50mm Madness!!

[Epoc]

Well I am a flypoop away from sealing the deal on a D700 (and yes I am seeking professional help for my NAS). I didn't think I would be going full frame for awhile, but this deal was very hard to refuse. Problem is, I don't really have a medium length lens for it (see my lens line-up below). With the recent purchase of this body and the 7000, my bank balance is shot BIG time (which is what the Minister of Finance wants to do to me). So, I'm thinking of purchasing a 50mm to tide me over until I save enough for a 24-70.

It seems there are many flavours of this lens and price does vary:
50mm f1.8D
50mm f1.8G
50mm f1.4D
50mm f1.4G

Now the questions. Is the only difference between the D & G models the focus motor? Is it really worth the extra money for the 1.4 over the 1.8 considering both my bodies are very good at high ISO? Which flavour would you recommend considering this is really a fill gap lens until I get a 24-70? Is there any other lenses I should consider that will produce nice sharp images with decent bokeh, without me having to rob a bank?

Thank-you for any input.

[I @ M]

(and yes I am seeking professional help for my NAS).

Why bother? save the medical bills and put the money towards a[nother] good lens. The end result is the same, you end up poorer and happier.:D


Now the questions. Is the only difference between the D & G models the focus motor?

No. There are quite a few things different, some important, some not so important.
The newer G lenses have all the latest fancy coatings on the glass.
They don't have aperture rings.
They have a different build quality.
They are bigger and heavier than the older lenses.
Plus a few more ---



Is it really worth the extra money for the 1.4 over the 1.8 considering both my bodies are very good at high ISO?

Yes because if you really want to photograph at F/1.4 you can't do it with an F/1.8 lens.

OK, you have the 35 F/1.8 and that is a great little lens so you already know what the field of view is like on your 3 other DX bodies. That is going to be just about exactly as you will see with a 50mm on the FX body. If that focal length suits I would be inclined to save my dollars and buy ( if you have to ) the 50 1.8 G.

[swifty]

The 35/1.8G works on FX cameras in FX mode if u don't mind a little vignetting.
In terms of the fifties, my pick is the 1.8G but there's not that much in it to be honest.

[arthurking83]

I'd put my money on an AF-S lens any day over an AF-D lens, for no other reason other than AF-S lenses are nicer to manually focus when you have too(eg in low light).

While manual focus lenses are all cool and everyone raves about how much nicer they feel through the focusing ring .. etc, etc.. blah blah ..
AF-D lenses drive me nuts sometimes! .. by the time you've flicked from AF to MF, you've lost the moment .. I hate 'em!(always have)
AF-S lenses feel ok(enough) to manually focus(well the ones I own do!) and have the best of both worlds .. AF and MF at a moments notice!!

[Tommo1965]

im torn between the 1.8g new..or a 1.4g used...I may be picking up a 1.4g later this week if all goes well.....

[Epoc]

Thanks for eveyones input. Looks like the 1.8G is going to be my choice. Eglobal have it on special for $174 + delivery :D

[Film Street]

Consider the Sigma 50 if you're looking at a 1.4. It focuses faster than the Nikon but is big and heavy.The Sigma is actually more like a 45mm. Voigtlander make a nice 40mm. A 40mm is even better.

[Analog6]

I'm not a Nikon user but I LOVE my recently aquired Canon 50mm f1.8. I think you'll find whichever Nikon model you choose becomes a lot more than a 'stopgap'.

[Rattus79]

I will second the Sigma - Mine is beautiful. Except for the aforementioned weigh, it is unmatched in my lens lineup.

[Tommo1965]

tried a Nikon 1.4g today..boy was that sucker slow at AF..so I left it with the seller ....I think I need to go to a shop and test the AF performance of other 50mm glass..as Id like to use it for sideline night basket ball shots and the 1.4 wouldn't cut it IMO

[arthurking83]

Sigma 50/1.4 is faster to focus.
But as with anything, you need to take into consideration that there's a bit of give and take involved somewhere along the (engineering) line.

Sigma may be faster, but could be 'less accurate'.
I've found that in some instances the Sigma has been less than perfect in terms of focusing accurately where it was thought it was going too, but thems the breaks.
That happens in any situation with any piece if kit, and it may have been my technique and not the lens that missed focus on the occasions where it had.

I think this is why Nikon designed the 50/1.4G this way... slower is usually more steady(and hence more accurate).

One thing I find amusing is this notion that the Sigma is bigger and heavier than the other fast fifties and then used as a point against it.
And while it's technically true, I never found the comment worth the wasted effort.
That is, once you have either lens on the camera, if you had the Sigma 50 on, you won't be thinking to yourself .. "Gee I wish I'd got the Nikon 50/1.4 as the weight of the Sigma is overbearing".
Had both lenses on my D300(and a D700) and it's not a noteworthy point. It's only an issue when you have the lenses in either hand at the same time and comparing them directly.
Once you have the lens on the camera you don't really notice it and (in my case anyhow) the slightly larger barrel diameter feels more natural to cradle in an average to large sized hand.
It sits nicely in the arc between thumb and forefinger, rather than the 50/1.8's requirement to clamp thumb-forefinger which usually feels less comfy(to me).

