Nikon 50mm upgrade?

JayB

JayB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
204
Edit My Images
No
Hi folks, I currently have the 50mm 1.8D nikon lens and have watched many videos but would like people's opinions on whether it would be a worth while upgrade to the 1.8G over the D? Thanks in advance.
 
There are no nice nikon 50mm lenses. I'm sure people will moan at that, but it's true! The best 2 are the 1.8G and the 1.4D. I sold my 1.4G as it s as soft and sooo slow to focus.
You'll notice an improvement in micro contrast with the G when shooting into the light. If I could have got a 1.8G for £100, I'd see it as a good investment. If you want a good auto focus 50mm, then the Sigma art is your only real choice. It's very big and very expensive. In the end I didn't have Modern 50mm, just a new 28, 35, 85 and made do with my 50mm 1.4D.
 
drandyperry said:
There are no nice nikon 50mm lenses. I'm sure people will moan at that, but it's true! The best 2 are the 1.8G and the 1.4D. I sold my 1.4G as it s as soft and sooo slow to focus.
You'll notice an improvement in micro contrast with the G when shooting into the light. If I could have got a 1.8G for £100, I'd see it as a good investment. If you want a good auto focus 50mm, then the Sigma art is your only real choice. It's very big and very expensive. In the end I didn't have Modern 50mm, just a new 28, 35, 85 and made do with my 50mm 1.4D.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insite on that. I didn't think the 1.8d was an awful lens but when I compare it to my 35mm sigma art yes it's is softer I'll admit. I did however think if I can get the 50 1.8g at a decent price it might be a worth while buy then that's why I'm asking folks here like yourself for their input.

Thanks thus far.
 
I'm in the same boat, so I watching with interest :) I was pretty much hoping that the answer wasn't the Sigma 50mm art :lol:
 
andy1868 said:
I'm in the same boat, so I watching with interest :) I was pretty much hoping that the answer wasn't the Sigma 50mm art [emoji38]
Click to expand...
Hopefully Tamron will come out with something equally good and cheaper in the 50mm range. For now it's either a compromise or a large bill!
 
I would prefer 1.4G if i was in your position of upgrading. Just personal opinion.
 
I've been going round and round in circles on this one myself. Tried a couple of f1.8g's and they're just not sharp wide open. f2.8 and above it's sharp as a sharp thing, but that's not why you buy fast primes. The f1.4G is supposed to be softer than the f1.8G which does not bode well. That being said I tried one in store and it looked OK on the LCD screen at 1:1. OK, not the best way to view an image but when I do this with the f1.8G I'm disappointed on the LCD let alone on a computer. And yes I fine tuned both copies I had ;) The f1.4G is noticeably slower to focus though when noticeably changing subject distance. Also it has bad purple and green fringing.

The best one in terms of image quality is without doubt the Sigma art. However, sigmas don't always play nice with Nikons, even with the dock and so this puts me off. I've heard good things about the f1.4D, but it has the angular bokeh due to the aperture blades. Nikon need to pull their finger out and make a good f1.4.
 
My view (having owned a 1.8D, 1.4D and 1.4G) would be to stick with what you have, there really isn't enough difference between them to justify changing and the AF on the 1.4G is sloooow. With that slow AF it really points you towards the 1.8G at which point I think what's the point? what else could you spend the money on? a good filter would give you much more creative options than basically the same lens

It might have been @HoppyUK that once posted a shot of the 1.8D on a D800 to show just how much resolution it was capable of (LOADS!).
 
drandyperry said:
There are no nice nikon 50mm lenses. I'm sure people will moan at that, but it's true! The best 2 are the 1.8G and the 1.4D. I sold my 1.4G as it s as soft and sooo slow to focus.
You'll notice an improvement in micro contrast with the G when shooting into the light. If I could have got a 1.8G for £100, I'd see it as a good investment. If you want a good auto focus 50mm, then the Sigma art is your only real choice. It's very big and very expensive. In the end I didn't have Modern 50mm, just a new 28, 35, 85 and made do with my 50mm 1.4D.
Click to expand...

TBH I'd go along with this too - the Nikon 50 isn't nifty.

