Nikon 50mm f1.4D or f1.4G

D

Drpepper99uk

Messages
344
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

Having browsed the web looking for the answer, I'm looking to buy either of these lenses. Naturally I would just go out and buy the latest model, but I have read that it focuses slower than the older f1.4D and there's the price difference to factor in as well.

I have a D300 and this will be the main camera used with this type of lens. What should I look out for with either lens in terms of use? The latest Digital Camera magazine gave the newer G model rave reviews(they did comment on the slower focusing as well in comparison to the older version)

Mike.
 
Ive got the 1.4D & D300 combination.
I would not change it.
Its a really well built lens, options for manual apature and really good quality.
why spend more when you dont need to.
 
the newer version is slower to focus then the older 'D', but it also doesn't hunt for focus in low light as the 'D' does. As a newer lens the 'G' doesn't suffer from some of the abberations that the 'D@ did. Go for the G its worth the extra
 
The G model focuses quickly but in normal light the D focuses a bit quicker. I have the G model which I am totally pleased with but cant help with a comparison because I have not actually used the D.
 
StingerNikon said:
D version is sharper if you use it wide open (f/1.4, f/2.0), G - has better "background blur" but it is sharp starting only from f/2.8 and It is very sharp at f/3.5.
Click to expand...

you have a poor copy then - I have no issues using this lens wide open
 
if the d has an aperture ring get that one ,then you can use it on your manual film camera ( when you get it ) (y)
 
boyfalldown said:
you have a poor copy then - I have no issues using this lens wide open
Click to expand...

Indeed, or maybe user error, the 1.4D I have is extremely sharp at 1.4, only gripe is the really nasty flare that can occur, that's the only thing making me consider the G.
 
boyfalldown said:
you have a poor copy then - I have no issues using this lens wide open
Click to expand...

:shake:It's not about "a poor copy", "user error" or just my own experience.

There are a lot of different tests on the Internet so you can see comparison of these two lenses wide open
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/12

I'm not trying to say that the old "D" is better tnan new "G".
I'm just saying that wide open at f/1.4 AF-D 50mm version is shaper than AF-S 50mm at f/1.4. But I do like AF-S G 50mm version more because of better blurred, out-of-focus backgrounds.

"In summary, AF-S 50mm G significantly soft when used wide open at ƒ/1.4, good central sharpness at ƒ/2, and at ƒ/2.8 and smaller, it shows quite sharp results".:rules:
(as seen on http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1231/cat/12)

4292882797_6ef034a4f5_o.jpg
 
sorry but tests? - it's real pictures that matter. I've owned both - now have the G - which is overall better but the D is a great lens - faster to aquire focus if the light is good but the G tracks better, better bokeh and is also tack sharp - forget looking at tests - you'll go mad - these are for boffins not photographers!
 
awp said:
sorry but tests? - it's real pictures that matter. I've owned both - now have the G - which is overall better but the D is a great lens - faster to aquire focus if the light is good but the G tracks better, better bokeh and is also tack sharp - forget looking at tests - you'll go mad - these are for boffins not photographers!
Click to expand...

I owned both as well. And posted here my opinion. I was told that it was just an exception "a poor copy" that is why I provided you the evidence of tests.

If you read how they did their tests - you can see all the photos they took.
So perhaps you will start to trust not only to my relatively small experience but to some facts. (y)
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon50f14g/zz_sampleindex.htm
 
well I'm quite happy using mine at 1.4 - but it does require good technique to get in focus images - and that's nothing to do with the lens - just the 1.4. And as I said it's real world pics that matter taken in real situations - not test cards.
 
I am over the moon with my afs g version. The reason I got it was to shoot at f1.4 I have also aqquired a zeiss 50 f1.4 planar, both of these I love, I am very pleased with the nikon 1.4 focus speed and also it's performance, I agree with others tests realistically mean little it is real world performance that matters.
 
I too have the 50mm f/1.4G version - last D lens I had was back in 1995, so memory's a bit hazy, but I think it was OK...lol

This f/1.4G is fabulous - using it a lot for portraits, wide-open...
 
StingerNikon said:
:shake:It's not about "a poor copy", "user error" or just my own experience.

There are a lot of different tests on the Internet so you can see comparison of these two lenses wide open
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/12

I'm not trying to say that the old "D" is better tnan new "G".
I'm just saying that wide open at f/1.4 AF-D 50mm version is shaper than AF-S 50mm at f/1.4. But I do like AF-S G 50mm version more because of better blurred, out-of-focus backgrounds.

