nikon 50mm 1.4 G

hobodan

hobodan

Messages
577
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
Thinking of buying one of these soon to compliment my 28 1.8 & 85 1.8

I have read various snipets online about it being unacceptably "soft" wide open & maybe not as good as the 1.8 g @ 1.8 . I would just like to here from those of you that have or have used the 1.4 g,
Is it noticeably "soft" wide open or are we talking serious pixel peeping territory here?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I was a little underwhelmed with mine in general. I found my tamron 17-50 to be sharper in the centre so i sold it. I'd save your money and buy the old AF-d 1.8 for £85 on amazon. Spend the extra £220 on a Tamron 17-50 or something:)
 
Last edited:
I've used both, the 1.8g is better if you don't need 1.4. Quite a lot faster to focus as well, and much cheaper obviously.
 
are we talking serious pixel peeping territory here?

YES and YES again

i use mine most of the time,to be honest my D was just as good then i take pics i dont shoot walls...:)
 
i should add its wide open most of the time as well same with my 85G
 
hobodan said:
Thinking of buying one of these soon to compliment my 28 1.8 & 85 1.8

I have read various snipets online about it being unacceptably "soft" wide open & maybe not as good as the 1.8 g @ 1.8 . I would just like to here from those of you that have or have used the 1.4 g,
Is it noticeably "soft" wide open or are we talking serious pixel peeping territory here?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I believe the general rule of thumb is the 50 f/1.8g for dx and the 50 f/1.4 for fx.
 
The quality is similar between the two. The 1.4 is as sharp wide open as the 1.8 is also wide open. The 1.4 @ f2 is slightly sharper in the centre than the 1.8, but edge sharpness is almost the same for both. From then on the performance is almost identical.

Incidentally, I opted for the 1.8G as it's every bit as good, smaller, lighter, cheaper, and I simply do not need 1.4.

You're paying a large premium for a little more light gathering. In terms of optical quality, there nothing to choose between them.

Nikkor 50mm 1.4G

Nikkor 50mm 1.8G
 
Get whichever one you can afford, they are all pretty good lenses, the 50/1.8D, 50/1.4D are worth considering if you want to save a few pennies.
 
The 50 1.8D is the standard lens bargain of the century IMO. It's not in the same league as the G lenses, but it's performance far exceeds it's price!

This was taken on a 50mm 1.8D with a D800, and if any camera can show up a lens's flaws, it's the 800.

Click for the full resolution image and have a good pixel peep!




That's at f11 too... it's sharper still at 5.6. The G series 50s are truly excellent though... and IMO, worth the extra.
 
Last edited:
I've had a few of the Nikon 50mm's now. In fact I think the only AF one I haven't had is the 50mm 1.8 AF-D. In my opinion the 50mm 1.4g is the best overall but only because I think it's as good as the 1.8g version at 1.8 but then offers another extra chunk of light of needed. Actual IQ is no better. One thing I would never say is that the 1.4g is soft wide open. Soft might be a relative term but I'd never hesitate to use one wide open and in fact rarely used mine at anything else.

This one is wide open. ISO 800 has softened things a touch but I think it's more than acceptable.


GAD_5787 by G.A.D, on Flickr

For what it's worth I now have the 50mm 1.8g just because one came along at a good price and I don't really need the 1.4g so pocketed the difference. Something to think about.
 
Not the best test though mate.. there's nothing sharp at the edges to assess edge sharpness.

There's nothing to choose between the 1.4 and 1.8 in terms of sharpness.. they're almost identical. Both are better than the 1.8D image I posted above and as you can see... there's not really anything wrong with that either.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not the best test though mate.. there's nothing sharp at the edges to assess edge sharpness.

There's nothing to choose between the 1.4 and 1.8 in terms of sharpness.. they're almost identical. Both are better than the 1.8D image I posted above and as you can see... there's not really anything wrong with that either.
Click to expand...

I don't think I implied it was sharp to the edges because that isn't what the OP asked. He said he had been told that it is noticeably soft wide open. I'm saying it isn't or certainly isn't in the centre. For what it's worth I don't remember using a lens that doesn't display some edge softness wide open.

I agree with the you about them all being much of a muchness, in fact that is pretty much what I said.
 
I know... that's actually what I meant.. loads of lenses are sharp towards the centre wide open. Sorry, wasn't having a go. I'm trying to find a shot with the 1.8G wide open that shows how sharp it is at teh edges and can't find one either. I may take a series of shots later this evening at all apertures.
 
Last edited:
they are all good

this is like when bike magazines compare a R1 to a blade etc.in the real world there is no real differance if you are a photographer rather than a wall shooter.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I was recently rereading (I was ill on first reading, so it came as news to me!) in one of the mag's 2nd hand lens supplements that until the AF-S version of the f/1.8 Nikkor, the lens had remained optically the same for 30 years. The current lens is marginally sharper and more contrasty, the older lenses are almost identical in terms of detail resolution. The article goes on to say that older examples are often sold bundled with old Nikon AF film bodies, sometimes for less than the value of just a lens, so keep your eyes open for a real bargain! (It also says that the lenses are valued at around £100 which makes my old, screw driven one a real bargain - I paid £40 for it [from a dealer] several years ago!)
 
straycat said:
they are all good

this is like when bike magazines compare a R1 to a blade etc.in the real world there is no real differance if you are a photographer rather than a wall shooter.
Click to expand...

