Nikon 50 1.4 VS 50 1.8. TEST, hope can help fellow clubsnappers!

[kenbellston]

I just recently purchased the 50 1.4. i have read many forum posts saying that the two lenses dont have a big difference, and 50 1.4 is not worth the money. so, since im quite free these days, i decided to do a test, and see if the F1.4 justifies its triple-the-price of the F1.8.


The second part of the test is done to compare the 50 f1.4 to the DX king, 17-55 F2.8. and the 17-55 is absolutely amazing.


The test is done at home, it aims to find out the sharpness and color difference. i know there are many factors affect the lens like CA, bokeh, and flare, but this test is a simple one, and im not professional.

hope this test can help some people with their choices


firstly, the whole picture, and the test is done by a D300. the focus point is set on where the read square is.




you might not trust my comparison, i have uploaded the original files, you can check the EXIF information.
http://www.fileden.com/files/200 ... st%2050mm%20zip.zip





First test, AFD 50mm F1.4 VS AFD 50mm F1.8


the 50 1.4 is always on the <<<<left<<<< and the 50 1.8 is always on the >>>>right>>>>



1.4 VS 1.8


its quite obvious that the 50 1.8 wins in sharpness at this stage, as its at 1.8 and the 50mmF1.4 is at 1.4. however the 50mmF1.4 is more detailed in color. the words DOM has a golden coating around it, the 50mmF1.4 still shows it, while the other one just look like plain black "DOM"




1.6 VS 1.8


they have the very similar sharpness here, but 50mmF1.4 is better in colors, a little bit more saturated and much more detailed. while the 50mmF1.8 has quite dull color here.




1.8 VS 1.8


the 50mmF1.4 is sharper and produces better color




F2.2


there is already no competition, 50 1.4 is way better in every aspect.

the 50 1.4 VS 17-55 is in the 9th reply.

[kenbellston]

F2.8







F4.0







F5.6







F8.0






To me, the reason i buy a prime lens is to be able to obtain good sharpness at a big aperture to create a shallow and loose background and have nice Bokeh. the 50 1.4 obviously wins and i think it worth the money. It is just my personal opinion, at the end of the day, the cost 3x of the 50 1.8. I think the 1.4's performance justifies its cost, at 1.8, it is much more usable than the 50mmf1.8.

[deklan]

Since ure quite free, how abt do a test comparing the bokeh of both? haha, i own a F1.4 and the think i love abt it over the F1.8 is the color the 1.4 produces and its so sharp! love the 1.4! no regrets paying 3 times the price of the 1.8!

[Zeddy]

The 50mm f1.4 starts to shine in terms of sharpness from 2.8 onwards.
I have a question. Where do you focus when you conduct the tests?

Thanks for the comparison tests.

[Simon_84]

50mm f1.4 is a clear winner as always when compared to f1.8, what you pay is what you get in this case.
but i'm still looking for a 50mm f1.8 (MIJ) no money for f1.4

[Dearboy87]

good review.

it will be good if the moderator, put this as a sticky. since lots of people has been asking and asking regarding this all the time.

[JacePhoto]

good work... thanks.

[future2003]

very nice comparison thanks.

50 1.4 wins for sure.

[kenbellston]

AFD 50mm F1.4 VS AFS 17-55 F2.8

now, from the above test, we know that the 50 1.4 wins for sure. how does it compare to the DX king, 17-55 f2.8? lets see.

50mmf1.4 is always on the <<<<left<<<< and the 17-55 f2.8 is always on the >>>>right>>>>



F1.8 VS F2.8


the 17-55 sure wins at this stage, when the 1.4 is at F1.8. i expected they result will be similar, as the 50mmf1.4 is a prime. but to my surprise, the 17-55 wins.




F2.8


there isnt a significant different. i expected 50mmf1.4 will win for sure, as the 17-55 is at wide open.




F4.0





F5.6





the 17-55 is absolutely stunning. F2.8 is very usable. it is definitely a worth buying lens, inspite of its price. moreover, the 17-55 is a highly versitile lens, with wide angle to standard length. i would definitely recommend it to any nikonians.

hope its useful for you guys!

[zedd]

Great Job, Thanks

[giantcanopy]

Originally Posted by kenbellston AFD 50mm F1.4 VS AFS 17-55 F2.8 the 17-55 sure wins at this stage, when the 1.4 is at F1.8. i expected they result will be similar, as the 50mmf1.4 is a prime. but to my surprise, the 17-55 wins.