Having had Minolta/Sony and owning both minolta 50 1.7 and Sony 50 1.4, I bought a 50G 1.8 as my first Nikon lens and promptly returned it as unacceptably soft (in retrospect it was probably fine for the type). I since bought a 50D 1.8 which was even softer, but is acceptable from about f4 and good from 5.6. The G is bigger, bulkier and doesn't bring enough to the party to be worth twice as much as a D IMO.
 
drandyperry said:
There are no nice nikon 50mm lenses. I'm sure people will moan at that, but it's true! The best 2 are the 1.8G and the 1.4D. I sold my 1.4G as it s as soft and sooo slow to focus.
You'll notice an improvement in micro contrast with the G when shooting into the light. If I could have got a 1.8G for £100, I'd see it as a good investment. If you want a good auto focus 50mm, then the Sigma art is your only real choice. It's very big and very expensive. In the end I didn't have Modern 50mm, just a new 28, 35, 85 and made do with my 50mm 1.4D.
Click to expand...

I don't find the Sigma Art to be that big or expensive (relatively speaking, my 35Lii takes the cake for that), compare to other primes from 20mm up to 135mm, the 50 Art is par with most others, lighter than some (20 Art), heavier than others (24Lmkii, 135L).

It's very good though, well worth the money if you are into your 50mm focal length.
 
Hmm.... I'm not sure what to do at the minute then... The sigma 50mm is out of my budget to be honest and is expensive for my current needs... Perhaps down the line, however if I thought there was a increase in quality with the nikon G version then I would have went with it but as stated it seems not enough of an improvement and sometimes not over the D to he a worth while change. I currently have a few lenses
Nikon 50mm 1.8D
Tamron 24-70 2.8
Sigma 70-200 OS
Sigma 35mm Art
I know yes the 24-70 kind of covers the 50mm but as you know I'd like a little more light hence using the 50mm 1.8.

I'm puzzled now on what to do.
 
JayB said:
Hmm.... I'm not sure what to do at the minute then... The sigma 50mm is out of my budget to be honest and is expensive for my current needs... Perhaps down the line, however if I thought there was a increase in quality with the nikon G version then I would have went with it but as stated it seems not enough of an improvement and sometimes not over the D to he a worth while change. I currently have a few lenses
Nikon 50mm 1.8D
Tamron 24-70 2.8
Sigma 70-200 OS
Sigma 35mm Art
I know yes the 24-70 kind of covers the 50mm but as you know I'd like a little more light hence using the 50mm 1.8.

I'm puzzled now on what to do.
Click to expand...


Do nothing, don't spend money on kit, spend money making you a better photographer. Book a course, book a trip, buy a train ticket somewhere cool.
 
Nawty said:
Do nothing, don't spend money on kit, spend money making you a better photographer. Book a course, book a trip, buy a train ticket somewhere cool.
Click to expand...
I like your style. Might be best I stay put for now and as you say improve my photography.

Thanks for the help once again folks. Much appreciated.
 
Your kit is decently comprehensive for most situations. The only 'obvious' gap is a fast short telephoto prime in the 85 to 135mm range for portraits or where you want to blur backgrounds, but that's far from necessary depending on what you normally shoot.

I'd go with Nawty TBH.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Your kit is decently comprehensive for most situations. The only 'obvious' gap is a fast short telephoto prime in the 85 to 135mm range for portraits or where you want to blur backgrounds, but that's far from necessary depending on what you normally shoot.

I'd go with Nawty TBH.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your help also... Yea I might be best to stick it out with what I have atm. I know it's not all the dream nikon trio collection but it does mostly what I need. I was looking at the 85mm also but again I got a lend of the D but wasn't too impressed if I'm honest. I forgot to mention I also have the samyang 14mm but that isn't really relevant in this instance lol. Thanks once again.

P.s. Mostly portrait/family with a bit of landscape threw in for good measure.
 
drandyperry said:
Hopefully Tamron will come out with something equally good and cheaper in the 50mm range. For now it's either a compromise or a large bill!
Click to expand...
Tamron's offering is a 45mm f/1.8. But it's not cheaper than the Sigma (though smaller).
 
Nawty said:
My view (having owned a 1.8D, 1.4D and 1.4G) would be to stick with what you have, there really isn't enough difference between them to justify changing and the AF on the 1.4G is sloooow. With that slow AF it really points you towards the 1.8G at which point I think what's the point? what else could you spend the money on? a good filter would give you much more creative options than basically the same lens

It might have been @HoppyUK that once posted a shot of the 1.8D on a D800 to show just how much resolution it was capable of (LOADS!).
Click to expand...

