Nikon 1.8 G Vs 1.4 G

[Palmguy]

funny. Although the 50 1.8 is a proper FX lens I get where you're going

He's talking about the 35s for some reason.

 

[basharar]

I think what most of us 50 1.4 owners are curious about is focus speed, the 1.8 has less glass to move, assuming they are using the same afs motor maybe the 1.8 is a tad faster, does that make a difference in real life?

 

[basharar]

well! i have a 3 years old daughter who is always jumping around, the 50 1.4G is sometimes too slow to catch up with her, 1.4 on FX is almost twice as shallow than DX, so unless she is completely standing still any F stop below 2 is too difficult to shoot.... thats why I care for more focus speed!

 

[Kalison]

well! i have a 3 years old daughter who is always jumping around, the 50 1.4G is sometimes too slow to catch up with her, 1.4 on FX is almost twice as shallow than DX, so unless she is completely standing still any F stop below 2 is too difficult to shoot.... thats why I care for more focus speed!

I posted a video on the speed for the 1.8G. The focus throw is at least halved. It's faster than the 1.4G

Does it matter? Maybe. The 1.4G worked fine for me.

 

[basharar]

Ed, your totally right about the 24-70,I had one and loved it, 99% keepers! but its a monster to carry for simple family outings!
the 1.4 G is a fine lens, but my subject is sometimes hard to control, so i take my chances, compromises, compromises.... if the 50 1.8 was %25 faster in chasing/continuous focus, then its good news...

 

[basharar]

here is my youtube reply with the 1.4G test...close I think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7nprspFrqg

I posted a video on the speed for the 1.8G. The focus throw is at least halved. It's faster than the 1.4G

Does it matter? Maybe. The 1.4G worked fine for me.

 

[CraigH]

I think the difference between the two lenses is so minimal that it has little meaning to most of us. I don't use this focal length enough to matter or at least to pay $500 for the f/1.4 G. I have a 60 f/2.8 Micro, a 35-70 f/2.8 zoom and a 55 f/3.5 AID Micro.

Saturday, I bought the 50 f/1.8 G for one reason. It cost me $219 and reviewed as a quality chunk of glass. For the price, I think the buld quality is better than I expected. The AF speed is faster than I expected and the IQ is above expectations. It will make a nice portrait lens on my D300 and I don't yet know what on my D700. It will be one more reason to keep me from upgrading my old 35-70 f/2.8 to a 24-70 f/2.8. Maybe it will inspire some inspirational juices. Who knows? I hope so.

Next buy will be the new 85 f/1.4 G. I know what to do with it.

 

[Kalison]

I am hoping an affordable 85 1.8G comes out for us as well.

350 range? Would be a dream at 295.

 

[will.todd]

I am hoping an affordable 85 1.8G comes out for us as well.

Has there been ANY news of any sort related to this? I'm very curious but I've heard nothing.

 

[Kalison]

Has there been ANY news of any sort related to this? I'm very curious but I've heard nothing.

Nope..... thats why I am hoping there will be. Of course the 50 1.8G came out of no where. So you just never know.

 

[basharar]

i stopped by the local photo store, tested the 50 1.8G, and thought about "taking it home" for testing,the 50 1.4 was SOLD on ebay in 10 minutes, made $200 so far so good, the 1.8 is even lighter and i am not missing anything, i am mostly shooting >F2 and to be honest i could not tell the difference in sharpness !
some wide open shots;

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[eninety]

the 50mm 1.8g is an amazing lens for the price. i recommend it over the af-d all the time now. and especially with the 1.4g, i feel like it is become outdated very quickly by both the 1.8g and the sigma 1.4

 

[Big Daddy]

one thing I would really like to see compared is the actual light transmission.

if you look at this comparison of the Nikon 35mm AF lenses here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/N...G_vs_35mm_f2D_vs_DX_35mm_f1-8G_compared.shtml

you will see that even with the 35mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.8 both set at the same aperture the 35mm f/1.8 transmits less light - I have tested this myself. I have shot two side by side shots with my 50mm f/1.4 set at f/2.8 and the 35mm f/1.8 at f/2.8 both at the same shutter speed and the pictures with the 35 are darker. I am not sure why this is, but I would like to know if the 50mm f/1.8 at equal apertures will let through as much as the 50mm f/1.4G

here is a quote from the comparison of the AF 35's

"As you can see the 35/1.8G produced a darker image than both other lenses: it needs about +0.7EV to match the others. This was something that consistently occurred throughout my test-shooting and was confirmed through various other tests, specifically designed to measure the effect. From that I can say that the DX lens produces images that are on average -0.5EV darker than the other 35mm primes in this comparison. Add this to the 2/3 larger aperture of the f1.4 lens and you end up with the 35/1.4G delivering almost +1.3EV more light when fully opened! "

Looks like Thomas at cameralabs.com has completed his testing. Looks like there is slight loss but only in the corners. Definitely much better than the 35/1.8G which has significant transmission loss across the frame.

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26806&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=37

... Well, the 50/1.8G was only very slightly darker than the 50/1.4G which might very well be down to tolerances in the aperture mechanisms. Fully open, where such differences don't play a role the 50/1.4G is 2/3 of a stop brighter in the center than the 50/1.8G, as was to be expected.
In the image corners the story is a bit different as light fall-off comes into play: at f/1.8 or f/2.0 the 50/1.4G has actually less fall-off than the 50/1.8G so corners turn out to be almost 1/3 of a stop brighter on a DX sensor.