Bill132

Looking to purchase a fast Nikon 50mm prime for a 7500 DX camera. I see the 1.8 for $186 and the 1.4 for $450. Is the 1.4 worth the extra 260. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

Great question.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

In terms of build quality alone, yes. Optically, probably not.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The f/1.4 is bigger, heavier, and more expensive. In exchange for that, you can get 2/3 stop more light through it, but focusing is slower. Do you really need a little more light. Oh, and you'll probably lose some quality, too.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-vs-f1-4g
https://neilvn.com/tangents/lens-review-nikon-50mm-f1-4g-vs-nikon-50mm-f1-8g/
https://www.adorama.com/alc/0012817/article/gear/photo/50mm-lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14

ksmmike

I guess it depends on the type of photography you do. Is 2/3 of a stop that critical to what you shoot? I would guess that 99% of people would say no, but you might be
in that 1%. I have the 1.8 and am quite pleased. I also have the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 and I'm not sure I have one image at 1.4 that I kept. However that lens is manual focus
and you have to be dead on with your focusing at 1.4.

Mike

rocket111

I was asking the same question about a year ago. Google Ken Rockwell, I bought the 1.8. The older lenses may have a little better build but they are a lot heavier. The 1.8 build is very good and delivers high quality photographs. 📹

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

Interesting comparison Jerry. Thanks for the links.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

The first lens I bought for my D7500 was a used 50 mm f 1.8 D from an actual, local camera store. It has a fast and accurate focus, produces a clear, sharp image. It is also quite compact - easy to stash in a jacket pocket or a fanny pack. Inexpensive to buy and handy to have. The last link that Jerry provided ranks it very close (if not the same) in optical quality to the f 1.4. And the link also mentioned that the wider the aperture the more light fall off to the sensor so there is not as much to gain from the faster f stop as you might think.
However the gain is in the separation of subject to background (which is not measured technically) so if you plan to use the 50 mm lens primarily for portraits the f 1.4 might be the way to go.
For an all purpose lens the f 1.8 will likely serve your purposes.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

2 thoughts maybe look into metabones adaptor for Nikon. Look for other lens.

Or look into the Rokinon 50mm Photo lens they are great bargains and good lens.

67skylark27 Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI

Are you ever going to go to full frame? Maybe the 1.4 will work better on that than the 1.8?
I have both, maybe I'll compare the two and see which is best!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Look at the reviews o photozone.de. you'll come to the conclusion that the 1.4 is better at a wider aperture than the 1.8. You'll also see higher scores across the board. But the 1.8 is no slouch. Whether it's worth the extra cost is something no one can answer for you.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

You can pick up a used 50mm f1.4 on ebay for less than $200. Last year I bought the Nikon NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4 D SIC AF Lens for $190. The difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 is shallower depth of field. If you want to shoot pics with very shallow depth of field the f1.4 is better. Otherwise if it doesn't matter, you will likely be shooting above f2.0 anyway to get the sharpest focus. I also bought a Nikon 50mm f1.2 manual focus film lens to get super shallow depth of field. But without a tripod and the lcd magnifier I can't nail focus manually, so I generally use the f1.4.

rsilverst Loc: Seattle

If you have a D7500, then one could argue that your "Nifty Fifty" equivalent lens would actually be a 35mm. So you could take the approach of using 35mm as your "walk-around prime lens" and then consider a mid-range zoom (e.g. 17-50mm, 17-70mm) for the cases where you want flexibility. That said, if you see a full-frame camera in your future, it does not make much sense to get "DX-only" lenses (with the exception being if you want an ultra-wide angle, e.g. 11-16mm or 10-20mm, in which case, there would not be a full-frame equivalent that would give you the same effective focal lengths on your current camera).

I realize I maybe didn't answer your question about "Which 50mm" but maybe it gives something else to think about. FWIW, we have a DX and an FX camera. And we had a 50mm f/1.8G that has sat in a cabinet for a year and never gets used. I ended up deciding to replace it with the 50mm f/1.2 AIS manual focus lens mentioned by Bobspez above. I figured that perhaps it would be a more compelling lens to play with if it challenges me to practice a specific technique (and it definitely is interesting!).

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

NO, unless you want even more BROKEN (I spelled it this way to excite the spelling Nazi's). In fact, I love the weight difference offered by the 1.8. I doubt very much, if you are a non-professional, you will see the difference. In the film days when one rarely ventured outside ISO 400, speed was KING. With today's digital higher iso's and IQ are getting better and better, that is why Nikon, Sony, and Canon now offer excellent F4 glass instead of always F2.8 glass. SO, bottom line, save some bread and get the 1.8, you will be very, very happy with that lens.

Hammer Loc: London UK

I have used both . The f1.4 is soft until about f4, so its a great portrait lens but not so good for street work etc. The 1.8 is sharp all the way through. Personally I found 50mm to be restrictive and use a 35mm mostly instead.

To me, it gives a better choice of composition , but this is just personal, The word from the herd is that both 35 & 50 are not needed , its either .