I like the Sigma, I prefer to use it in preference to my manual 50/1.2, as it's easier.
50/1.2 can be sharper when you nail it, but the likelyhood of that happening is quite rare, so 90% of the time the Sigma wins out due to the AF ability.

Sigma 50/1.4 or Nikon 50/1.4 .. I'd choose the Sigma again.
Nikon 50/1.8G over the Sigma 50/1.4 tho .. price always wins me over and the need to have that 2/3rds extra stop is not always needed .. if the lens is sharp enough at f/1.8 then this can be sufficient.
But price is always an issue.
For the price of a Sigma or Nikon 50/1.4 with ultrasonic focusing motor, you could get a 50/1.8 AND a 35/1.8Dx, and the two lens setup allows you more options and perspectives.

[Film Street]

The sigma is faster and more acurate that the nikon 1.4 at most apertures. The sigma is a gigantic 50, no avoiding that. If you own it you may leave it at home rather than take it on a holiday, then you will be thinking about the smaller 50. Agreed on the 1.8G. It's nice.

[welly]

I'd have picked the 50mm f1.4 AF-D. It's silly sharp, lovely bokeh, solid build (it's metal) and you can pick it up for a song these days, plus you get that 2/3rds stop, which can mean the difference between a sharp and a non-sharp photo.

[Tommo1965]

is it all metal?..I thought it had a polycarbonate outer tube..mind you ive been wrong before

[welly]

is it all metal?..I thought it had a polycarbonate outer tube..mind you ive been wrong before

You might be right actually. When I had one, it was a solid piece of kit anyway. Built as solidly as my old 24mm f2.8 which got a fair beating and kept on ticking regardless.

[Tommo1965]

yes Im going to try a AF 1.4 d when I get a chance..its gone to the top of my short list..I was thinking maybe Id get away using my 60mm AFD micro...but get too close and it stops down to F3.2....so quite a lot of light difference ..plus id like to try a few shots with very thin DOF...cheapest I've seen the AF 1.4D is $288 from DWI

[I @ M]

yes Im going to try a AF 1.4 d when I get a chance..its gone to the top of my short list..I was thinking maybe Id get away using my 60mm AFD micro...but get too close and it stops down to F3.2....so quite a lot of light difference ..plus id like to try a few shots with very thin DOF...cheapest I've seen the AF 1.4D is $288 from DWI

I haven't tried the 50 g either 1.4 or 1.8 Steve but slow focus, and probably very accurate focus as Arthur said, is about what I would expect if they are similar to the 35 g 1.8. It is extremely slow but great when it gets there. I have the 50 d 1.8 and it focus quite snappily on D### and D# series bodies so if the 1.4 d is similar it will probably suit action better ( I don't say perfectly ) than the AFS lenses. The 50 d 1.8 isn't in quite the same speed league as lenses built purposely for action but it isn't far behind and I have used mine for some fairly fast paced stuff and not had too many failures focus wise.

[Tommo1965]

cheers Andrew..yep certainly going to give a 1.4d a look..just looked in at eglobal...they have the 1.4d at $236 and 1.8d for $68 !! ...but shipping kills them :(

[Film Street]

.I was thinking maybe Id get away using my 60mm AFD micro...but get too close and it stops down to F3.2....so quite a lot of light difference ..plus id like to try a few shots with very thin DOF

That's true but the fast 50's don't focus very close. They max out at about head and shoulder length.

[I @ M]

That's true but the fast 50's don't focus very close. They max out at about head and shoulder length.

I don't see the min focus distance of the 50 1.4d at .45 metres being a great disadvantage at all considering the possible use
[a] on basketball side lines.
[b] on full length portrait shots.

50mm is maybe not my ideal focal length / field of view but others needs may vary and I wouldn't call minimum focus distance a huge disadvantage there.

[Tommo1965]

That's true but the fast 50's don't focus very close. They max out at about head and shoulder length.


thats a good point...Im not sure what distance the 60mm AFD starts to stop down....but it would be a bit longer than .45m I think

- - - Updated - - -


I don't see the min focus distance of the 50 1.4d at .45 metres being a great disadvantage at all considering the possible use
[a] on basketball side lines.
[b] on full length portrait shots.

50mm is maybe not my ideal focal length / field of view but others needs may vary and I wouldn't call minimum focus distance a huge disadvantage there.

I think the extra two stops that the 1.4 would give me would be great for my night time basketball shots..plus the upcoming season is the first where Ill have my D700..so plenty of scope I hope for better Basket ball shots...Ive always had to underexpose before to keep shutter speeds up and the try and pull it back in post

DOF might be a issue ..but the players are normally about 2-3 meters away from me

EDIT

crikey DOF will only be .300 at 3 meters..should be good for some shots....add some artistic blur to others ..LOL

[Film Street]

Consider the 85 1.8 also if that's your intended use.