Texas1833 Loc: Houston, Texas

Is the Nikon-50mm-f-1.4G-AF-S-Nikkor-Lens-Factory-Refurbished ($355.00) worth almost $200.00 more than a Nikon 50mm f 1.8 AF S Nikkor-Lens ($164.00) Facrory Refurbished. Or I guess a better question is will I see much difference in their photos? I am an amateur, have a Nikon D7100 and shoot grandchildren and scenery. These lenses are from Cameta.
Thank you so much for your help.

East Banana

simply from a cost perspective, for $355? I'd get a manual nikkor maybe a 105 or 85 and buy the $165 50mm afs , it still all comes under $355 total ...that's what comes to my mind but I'm different. If you won't consider manual it adds up way faster? .... the Nikkor 28 ais 3.5 manual is a fantastic landscape lens, loves polarizers and filters, will not flare ...does perfect on sunsets and cost nothing.... no better value Nikkor exist. I bet you could score a 105 2.5 and 28 3.5 and buy the 50mm for under $350 total and have one nice kit to suit your needs and everything you need to have pro results ? Or buy a zoom that fits in that range, and forget the 50's?...the Nikkor 28-105 af was one of my favorites and a bargain ... get that and 50 1.8 afs your set with options

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Not sure, but even with Canon, the least expensive is the 1.8, the 1.4 is more expensive, and the 1.2 even more expensive.
Engineering and manufacturing that goes into the various lenses. (I chose a 1.4)
Need to see reviews for opinions on the quality of each lens.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Back in film days some thought the extra half stop was worth it for low light. Also that big chunk of glass looks impressive. You won't see much difference in quality. If you do the f/1.8 is a little better. It is hard to get the quality with the faster lens. Get the f/1.8. - Dave

BebuLamar

Yes it is worth that much more because it does cost significantly more to make and they can sell it for that much more. No you won't see much of a difference.

FreddB Loc: PA - Delaware County

The reviews I've read say the 1.4 is sharper at 1.8, and is MUCH sharper at 1.8 than the 1.8 at 1.8.
Hope that makes sense - the more I read it, the confuseder I get.

User ID

`



Funny that no one has yet reminded you that,
at 1.4, the 1.4 is vastly sharper than the 1.8
can ever possibly be .....


`

Texas1833 Loc: Houston, Texas

Thank you all. I really appreciate your information and help.

~Lauretta

Bill_de Loc: US

There are quite a few comparative reviews that might be worth looking at.

https://www.google.com/search?q=compare+nikkor+50mm+f%3F1.4g+to+f%2F1.8g&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl

--

jcboy3

Are you looking for razor thin DOF? Is f/1.8 just too slow for you? Then yes, the f/1.4 is worth it.

But if you have to ask, then no, it is not. Use the $200 difference for something else you might need.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

depends on usage... you mentioned portraiture.... for that genre the faster 1.4 has a very high perceived worth for subject isolation via DOF... and the bokeh is thought by many who work commercially in portraiture to be well worth the price...

for scenery? you don't need a fast optic... f/8 works well here...

That said, value is oft an undefined variable... those who shoot commercially only consider the merit and worth of imagery the optic is capable of producing... I will say this with authority... long ago I foolishly purchased "cost effective" optics (slow glass) which I've been selling off as expediently as practical... in a highly competitive marketplace there is little or no room for mediocre, or even "good" In order to solicit assignments imagery must be outstanding! Read breathtaking here...

Texas1833 I have and use the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G Nikkor for full length fashion... (on full frame FX)
btw, I sold my AF f/1.8D version long ago... not is the same league in my humble estimation (even for portraiture on a D7100)

Keep in mind that on your D7100 the 50mm focal length needs to be multiplied by 1.5 (DX crop factor) thus becomes a 75mm which is considered a portraiture focal length...

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
I wish you well on your journey Texas1833

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Don't waste your money. Get the f/1.8 lens. You probably won't be shooting at 1.8 anyway so save your money for something else and get the less expensive lens. Now if you plan on going pro and want to do portraits, get the faster lens; better yet, don't get the 50mm, get an 85mm.

OviedoPhotos

I have the 1.4 version and like it a lot. That said though, I'm usually shooting at f8 on that lens. I have not tried the 1.8 but I've read somewhere that at f8 the f1.4 lens is slightly better.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Personally, I have the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G-AF-S Nikkor lens (mine was also refurbished). I use it on a Nikon D7000, Nikon D7100 and a Nikon D610. I love the lens for what it is ( a great general shooting lens on the FX camera and a pretty good portrait lens on the DX cameras. (NOTE that the DX makes the lens give an image similar to a 75mm lens on an FX camera). And it is a good low light lens. I use it often when shooting as ISO 100 on either the DX or FX cameras in order to keep my shutter speed high enough to reduce/eliminate blur. My lens is tack sharp and is perfect for those types of situations. Now, If I have okay to good light, I often use my 18-70mm zoom, my 70-300mm zoom or my 80-400mm zoom. But those all have significantly higher light requirements.. the 80-400 has a 4.0-4.5 wide open f/stop vs the 1.4 on the 50mm. I also have a Tamron 10-24mm DX zoom but generally only use it for landscapes and scenery.
The point to your question was, is the 1.4 lens worth the difference... it depends... for me, yes. It was a good choice an a compromise since I chose it over the faster and considerably more expensive f/1.2 and the slower and not as versatile or as expensive f/1.8. In fact, GENERALLY, I have 3 "most used" lenses.. the Nikon full frame 50mm f/1.4, the Nikon full frame f/4.0-4.5 80-400mm and the Tamron DX 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. The other two lenses (Nikkor 18-70 and Nikkor 70-300 are generally used by my wife. (it gives her two lenses that generally cover her entire shooting range.... so she has less decisions to make and can concentrate more on her shooting.

So, in answer to your question about the price difference, yes the 1.4 is worth the difference... the difference between the 1.4 and the 1.2 is not as great and I decided that the difference in THAT price wasn't worth the gain in f/stops... But .4 to .8 was well worth the difference. With my f/1.4 lens on, I can go outside now (at 6:30am in near total darkness) and get decent braced or monopod shots..(it's still too dark for most people to hand hold but you might get away with bracing against a pole or tree). With the 1.8 or slower, you would miss the shot or need a tripod.

bruswen Loc: Eugene OR

I have both lenses, I find the f/1.4 is better on a full frame sensor, especially in the corners, but on an APS-C body I prefer the light weight and snappier focus of the f/1.8.