It wasn't me, but the 50/1.8 G is the pick of the bunch and a pretty good lens. It's better than the 50/1.8 D (and 50/1.4 G) but not massively, and not at all when stopped down a bit. All 50mm primes are very sharp at mid-range 5.6-8 apertures. It's below 2.8 that sorts the men from the boys.
 
I'm not sure about an upgrade from the D version as I haven't shot with one of those, but I have a 50mm 1.8G I had recently when I bought my Df and been really pleased with it, I find it nice and sharp wide open - personally I can't see much difference in sharpness between that and the 35 & 85mm f1.8G's I also have.
 
wibbly said:
I'm not sure about an upgrade from the D version as I haven't shot with one of those, but I have a 50mm 1.8G I had recently when I bought my Df and been really pleased with it, I find it nice and sharp wide open - personally I can't see much difference in sharpness between that and the 35 & 85mm f1.8G's I also have.
Click to expand...
I've not shot with the 35mm but the 85mm f1.8g I had was noticeably sharper than both 50mm f1.8g's I've had.
 
I have had both the 50mm f1.8g and the 1.4g. I pretty much found that the 1.8g was better in every way.

My 1.8g seems sharp enough, and there are plenty of reviews that also think the same way. There are plenty pro photographers who use the 50mm 1.8g TBH!

I guess we all have different views on sharpness - there are some reveiws online that love the 1.8g and say how great it is wide open - others are the opposite! I guess it's the same with most lenses.

Also tried the 35mm f1.8g ED a number of times when I was trying to force myself in to that focal length and I didn't notice any gains in sharpness over the 50mm.

Plus all this talk of sharpness is all well and good, but I find my 50 produces really pleasing to the eye results, its light and really nice to use. It makes me want to take my camera out and actually take shots. I don' think I own any other lens like it!

Obviously the Siggy 50mm is the best out there, but at 800g and £600 its at the higher end of the 50mm market.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I've been going round and round in circles on this one myself. Tried a couple of f1.8g's and they're just not sharp wide open. f2.8 and above it's sharp as a sharp thing, but that's not why you buy fast primes. The f1.4G is supposed to be softer than the f1.8G which does not bode well. That being said I tried one in store and it looked OK on the LCD screen at 1:1. OK, not the best way to view an image but when I do this with the f1.8G I'm disappointed on the LCD let alone on a computer. And yes I fine tuned both copies I had ;) The f1.4G is noticeably slower to focus though when noticeably changing subject distance. Also it has bad purple and green fringing.

The best one in terms of image quality is without doubt the Sigma art. However, sigmas don't always play nice with Nikons, even with the dock and so this puts me off. I've heard good things about the f1.4D, but it has the angular bokeh due to the aperture blades. Nikon need to pull their finger out and make a good f1.4.
Click to expand...

Do agree that a new 50 1.4 would be nice but I guess as the current g's carry on selling it's not really on their priority list.

The 1.4D was an option I looked in to but as you mentioned, the blades. I like my 50 but I can't help but want to try new lenses all the time.

I'm a bit of a lens addict, even when I'm happy with my set up!!
 
DG Phototraining said:
I love my 50 f1.4 - so nerrr :p

Dave
Click to expand...
Are the AF issues (slowness) over exaggerated in your opinion? I tried one and didn't think it was that bad, but that was just in store so no idea what it would be like in real world scenarios. I'd use it mainly for events such as boxing so subject distance doesn't change that much.
 
A lot will depend on what you want the lens for as to whether the sharpness or lack matters. If you're using it to capture subjects that might be moving a little in low light then either D or G will be fine, because the image isn't expected to be pin-sharp and a little movement + the depth involved in shooting people adds natural blur. The place these lenses come unstuck, for me, is when I'm setting up a shot where shallow depth of field is a key part of the image and part of the subject needs to be dead sharp before smearing away OOF. The G I had showed bad chroma, CA and was soft for that kind of shot at f2.4 in the way I'd expect my Sony 50 f1.4 or Samyang 85 f1.4 to be when wide open.