Of course... but there's still a need to evaluate to see which is the best value for money/performance surely? This attitude of "I don't shoot brick walls" is a little silly. If one lens reproduces a brick wall perfectly edge to edge and one doesn't, you wouldn't want the one that couldn't just because you aren't going to shoot brick walls. You'd still want the best lens you can afford.. and the best way of establishing that is for you, or someone else to shoot brick walls.. or lens test charts.. or whatever else. Personally I hope people do keep shooting brick walls to test lenses, because looking at the images they produce is the only sure fire way of knowing which is best.
 
Last edited:
Of the 2 50mm 1.4 lenses (Nikon and Sigma), there is very little to choose between them. The Nikon is generally reviewed by testers as sharper at the edges wide open, whilst the Sigma is sharper centrally.

In real world terms at print sizes it is very difficult to spot any difference, however as I wanted it for portraits I went for the Sigma, as the centre of the image was going to be most important for me.

Most peoples issues with either lens come from the dof when wide open. At short distances the in focus part of the shot can be very small, so any movement form the photographer or the subject can ruin the shot. Get it right however and the results from either are lovely.

Bottom line if you need the 1.4 then either will be fine. If you don't need 1.4 get the 1.8
 
Well its reassuring to know the 1.4 g is good enough wide open, I love shallow depth of field photography with creamy bokeh so the 50 1.4 should be right up my street. It'll primarily be on my d7000 until the d600 price comes down a little, thought id gather some nice primes before splashing out on the body.

Thanks for your input people
 
PsiFox said:
Of the 2 50mm 1.4 lenses (Nikon and Sigma), there is very little to choose between them. The Nikon is generally reviewed by testers as sharper at the edges wide open, whilst the Sigma is sharper centrally.
Click to expand...

It's not. The Nikkor is sharper everywhere, at every aperture.

Sigma

Nikkor

The Nikkor is the same price as the Sigma too.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Of course... but there's still a need to evaluate to see which is the best value for money/performance surely? This attitude of "I don't shoot brick walls" is a little silly. If one lens reproduces a brick wall perfectly edge to edge and one doesn't, you wouldn't want the one that couldn't just because you aren't going to shoot brick walls. You'd still want the best lens you can afford.. and the best way of establishing that is for you, or someone else to shoot brick walls.. or lens test charts.. or whatever else. Personally I hope people do keep shooting brick walls to test lenses, because looking at the images they produce is the only sure fire way of knowing which is best.
Click to expand...

or you could just go out and take a fantastic photo.
 
i dont shoot walls i take photos

is it soft at the edges i dont know or care

i do care that it allows me to take photos in low light like these at 1.4,1.6,1.8 etc.

no one ever tells me my rock photos are soft at the edges or ought like that :lol:

NME_zps2266ba35.jpg



JC7_2089_zps79b4296e.jpg




JC7_03372012edit_zpsdc95161e.jpg
 
Well.. good for you. You know what.. I don't take pictures of walls either, but before I part company with money, I like to know I'm getting my money's worth. So you're too cool to read lens tests... well, great, but the Sigma and the Nikkor are the same price... and one of them is pants. I suppose you're too cool to care though huh? That wouldn't be rock and roll :)


that last dude looks like Bruce Willis :)
 
my point is a lot of time people are talking fractions in the end its the image that counts.

ps i thought it was kurtz?
 
I agree completely with you. However, you shoot subjects that demand wide open shooting all the time... and those subjects are probably rarely, if ever at the edge of the frame. It probably makes no difference to you. Most people use 50s as a very general purpose lens though, and use it all apertures, and with a range of subjects... some of which will use the edge of the FOV.

Happily... both the 1.8 and 1.4G lenses are awesome... even for those of us who shoot brick walls ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's not. The Nikkor is sharper everywhere, at every aperture.

Sigma

Nikkor

The Nikkor is the same price as the Sigma too.
Click to expand...

Wow, you found a review saying the Nikon is better. There are plenty saying the opposite.

I tried both photographing people. The Sigma was better , so I bought it.
 
just gone through same process, now waiting for 50mm 1.8G to arrive, difference in DOF between 1.4 and 1.8 at 5m is very small and the extra light is not really a problem with newer cameras
 
You'll love it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
that last dude looks like Bruce Willis :)
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I thought!!!!!!

And just to keep it on topic - I have the Nikkor 1.4, and love it, although I don't really use it all that much. Saying that makes me want to go out and use it more...
 
PsiFox said:
Wow, you found a review saying the Nikon is better. There are plenty saying the opposite.

I tried both photographing people. The Sigma was better , so I bought it.
Click to expand...
Got to admit but my Sigma knocks spots off the 4 different Nikons ive owned, G, D, 1.4 and 1.8
 
Looks like all the Sigma owners have arrived :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Looks like all the Sigma owners have arrived :)
Click to expand...
Oh dear, here we go again David, introduce the sarcasm when people with different views and/or experiences chip in, we live in a democracy but obviously you've been brought up in Argentina or some other Dictatorship.

You're not always right fella.
 
I put a smiley face on my post. Traditionally that is meant to indicate humour, and light-hearted banter.

Can I suggest you have a good look for your sense of humour? You appear to have misplaced it somewhere. (no smiley).
 
Smileys also tend to be used as a self defence mechanism where people want to say what they actually mean but don't want to come across as total pratts, it didn't work in your case.
 
No.. smileys CAN be used that way. I always say what I mean, regardless of how others will take it. I tend not to go around getting personal with people though. I leave that to little men hiding behind computers.
 
C'mon fellas. No need for all this.

FWIW I think the Sigma 50 1.4 is better than the Nikon. But mine's a sod and I've been in touch with Sigma today to get it looked at :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top