Having made similar comparisons for my purchase (and still opted for 1.4G), I'll add 2 additional points for people in my situation and asking "which one should I get?". Point #1- Auto-Focus speed: While 1.4G is acceptably fast, 1.8G focuses A LOT faster than 1.4G, almost twice as fast from infinity to close focus. I've found 1.4G to be actually slightly slower than older Nikkor AF 1.4D in my tests (but 1.4G is still optically better). #2- Vignetting. When wide open there isn't a big difference but comparing both at f/2, 1.4G's falloff starts much closer to sides (has virtually no vignetting in DX crop area) and is only half stop darker at sides and 1 stop darker at corners. 1.8G's falloff is still as bad as f1.4's wide open and image is 1,5 stops darker at sides, and 2,5 stops darker at corners; a whooping 1-1.5 stop worth of difference there. If you are planning to shooting 1.8G at wide apertures mostly for bokeh and you're already at or near your base ISO, this doesn't matter at all. Vigneting can be corrected easily by in camera settings, or by one-click in Lightroom. Bumping up darker areas by less than a stop will bring in negligable noise. 1.8G's marginal sharpness advantage is also on your side. When shooting at "desperate" ISO numbers in low light, your main concern will NOT be bokeh but actual amount of light hitting the sensor. For this use case, this difference is NOT nothing and have real life implications; If you are making a "rule of thirds" composition, 1.8G, when wide open loses 2/3 stops worth of light right on your subject due to vignetting. Using spot metering to get exact same exposure on your subject, you can keep the same ISO value and be able to shoot 1.4G at f/2.2 so theoratical "sharpness" advantage of 1.8G is not (always) there. Sure its just slightly sharper at same f/1.8 aperure if we are pixel peeping, but 1.4G is much sharper at f/2.2 and difference won't require pixel peeping. Or it can go the other way in the exposure triangle: You can open up the aperture to f/1.4 and get further 2/3 stops of advantage on ISO number. On an academic comparison, 1.4G is (almost) terrible wide open, but on many cameras reducing ISO from 6400 to 4000 will improve image quality quite noticably and at such high ISOs, even the best cameras won't out-resolve the 1.4G at f/1.4. In short, I'll say 1.8G is a better overall lens. Its faster focusing, a bit lighter, equally sharp (sharper if you are into pixel peeping) than 1.4G; all that for less money. At 2.1 T-stops, its not a bad low-light lens either. But 1.4G is still the better low light lens of the two. It provides much needed light when high ISOs is the limiting factor to image quality rather than the optical resolving power of the lens. Price premium is worth it if 1.4G allows me to take photos I cannot with 1.8G. I always use f/1.4 apeture as a low-light emergency, so in my practical use below f/2, my only complaint is relatively slower focusing speed. If you want a very sharp f/1.4 lens and have money to burn, I'll suggest Sigma ART Series 50mm f/1.4; Its much sharper at wider apertures and overall better lens then either Nikkors.
Wow, what a great complement of information, I could not have say it better. You're totally right, as a low light shooter, as you it seems, I'll grab any available lux thru a faster lens. Personally, I prefer the older AF version as it is more compact, I like more the images it gives (which is totally subjective btw), and faster. The manuals are also good, Nikkor Ai, Ais, and Zeiss planar (contax) are also very good. I still need to test a sigma art, but that's another story. Thanks again for taking the time to do such a thorough analysis. Best of all.
I totally like your analysis dude, also my thoughts exactly. There are plenty of 2nd hand nikon and sigma 1.4s about now, so definitely worth it IMHO. I own the Sigma 1.4 & Nikon 1.8. I own them mostly for sqeezing out the quality of a camera in low light, so yeah a full stop is MASSIVE when your pushing for every pixel of light u can get.
Thanks for taking time to do this. Interesting comparison. I own the 50mm 1.8G, I consider it quite a nice lens for the money. The 50mm 1.4G does have its right to exist, however, it doesn’t convince me. As you said, there might be some reasons to prefer it.
I will get the f1.8 based on this and other reviews . I can't justify spending the extra money for a 1.4 . Both are very good lenses , and that is obvious , but my decision has been made . Thank you for this comparison .
I'm happy that you have found the comparison useful and helped you taking a decision. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and tell all your friends about the channel.
Very accurate comparison pictures, which show clearly one rather important aspect: actual apertures on the two lenses do not coincide. The out of focus blur is larger, and the depth of field is smaller, on the 1.4 at all nominal apertures, as can be seen in your pictures at minimum focus distance. Thus, sharpness is somewhat uneven to be compared, since some differences are actually due to details that are out of focus in the 1.4. Also, what you classify as spherical aberration close to the center is probably a bit of astigmatism. Finally, what you see at 22.40 looks to me like a bit of field curvature in the 1.8. Again, congratulations for the very accurate image comparison, it's very hard to do that with real images, thanks
Hi, thanks for the contribution, of high technical value. Thanks also for the appreciation, few people realize the challenge of making identical pictures with different lenses. Cheers.