Example SOOC
Example50G1.8-0232 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

And to my amusement, that actually looks quite decent for sharpness presented like this. The dangers of pixel-peeping!
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
A lot will depend on what you want the lens for as to whether the sharpness or lack matters. If you're using it to capture subjects that might be moving a little in low light then either D or G will be fine, because the image isn't expected to be pin-sharp and a little movement + the depth involved in shooting people adds natural blur. The place these lenses come unstuck, for me, is when I'm setting up a shot where shallow depth of field is a key part of the image and part of the subject needs to be dead sharp before smearing away OOF. The G I had showed bad chroma, CA and was soft for that kind of shot at f2.4 in the way I'd expect my Sony 50 f1.4 or Samyang 85 f1.4 to be when wide open.

Example SOOC
Example50G1.8-0232 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

And to my amusement, that actually looks quite decent for sharpness presented like this. The dangers of pixel-peeping!
Click to expand...
OK it's not pin sharp but it renders the OOF areas beautifully imo.
 
snerkler said:
Are the AF issues (slowness) over exaggerated in your opinion? I tried one and didn't think it was that bad, but that was just in store so no idea what it would be like in real world scenarios. I'd use it mainly for events such as boxing so subject distance doesn't change that much.
Click to expand...

I've not noticed it to be slow at all, so I just tried it - focusing at a wall about 50 yards away and then to a teddy about 3ft away, and I'm sure it was way less than 1 second. Maybe I don't notice it as Brides don't move fast?

Its also plenty sharp enough for me. The DoF close up at f1.4 is so shallow as to be pointless for me, so f2 is my usual widest unless the subject is at least a few feet away

I accept that the Sigma Art is sharper, if you can get a good one and get the docking station to work too to get the focus bang on, and you don't mind it being MUCH heavier & larger and MUCH more expensive. The Nikon, like every other Nikon I have, just works. I've done a few fine tune exercises over the years and found them to be a waste of time, its MUCH more likely to be me missing focus than the camera/lens

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I've not noticed it to be slow at all, so I just tried it - focusing at a wall about 50 yards away and then to a teddy about 3ft away, and I'm sure it was way less than 1 second. Maybe I don't notice it as Brides don't move fast?

Its also plenty sharp enough for me. The DoF close up at f1.4 is so shallow as to be pointless for me, so f2 is my usual widest unless the subject is at least a few feet away

I accept that the Sigma Art is sharper, if you can get a good one and get the docking station to work too to get the focus bang on, and you don't mind it being MUCH heavier & larger and MUCH more expensive. The Nikon, like every other Nikon I have, just works. I've done a few fine tune exercises over the years and found them to be a waste of time, its MUCH more likely to be me missing focus than the camera/lens

Dave
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. I think I'm just going to have to bit the bullet and buy one for myself ;)
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for this. I think I'm just going to have to bit the bullet and buy one for myself ;)
Click to expand...

I have had both and used side by side and I guess it's only then you realise that the 1.8g is a fair bit quicker. I'm not exaggerating either - I have tried them together! But if you are not changing distances much there isn't much or anything in it. It's when you are going from far to near there is a clear difference. I imagine for the boxing it would be fine.

The 1.4g is meant to render slightly better but you want a super sharp 50mm wide open, then neither of these lenses are for you IMO.

There are a couple of focus speed vids on YouTube, not that they show much! Also lots of comparison reviews which most have the 1.8g as better.

But if you got that itch, you have to scratch it!!

I don't think there is a huge difference between the g's so if you don't like one I don't think you will like the other!

Just go and get the Sigma!
 
Last edited:
JJ! said:
I have had both and used side by side and I guess it's only then you realise that the 1.8g is a fair bit quicker. I'm not exaggerating either - I have tried them together! But if you are not changing distances much there isn't much or anything in it. It's when you are going from far to near there is a clear difference. I imagine for the boxing it would be fine.

The 1.4g is meant to render slightly better but you want a super sharp 50mm wide open, then neither of these lenses are for you IMO.

There are a couple of focus speed vids on YouTube, not that they show much! Also lots of comparison reviews which most have the 1.8g as better.

But if you got that itch, you have to scratch it!!

I don't think there is a huge difference between the g's so if you don't like one I don't think you will like the other!