Hi kenbellston many thx for showing us ur little tests

I would not be surprised if the 50mm/1.4 at 1.8 is not as clear as that of the 17-55 at 2.8. The dof is different in the first place. Comparing several variables at a time might not be too useful.

Ryan

[Dearboy87]

hey pal.. wanna do an review with tamron 17-50 built in motor vs nikon 17-55? from range 17-50? lol

[kenbellston]

Originally Posted by giantcanopy Hi kenbellston many thx for showing us ur little tests I would not be surprised if the 50mm/1.4 at 1.8 is not as clear as that of the 17-55 at 2.8. The dof is different in the first place. Comparing several variables at a time might not be too useful. Ryan

thanks!

what do you mean by comparing several variable at a time? cos, initially i thought the 50 1.4 should have similar sharpness with 17-55, at F1.8 and 2.8 respectively. the 50 1.4 is a prime lens, so by right, it should have outstanding sharpness. however, it only achieves similar sharpness with the 17-55 at F2.5-F2.8.

but yeah, u are right, the DoF is different, and their aperture value has a difference of 1. nevertheless, im surprised by the performance of the 17-55 at wide open.

[Ansel]

hi kenbellston,

I give you a

I always love people who can provide images rather than those who just blah blah.

Regarding what are the multiple factors, it may be useful to note that when evaluating lenses, centre sharpness is only one of the criteria. The other criteria being:

1) Sharpness at the corners at various aperture values
2) Chromatic aberration (CA) for both centre and corner
3) Resistance to flare
4) Vignetting at various apertures
5) Bokeh
6) Distortion

The 50/1.4 is three times the price of the 1.8. But if you look at the material used, esp the glass elements, it's got one more element and it looks like it is 3x the materials used too. So, in that sense you are also getting your money's worth.

However, the 1.8 is still the no brainer buy for those who are on a budget, esp photography students and casual hobbyist, to learn about the interplay between shutter speed and aperture, and into available light photography.

[hazard0502]

Wow!

This really helps a lot. Thanks! I will be really buying this lens. Heard and read so much about it. Didnt know what they hype was all about, except of course, the price difference..

[giantcanopy]

Originally Posted by kenbellston thanks! what do you mean by comparing several variable at a time?

Your test setup compared two different lenses at different apertures.
Maybe there is no need to compare the 17-55mmf2.8 up against larger apertures of the 50mm prime because interpretation will be difficult.

Thumbs up once again for your time to do this

Ryan

[kenbellston]

alright, i see!

haha yeah, i did the 1.8 VS 2.8 simply out of expectation and curiousity. As i thought 2.8 VS 2.8 will be very unfair. as the 50mm1.4 is a prime and already stepped down, while the 17-55 is zoom and is at wide open.

nonetheless, thanks for your comment.

[kenbellston]

Originally Posted by Ansel hi kenbellston, I give you a I always love people who can provide images rather than those who just blah blah. Regarding what are the multiple factors, it may be useful to note that when evaluating lenses, centre sharpness is only one of the criteria. The other criteria being: 1) Sharpness at the corners at various aperture values 2) Chromatic aberration (CA) for both centre and corner 3) Resistance to flare 4) Vignetting at various apertures 5) Bokeh 6) Distortion The 50/1.4 is three times the price of the 1.8. But if you look at the material used, esp the glass elements, it's got one more element and it looks like it is 3x the materials used too. So, in that sense you are also getting your money's worth. However, the 1.8 is still the no brainer buy for those who are on a budget, esp photography students and casual hobbyist, to learn about the interplay between shutter speed and aperture, and into available light photography.

i absolutely agree with you, there are a lot of factors determining whether it is a good lens or not. i think sharpness/level of details is one of the dominating factor when i buy a lens. in this case the 50 1.4 wins.

yep, i will do a bokeh test soon. a i think it is also very important, especially for big aperture lens like this.

Thanks!

[photobum]

Try comparing the Nikon 50mm f1.4 (both AI-S and AF-D versions) with a Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZF. Let's see which lens will win.

By the way, IMHO the older Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AFS is much sharper than the 17-55 f2.8 DX (I did some tests on both lenses and finally settled for the 17-35).

[mcn]

Originally Posted by photobum Try comparing the Nikon 50mm f1.4 (both AI-S and AF-D versions) with a Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.4. Let's see which lens will win.

try comparing the price bwtween the 2