Comparing these two lenses is not something new, this video itself is over 2 years old. That said, I think there is missing info in this video. It has nothing to do with the 1.4 having been "designed for portraits" and the 1.8 "designed for general purpose photos". The fact is that unlike the 1.4G, the 1.8 has an aspherical element which increases sharpness and clarity, and helps reduce ghosting and CA. This is why wide open the 1.4 is noticeably soft whilst the 1.8 is sharp wide open. I've owned both and the 1.4G gets acceptably sharp, and I found myself often stopping down to f/1.8 in order to achieve good sharpness. This immediately omits the use of f/1.4 as you'll have to add sharpness in post. The biggest deficiencies with the 1.8G are 7 rounded aperture blades instead of the 1.4G's 9, and the 66% more light let in on the 1.4G. This has never made a difference in my photography though. The 1.8G is less than half the cost and actually performs better. I say 1.8G all day! Great comparison!!!
Thanks for that interesting comparison, I started with a 50 1.8E then had both Ai-s 50 f1.4 and 1.8, but those were in film days so they were "normal"lenses but when I got my first DSLR, I bought a 50 F1.4 AF-S which behaved like a 75mm F2 with the APS-C sensor so it took the place of my beloved 85mm F2 portrait lens for a few years and was a really handy short tele, now on full frame, I have reverted to the 85mm f1.8 for portraits, the 50 f1.4 is less used. Although I recently got an AF adapter for my MFT camera and the 50 is now effectively a short tele 100mm F2.8(?) for portraits.
Good video! Based on this I will get the 1.8G, I have a old 60's ai converted 50 1.4 and that produces dream like images that aren't that sharp but nice aesthetically wide open. The 1.8G covers more of what I generally do though and seems to be an improvement over the old 1.8D which I also have. Test charts showed that the 1.4G out resolved the 1.8G past f5.6 but what I saw here the 1.8 still had more contrast and puch at the smaller apertures
At human eye and social media level, sharpness is more noticeable in the sense of separation rather than pixels. Almost noone zooms in to look at details that much. It's more on the "feels" of sharpness by separation of subject and background (focus point and foreground/background).
Thanks for taking that time to make is. I the older 1.4 AF on my Nikon d700 and it makes beautiful pictures. It’s probably my favourite lens of all time. I like the slight softness wide open and the way it renders colour. The bokeh is really nice and it works well in low light. It’s interesting to see that the 1.8 is sharper in some situations. The difference in back-focus characteristics is also interesting. I had never considered this.
Hello, thanks a lot for your feedback. Your point of view is very interesting in a world where everyone seems to be not interested but obsessed with sharpness. Cheers.
Hi. Based on your review, I might prefer the 50mm 1.4 to the 1.8 g. They seems to be both good. I have the 24-70mm f2.8 (a powerfull beast) on a d850. Would it be a big improvment at 50mm to use one of these prime lens compared to my zoom?
My opinion may be biased because I prefer prime lenses. We'll with the 50 1.4, you'll be two stops faster than with your zoom and that can make the difference in low light conditions. You'll get more bokeh if that's something you're interested in. Best.
@@diyextravaganza thanks, i'm looking for a better bokeh, maybe better colors, sharpness or some caracter to a prime lens. This 1.4 may not be that sharp but gives some charms to the pics you've done. My Zoom for the job, versatility, efficiency, and a few prime lens for better result and a bit of fun. Thanks for your answer and good day ^^
@@hyperion2502 you're welcome, if you have the budget, I recommend the 58mm 1.4G, it has what you mentioned ,test it before buying because it is a love it or hate it lens. I personally love it.
Hey, i was wondering if you could make a video in this style, but comparing the Nikkor 85 1.8D and 85 1.8G? Or have you already compared those? Greetings from germany!
@@diyextravaganza That video is why i got thinking about 85s again. I bought the D and G yesterday. Right now i only have a manual WalimexPro 85 1.4. Which has an in focus rate of what feels like 5%. Ill probably sell the D, if the quality is bad enough.
@@OttoLP I haven't done one to one comparisons yet, but the lenses are ready. I want also to compare the 1.8G with the 1.4G as people seem to say that the 1.8G is better, I don't think so, but I have to prove it.
@@arturikbtb ok, I did not understand the comment in the beginning. The focus shift is intrinsic to the lens I believe, the ftz adapter is just a tube.