Just go and get the Sigma!
Click to expand...
It's more the extra light gathering tbh. I was at 6400 with the f1.8 so need all the light gathering I can get ;)
 
snerkler said:
It's more the extra light gathering tbh. I was at 6400 with the f1.8 so need all the light gathering I can get ;)
Click to expand...

Damn that's some low light! The 1.4 isn't sharp at all wide open, but the extra light might help get that lower iso!

Shame like myself you do not enjoy 35mm!
 
JJ! said:
Damn that's some low light! The 1.4 isn't sharp at all wide open, but the extra light might help get that lower iso!

Shame like myself you do not enjoy 35mm!
Click to expand...
It was pants. 12800 using the 24-70 f2.8 and has to have the shutter slower than I wanted.

It's not that I don't like it, I just find 50mm more useable in more scenarios.
 
snerkler said:
It was pants. 12800 using the 24-70 f2.8 and has to have the shutter slower than I wanted.

It's not that I don't like it, I just find 50mm more useable in more scenarios.
Click to expand...

Yeah with you on that one, I think it can pretty much take pics of most things!

The Siggy 35 is really sharp, but I'm just not enjoying it as much as the cheap old 50!

The 58mm is still knocking around too - really must get that sent to MPB to get my mate his £££ lol.

Get the 1.4g, you might love it... Or hate it!
 
Last edited:
Some say the 1.8D is better some say the opposite. I guess there must not be much between them... I have a sigma 1.4 art and really it is a great lens but very bulky for a 50mm prime.
The 85mm 1.8G is a great lens too! Gets much better feedback that any of the nikon own brand 50's.
 
BacktotheFuji said:
Wifey's shoots outdoor kiddie shots professionally with a 50/1.8g on crop and it's absolutely fine. Needed some AF adjustment though.
Click to expand...

Mine seems ok, but haven't really gone too much in depth to see if it's 100% spot on.

I did try 3 copies of the 1.4g, and although people say it's better built the first thing I did with 1 of them is go to clean some dust out and a the ring that sits just below the filter ring just fell out!

@snerkler if you could see a marked improvement on your LCD screen using the 1.4g I honestly think you must have been unlucky with the copies of the 1.8g you had? I couldn't tell any difference full size on the PC!

But as Dave pointed out, the 1.4g is 'sharp enough' wide open and I thought you were looking for a lens that's sharp sharp wide open?

I really think the Sigma is the lens for you.
 
JJ! said:
Mine seems ok, but haven't really gone too much in depth to see if it's 100% spot on.

I did try 3 copies of the 1.4g, and although people say it's better built the first thing I did with 1 of them is go to clean some dust out and a the ring that sits just below the filter ring just fell out!

@snerkler if you could see a marked improvement on your LCD screen using the 1.4g I honestly think you must have been unlucky with the copies of the 1.8g you had? I couldn't tell any difference full size on the PC!

But as Dave pointed out, the 1.4g is 'sharp enough' wide open and I thought you were looking for a lens that's sharp sharp wide open?

I really think the Sigma is the lens for you.
Click to expand...
I didn't have both side by side tbh but whenever I look at 1:1 on the LCD with the f1.8 I was always a bit 'meh', but with the f1.4 I was like "not as bad as I was expecting". Take from that what you will ;)
I've no doubt the Siggy is the best, but I could get the f1.4g and 85mm f1.8g for the price of the Siggy, and they probably weigh less combined ;)
 
snerkler said:
I didn't have both side by side tbh but whenever I look at 1:1 on the LCD with the f1.8 I was always a bit 'meh', but with the f1.4 I was like "not as bad as I was expecting". Take from that what you will ;)
I've no doubt the Siggy is the best, but I could get the f1.4g and 85mm f1.8g for the price of the Siggy, and they probably weigh less combined ;)
Click to expand...

You must have some high standards! Most lenses on my screen 1:1 look all as bad as each other!

Well, I will look forward to your 1.4g results. You have some 1.8g shots so comparisons are always good!
 
snerkler said:
It's more the extra light gathering tbh. I was at 6400 with the f1.8 so need all the light gathering I can get ;)
Click to expand...

If you want crisp and punchy at 1.4, as opposed to soft and dreamy, get the Sigma Art.

Not that soft and dreamy isn't attractive, and some users actually exploit that to great effect, but crystal clear it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top