gives the brightest picture for identical manual settings and all using a the same rubber hood (which theoretically should give unfair advantage to this lens due to it's build in "hood"). However, the result is that it is bluest and with most flare. I think the extra brightness is made of flares! Distant shots are not good. Close shots wide aperture are not very good under AF or MF. This lens sometimes meters 1 stop over on a D50.
The AIS 1.8 is a gem but still have some CA and flare and somewhat a little bit blue. Close focusing and wide open performance is very good. Distant shots are marred by CA anf flare but this is a smaller issue. This lens gives the second brightest picture at identical settings.
The AI 1.4 has the best colours and least CA for all apertures and all distances. Close focusing is troublesome (even at F11) Distant shots performance is the best. If you sum up the total image quality attributes this is the winner because of the good colours, low CA, low flare and graceful gradation of colours. This lens gives the lowest brightness in the picture at identical settings. This is the only lens that endows the pictures with a "feel" that you are looking at the real thing instead of a photo. You tend to be distracted from the topic of sharpness when you see the pictures from this lens. You think of fidelity.
As an aside the 55mm F2.8 Micro has even less CA than the 50/1.4 AI for distant shots @ F11. However it requires extremely careful focusing compared to many of MF lenses.
If you think of the total set of image quality attributes, F1.4 should give you the edge. Of course my inputs are based on old equipment. E.g., I cannot explain why my AIS 1.8 is better than the AF 1.8. I remember Bjorn mentioned changes of lens quality attributes from a change of country that manufactures it.
When you actually test and compare the lenses, see if any of the above rings a bell or two...
AF non D 1.8
AIS 1.8
AI 1.4 SC
I have stopped thinking of sharpness for these guys. There are other things way more important. Chromatic abberation and flare are very different amongst them.
AF 1.8 non D (made in Japan) has the highest of the 3 in terms of CA and flare. This lens gives the brightest picture for identical manual settings and all using a the same rubber hood (which theoretically should give unfair advantage to this lens due to it's build in "hood"). However, the result is that it is bluest and with most flare. I think the extra brightness is made of flares! Distant shots are not good. Close shots wide aperture are not very good under AF or MF. This lens sometimes meters 1 stop over on a D50.
The AIS 1.8 is a gem but still have some CA and flare and somewhat a little bit blue. Close focusing and wide open performance is very good. Distant shots are marred by CA anf flare but this is a smaller issue. This lens gives the second brightest picture at identical settings.
The AI 1.4 has the best colours and least CA for all apertures and all distances. Close focusing is troublesome (even at F11) Distant shots performance is the best. If you sum up the total image quality attributes this is the winner because of the good colours, low CA, low flare and graceful gradation of colours. This lens gives the lowest brightness in the picture at identical settings. This is the only lens that endows the pictures with a "feel" that you are looking at the real thing instead of a photo. You tend to be distracted from the topic of sharpness when you see the pictures from this lens. You think of fidelity.
As an aside the 55mm F2.8 Micro has even less CA than the 50/1.4 AI for distant shots @ F11. However it requires extremely careful focusing compared to many of MF lenses.
If you think of the total set of image quality attributes, F1.4 should give you the edge. Of course my inputs are based on old equipment. E.g., I cannot explain why my AIS 1.8 is better than the AF 1.8. I remember Bjorn mentioned changes of lens quality attributes from a change of country that manufactures it.
When you actually test and compare the lenses, see if any of the above rings a bell or two...
xPat
Active member
It’s been pretty well covered but I might as well get my say in. But having never owned or used a 50 1.4, take everything I say with a grain of salt.
From the review I've seen it would seem the 1.4 is sharper from 1.4 to f5.6ish then the 1.8 becomes sharper.