"In summary, AF-S 50mm G significantly soft when used wide open at ƒ/1.4, good central sharpness at ƒ/2, and at ƒ/2.8 and smaller, it shows quite sharp results".:rules:
(as seen on http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1231/cat/12)

4292882797_6ef034a4f5_o.jpg
Click to expand...


if your copy of this lens isn't very sharp until f3.5 then you have a poor copy. No amount of internet tests will change that. My copy certainly isn't 'significantly soft' at f/1.4

Having owned both lenses, the G is a better all round lens. Although I agree the D does focus slightly faster in good light, its far worse as soon as conditions worsen.

Hugh
 
awp said:
well I'm quite happy using mine at 1.4 - but it does require good technique to get in focus images - and that's nothing to do with the lens - just the 1.4. And as I said it's real world pics that matter taken in real situations - not test cards.
Click to expand...

I agree that at f/1,4 good technique is required to get in focus images, but did you know that at f/1.4 this Nikon AF-S50 G lens has "back focus"?

Of course if you use D300,D700 or D3 you can adjust your camera body but the thing is if you adjust it and try to eliminate "back focus" for f/1.4 you will get an issue of "front focus" or "back focus" at some other values of "f".

Its a huge topic)) and just trough own experience it can take ages to learn something and understand. That is why I think there is nothing wrong with it to read some tests to facilitate your knowledge.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Just for information. While I was testing the AF-S 50mm G model I had three AF-S 50mm G lenses. One I bought from Graysofwestminster, two bought from Calumet.
Four different camera bodies (D200, D80, and two D90) and in addition to this several phone calls and emails were made to Nikon regarding sharpness of the lens at f/1.4. So finally they confirmed that its just the law of optics )) :)
 
not sure if this is wide open - but pretty nearly:

2AW_3520-Edit.jpg


taken with a D3
 
boyfalldown said:
if your copy of this lens isn't very sharp until f3.5 then you have a poor copy. No amount of internet tests will change that. My copy certainly isn't 'significantly soft' at f/1.4

Having owned both lenses, the G is a better all round lens. Although I agree the D does focus slightly faster in good light, its far worse as soon as conditions worsen.

Hugh
Click to expand...

If you read the beggining of the topick you can see that the author owns
D300 body and considering to buy AF-D or AF-S.

As I can see from your profile you are using D700 which is Full frame.
Results of lenses are different depending on DX or FX.

So for Full frame camera I would defenitely recommend G version.
For DX at f/1.4 D version is sharper. I tried to explain everithing in details and support my words with evidence. Good luck(y)
 
StingerNikon said:
If you read the beggining of the topick you can see that the author owns
D300 body and considering to buy AF-D or AF-S.

As I can see from your profile you are using D700 which is Full frame.
Results of lenses are different depending on DX or FX.

So for Full frame camera I would defenitely recommend G version.
For DX at f/1.4 D version is sharper. I tried to explain everithing in details and support my words with evidence. Good luck(y)
Click to expand...

for FX or for DX central sharpness with both lens will be the same - the image circle produced onto the sensor won't change even if the sensor size does :)
 
StingerNikon said:
I agree that at f/1,4 good technique is required to get in focus images, but did you know that at f/1.4 this Nikon AF-S50 G lens has "back focus"?

Of course if you use D300,D700 or D3 you can adjust your camera body but the thing is if you adjust it and try to eliminate "back focus" for f/1.4 you will get an issue of "front focus" or "back focus" at some other values of "f".

Its a huge topic)) and just trough own experience it can take ages to learn something and understand. That is why I think there is nothing wrong with it to read some tests to facilitate your knowledge.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Just for information. While I was testing the AF-S 50mm G model I had three AF-S 50mm G lenses. One I bought from Graysofwestminster, two bought from Calumet.
Four different camera bodies (D200, D80, and two D90) and in addition to this several phone calls and emails were made to Nikon regarding sharpness of the lens at f/1.4. So finally they confirmed that its just the law of optics )) :)
Click to expand...

Just a quick question then, can you explain your last sentence and what nikon actually said.

As another point, I think people get so hooked up on pixel peeping that sometimes they forget to look at it at the size they are printing, also people have got used to "sharper" pictures since digital, you onlyhqve to look back at books from 20 years ago on photography and even pictures that were classed as superb pictures that by what people are used to today look soft/ not sharp even though they are still excellent quality.
 
Very pretty - I really like the shade of blue - but they're not the sort of pictures I get paid to shoot! :)

ps - that pic is bigger than forum rules allow!
 
Davec223 said:
Just a quick question then, can you explain your last sentence and what nikon actually said.

