Review: I own both of Nikon's 50mm lenses, both the 50mm f/1.8 as well as their 50mm f/1.4, and wish to convey that there is no comparison to the image quality between these two lenses. I made the mistake of assuming that the low-light capabilities of the f/1.8 was more than adequate for my needs and applications, and I used the lens for 5 months as my daily-usage lens till I visited a niece's volley ball game, and was very upset that my pictures had absolutely no clarity! Yes, I was shooting part of the time at f/1.8 and f/2.8 at ISO-1600, but the images just looked LOUSY! (at least LOUSY for the high image QUALITY that I'd become used to with my D200, and KNEW from experience that it could produce). Well, that night, I ordered the 50mm f/1.4, and let me say that there is a major difference between the picture QUALITY of these two 50mm lenses! The f/1.4 lens is just beginning to get sharp by f/1.8, usably sharp by f/2, and DISTINCTLY SHARP by f/2.8; where the f/1.8 lens doesn't begin to get sharp till around f/4.5 Yes, the f/1.8 produces very nice images at f/5.6 and higher, but is very FUZZY at its widest apertures! Now if you are into portrait photography, this FUZZY blurring of the image isn't a bad thing as most people complain that my D200 shows every facial hair and blemish that they have! (sure I can back-down its sharpness) None the less, for portrait photography, the natural blurring and (blemish-smoothing) of either lens at WIDE apertures is a good feature that many people will appreciate! But if you are desiring a crystal-clear image for low-light photography, high-action sports photography, or a CLEAR and SHARP portrait with good BOKEH (the blurring of the background), the f/1.4 is the much better choice between these 2 lenses.
|