I have the 1.8 and my best photos consistently come from this lens. But I rarely use it below f2.8
My 2 cents if you want to shoot wide open and have better bokeh get the 1.4 if you want to shoot stopped down save some money and get the 1.8
--
http://www.xpatracing.com/gallery/main.php
From the review I've seen it would seem the 1.4 is sharper from 1.4 to f5.6ish then the 1.8 becomes sharper.
I have the 1.8 and my best photos consistently come from this lens. But I rarely use it below f2.8
My 2 cents if you want to shoot wide open and have better bokeh get the 1.4 if you want to shoot stopped down save some money and get the 1.8
--
http://www.xpatracing.com/gallery/main.php
I have had this pre-AI Nikkor since the mid 60's. I
got it with the F shown here. I've been thinking about
getting it AI'd by John White (Ive had a few others
done previously). I've been wondering if it is worth it
or should I just get the new 1.8 (or 1.4). I don't mind
manually focusing this lens as it is very bright and as I
recall, very sharp. I'd be using it on my D200:
--
Lou
http://loutent.smugmug.com/
got it with the F shown here. I've been thinking about
getting it AI'd by John White (Ive had a few others
done previously). I've been wondering if it is worth it
or should I just get the new 1.8 (or 1.4). I don't mind
manually focusing this lens as it is very bright and as I
recall, very sharp. I'd be using it on my D200:
--
Lou
http://loutent.smugmug.com/
I've got a AI 1.4 S.C. which is a tad closer to this (same number of elements and same external look). See above for how well it performs. I think it is worth unless you want AF.
I have had this pre-AI Nikkor since the mid 60's. I
got it with the F shown here. I've been thinking about
getting it AI'd by John White (Ive had a few others
done previously). I've been wondering if it is worth it
or should I just get the new 1.8 (or 1.4). I don't mind
manually focusing this lens as it is very bright and as I
recall, very sharp. I'd be using it on my D200:
--
Lou
http://loutent.smugmug.com/
Mario
Senior Member
I still have both of these exactly because they are so different. If you find yourself wanting to shoot below f4 all the time, then buy the f1.4 version. If on the other hand you shoot at f4 to f11 most of the time with occasional shot at f2.8 or f1.8 get the 1.8 version.
50 1.8 is actually sharper and better above f9 or so (or rather f1.4 version sucks above f9), and it's sharper across the frame. At f4 they are about the same. Below that I would give more edge to f1.4 version, more so as we approach f1.8.
50 f1.4 = low light and general photography lens
50 f1.8 = general photography, landscape and low light lens. (in that order).
--
Mario
50 1.8 is actually sharper and better above f9 or so (or rather f1.4 version sucks above f9), and it's sharper across the frame. At f4 they are about the same. Below that I would give more edge to f1.4 version, more so as we approach f1.8.
50 f1.4 = low light and general photography lens
50 f1.8 = general photography, landscape and low light lens. (in that order).
--
Mario
Yes, I'll second that. My 1.4 is very sharp from f2.8 to f.8, but tends to soften after that. In fact, the 18-55 kit lens delivers and equally good shot at f9, and even sharper shot at f10.
At the same time, the 1.8 looks pretty soft below f4 compared to the 1.4.
Therefore, if you want to stop down, get yourself the 1.8. If you need a lens for low light and shallow DOF, get the 1.4 instead. They're both great lenses for the money.
Nick
Weird. Nearly every well respected reviewer who's looked at this lens has said that from f4 to f16 it is razor sharp. I think one may have said it is slightly less sharp at f16, but you really had to look hard for it. I wonder if you may have a flawed version. Saying the 50mm f1.4 sucks after f9 is so contrary to what the so-called experts say about the lens, I just wonder.
Mario
Senior Member
I'm comparing it to itself at where it is the best. When it "sucks" above f9, it's still better than many lenses, but not say 17-35 f2.8 or 70-200 VR good.
But then again those two can't touch it at f2.8.
--
Mario
But then again those two can't touch it at f2.8.