As another point, I think people get so hooked up on pixel peeping that sometimes they forget to look at it at the size they are printing, also people have got used to "sharper" pictures since digital, you onlyhqve to look back at books from 20 years ago on photography and even pictures that were classed as superb pictures that by what people are used to today look soft/ not sharp even though they are still excellent quality.
Click to expand...

1. I undestood it like "it's almost impossible to make a lens which as extremely sharp at f/1.4. As sharp for example as it is at f/2.8 or f/4".
There is a long text regrding laws of optics and lenses for photocameras especially, but I'm not an expert in these field and all these formulas are too complicated for me.
2. A agree with you that the term "sharp" or not "sharp" is a little but subjective that is why for these questions I prefer to trust some tests which show me in details why one zoom lens is sharp at the range from 55 to 120 and is is not as sharp any more at 200mm.:)
 
boyfalldown said:
they are pretty, but instead of quoting from some internet review, you could think about it instead :)
Click to expand...

Would you agree that in order to make a decision we need some kind of information. And I we search for these information in order to transform it to our knowledge and as a result to make a logical decision there is nothing wrong with it.

Can you think than and explain why at f/1.4 Niko 50mm G has "back focus" and at f/3.5 it doesn't have it any more?
 
StingerNikon said:
Would you agree that in order to make a decision we need some kind of information. And I we search for these information in order to transform it to our knowledge and as a result to make a logical decision there is nothing wrong with it.

Can you think than and explain why at f/1.4 Niko 50mm G has "back focus" and at f/3.5 it doesn't have it any more?
Click to expand...

I agree with the first bit - but equally if you want to go down that line then you shouldn't just rely on one piece of info and examine it critically.

My 50mm f1.4 G doesn't have a back focus issue at f/1.4. The only reason I can think for some reporting this problem is that DoF is so narrow at f/1.4 compared to f/3.5 then by f/3.5 the increased DoF is hiding to (perceived ) issue
 
Just try to do severat shoots at f/1.4 and 45 degres to a text from newspaper. And you will see that it is not only about DoF. It's about "back focus" and even taking into account this "back focus" if you try to check the sharpest region region it is still not as sharp as it is at 2.8
 
StingerNikon said:
Just try to do severat shoots at f/1.4 and 45 degres to a text from newspaper. And you will see that it is not only about DoF. It's about "back focus" and even taking into account this "back focus" if you try to check the sharpest region region it is still not as sharp as it is at 2.8
Click to expand...

But no lens is at it's sharpest wide open, all lenses need to be stopped down approx 2 stops to be at it's sharpest. Again I have not had any issues with back focus, when I shoot at f1.4 it will always be operator error/focusing error that causes the problem and not the lens IMHO .
 
StingerNikon said:
Just try to do severat shoots at f/1.4 and 45 degres to a text from newspaper. And you will see that it is not only about DoF. It's about "back focus" and even taking into account this "back focus" if you try to check the sharpest region region it is still not as sharp as it is at 2.8
Click to expand...

My copy has no issues with back focus. I don't need to shoot newspapers or test charts to know that.

You're right that a lens won't bit at its sharpest wide open, but thats very different from significantly soft which is what you were saying
 
awp said:
Very pretty - I really like the shade of blue - but they're not the sort of pictures I get paid to shoot! :)
Click to expand...

:D Indeed. TBH, that SLRGEAR page looks like a bag of pap.

Based my own experiences with a 50 1.4 AF-D, I've not once have I had to stop down to get a sharper result, I stop down to allow less DOF. Period.

4040152056_6d3da79eda.jpg


Clicky here for a higher res.

Clicky here for EXIF.

At 1.4 it's sharper than a squirt of jiff lemon in your eye. Period.

If your not getting those results your either bodging it up like a monkey or you have a copy that's not in full functioning order.

End of Jackanory.
 
Thomas, get off the fence,what do you really mean?


:D
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
:D Indeed. TBH, that SLRGEAR page looks like a bag of pap.

Based my own experiences with a 50 1.4 AF-D, I've not once have I had to stop down to get a sharper result, I stop down to allow less DOF. Period.

4040152056_6d3da79eda.jpg


Clicky here for a higher res.

Clicky here for EXIF.

At 1.4 it's sharper than a squirt of jiff lemon in your eye. Period.

If your not getting those results your either bodging it up like a monkey or you have a copy that's not in full functioning order.

End of Jackanory.
Click to expand...


1.If you read what I said you will see that its not only about one specific example of the lens.
2. I did not say that 50mm AF-D ot 50mm AF-S are bad lenses.

I said Nikon 50mm AF-D is shaper at f/1.4 than a new model Nikon 50mm AF-S


I took these photos last summer so you can see the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 at 50mm AF-S G.


AF-S 50mm f/1.4
1_41.jpg


AF-S 50mm f/2.8
2_8.jpg


SO PLEASE READ THE WHOLE DICSUSSION IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT YOUR REPLAY.
 
I have never used the D version but just taken these in last few mins with the G version at f1.4

I am just posting these as an example. The focus point was the S in Yorkshire Tea and it was taken with the box at a slight angle.

f1.4, 1/125s, ISO 1600, no sharpening etc.

Not sure if it helps. I am happy with my G version. I bought it over the D version so that the kids could use it with their D60/D40x cameras too. I might well still pick up a 2nd hand D version to go with my second camera because I like 50mm so much and the aperture ring would allow me to use it on the FM too.

Click here for Full image at 100%


This is the image shrunk to 800 pxls

afs50800.jpg



This is an unshrunken crop of the centre of the image

afs50cut800.jpg
 
StingerNikon said:
SO PLEASE READ THE WHOLE DICSUSSION IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT YOUR REPLAY.
Click to expand...

I have, its pathetic.

photon said:
OP: buy a Sigma...
Click to expand...

That's a valid point. I have used many a Sigma lens (the 30mm f/1.4 was superb!).

Back on topic.

OP: I tend to lean toward the older D model lenses. They can take a good bashing and produce some wonderful color tone. They are also cheaper. You are paying the extra for the AFS / G. All I have noticed from the older D lenses are that they produce some CA in high contrast scenes. So watch out for that and your good to go.

Peace.
 
Hi again,


WOW so much debate going on!!! :-D

I think my best best is to try both out on my D300 before purchasing either one, you never know I might just think sod it and buy the cheapy 50mm f1.8 version instead!!!


Mike.
 
StingerNikon said:
1.If you read what I said you will see that its not only about one specific example of the lens.
2. I did not say that 50mm AF-D ot 50mm AF-S are bad lenses.

I said Nikon 50mm AF-D is shaper at f/1.4 than a new model Nikon 50mm AF-S


I took these photos last summer so you can see the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 at 50mm AF-S G.


AF-S 50mm f/1.4


AF-S 50mm f/2.8

SO PLEASE READ THE WHOLE DICSUSSION IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT YOUR REPLAY.
Click to expand...

I've looked at to my eye they look about the same - one has a little more Depth-of-Field than the other, but just looking at the eyes, they look the same in terms of actual sharpness - maybe the additional DOF is giving you the illusion of extra sharpness...but I don't see it, not on these examples...
 
fracster said:
Thomas, get off the fence,what do you really mean?
Click to expand...

:D Now that maybe perceived as norty mate ;)

StingerNikon said:
1.If you read what I said you will see that its not only about one specific example of the lens.

2. I did not say that 50mm AF-D ot 50mm AF-S are bad lenses.
Click to expand...

hmm, you said:

StingerNikon said:
D version is sharper if you use it wide open (f/1.4, f/2.0), G - has better "background blur" but it is sharp starting only from f/2.8 and It is very sharp at f/3.5.
Click to expand...

and that was what I was addressing, the D is sharp at 1.4. :|

StingerNikon said:
I took these photos last summer so you can see the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 at 50mm AF-S G.
Click to expand...

Both look a little soft to me and have no leverage for the point your trying to make.

Sticking by the guns, you either have a bad copy or your technique needs improvement. IMO most likely the latter I'm afraid.

In addition, the second image looks out of focus and has then been sharpened too aggressively (look at the artefacts in the eyes).

StingerNikon said:
SO PLEASE READ THE WHOLE DICSUSSION IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT YOUR REPLAY.
Click to expand...

:LOL: Unleash the fury with caps lock why don't you.

How about sorting yourself out?

photon said:
Elementary mistake there, dear Watson. ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed, apologies Sherlock, it was 2 in the morning here in Estonia and I've just done a 14 hour day with hardly a break.

In my defence, I think it's a little obvious what I really meant though :D

photon said:
OP: buy a Sigma...
Click to expand...

:LOL:
 
The bulk of the Sigma can by a bladdy nuisance in the bag: its diameter (not including hood) is 84.5mm, while the AF-S is 73.5mm and the AF-D is 64.5mm.
 
photon said:
The bulk of the Sigma can by a bladdy nuisance in the bag: its diameter (not including hood) is 84.5mm, while the AF-S is 73.5mm and the AF-D is 64.5mm.
Click to expand...

Really? Would that have an effect on your purchase? Jeez, I should of thought of that before I picked up a 300 2.8 a few years ago,...

:help:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top