--
Mario
When you add flare and CA (or lack of them) and colour balance nto the equation 1.4 is still far superior to the 1.8 for distant shot and F11 (I never use beyond F11 unless for very harsh conditions, which will not meaning anything anyway)
Lenses low in CA tend to do well in distant shots and give good details for distant objects. Lenses higher in CA tends to give harsh transitions (e.g. Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and the 18-55.)
I've essentially put away both my 1.8s after having the 1.4.
(Of course what I have is ancient and is not the modern AFD and so something may be different)
Lenses low in CA tend to do well in distant shots and give good details for distant objects. Lenses higher in CA tends to give harsh transitions (e.g. Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and the 18-55.)
I've essentially put away both my 1.8s after having the 1.4.
(Of course what I have is ancient and is not the modern AFD and so something may be different)
Oliver Kim
Well-known member
I own the 1.4. It's hard to use at 1.4 I think. Maybe I got a bad copy but most pictures taken at 1.4 are blurry/out of focus. Maybe my D70 is back/frontfocussing but I don't have this problem with my other lenses. But I think the DOF is SO narrow at 1.4 that it is luck to take a sharp picture/get a picture with the right spots to be in focus.
I thought I could use the 1.4 as a "regular" "slower" lens. Unfortately I do not have much time right now to practice.
I thought I could use the 1.4 as a "regular" "slower" lens. Unfortately I do not have much time right now to practice.
Try to manually focus it just a a test, elbows on table. DOF is shallow at 1.4 but one should ALWAYS and EASILY find a point that is in focus if there is no camera shake (1/30 seconds, elbows on table is quite reliable already. Use a tripod or 1/125 seconds just to be sure). If you cannot find any point that looks to be in focus, may be it is something else, depends on how healthy/old the lens is.
Some lenses just don't focus at a particular distance, as in the case of my very old 55m F2.8 AIS, which is excellent in both macro and infinity but can't do 2~8 feet properly, espeically 2-3 feet. May be something is broken so that the distance between certain lens element are mechanically wrong at that focusing distance range. Artificially setting aperture to improve DOF helps but you lose the big aperture advantage.
So are you using a new-ish lens or is it ancient (like most of mine)?
Some lenses just don't focus at a particular distance, as in the case of my very old 55m F2.8 AIS, which is excellent in both macro and infinity but can't do 2~8 feet properly, espeically 2-3 feet. May be something is broken so that the distance between certain lens element are mechanically wrong at that focusing distance range. Artificially setting aperture to improve DOF helps but you lose the big aperture advantage.
So are you using a new-ish lens or is it ancient (like most of mine)?
ARB1
Senior Member
I just purchased a 1.4D today, I'll let you know how it works.
--
http://www.pbase.com/artist
Olympus E20
Nikon D200
18-200mm
--
http://www.pbase.com/artist
Olympus E20
Nikon D200
18-200mm
Therion256
Well-known member
I'm not quite so sure that there is a 3x performance/image quality gain for the almost-3x price differential between the 50mm 1.8D vs. the 1.4D.
The build quality of the 1.4 is much better (perhaps 3x?) than that of the 1.8 and it performs better at the larger apertures (from 2 to 1.4.) Also I've noticed that the 1.4 has more contrast and somewhat better colour rendition.
Again, probably not quite a "3x" quality boost...but something for the discerning photographer to keep in mind.
--
----
http://therion256.smugmug.com
The build quality of the 1.4 is much better (perhaps 3x?) than that of the 1.8 and it performs better at the larger apertures (from 2 to 1.4.) Also I've noticed that the 1.4 has more contrast and somewhat better colour rendition.
Again, probably not quite a "3x" quality boost...but something for the discerning photographer to keep in mind.
--
----
http://therion256.smugmug.com
Therion256
Well-known member
...and I forgot to mention, I had the 1.8, and I continue to be pleased with my upgrade to the 1.4...a true gem of a lens.
--
----
http://therion256.smugmug.com
--
----
http://therion256.smugmug.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum