More info here.... but this will remain open..

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=11836

Just went through same issue. Had the 50/1.8d and now own the 50/1.8G. I wanted the faster 50/1.4D or G, but decided the 1.8G was the sharpest lens at 1.8-2.8. At least, that's what most people told me and reviews seemed to support this. none of the lenses you mentioned are BAD, and certainly the 1.8D is nearly the same as the 1.8G. Good luck!

The problem with the DXO scores are it really doesn't show you how the lens resolves across the entire frame. I like looking at the graphics that SLRgear.com produces.

AF-S 50mm f/1.8G

AF 50mm f/1.8D

The D might be overall shaper in the center at optimal aperture (f/4-f/5.6), but doubtful at f/1.8 as most of the newer G lenses have shown better improvement in corner performance than their D counterparts at large apertures.

Revisiting this topic, I am in the same conundrum now - 50mm 1.8d vs 1.8g. It seems that many of the human reviews say that the 1.8g is better, saying that it is sharper and has better bokeh than the 1.8d. However, DxOMark says that the 1.8d is significantly better:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-f-1.8G-review-of-the-famous-50mm-1.8D-successor

Anyone here have thoughts to share? Thank you!

I just purchased the 1.4 and love it.
To Tao's point,....once you put a filter on it,...the lens is still can get flair.

I love this prime. I paid 425 from the big store in NYC. Purchase the clear filter $39.

I found the same bokeh results.

The AFS was on my "What the hell I'll put it on there Xmas list" and wasn't planning on upgrading until my 1.4 AFD died. Now that I have it, I do see that I should have had it higher on my list!

The huge thing I see is that in Continuous mode with AF priority, I do get much more in focus shots than the older AFD either the 1.4 or 1.8. In practice what I found is with the AFD = 10 shots where 2 are sharp vs the AFS = 8 shots where 5 are sharp. Some may see that as slower since fewer shots were fired, I see it as 2 1/2 times better and the AFD version was firing off bad shots.

I look for consistency and this delivers. My version is very sharp.

I've had the chance to try the 1.8, 1.4D, 1.4G and an old 1.4 AI at the same time:

50 1.8 - Worst bokeh. Out of focus lights are outlined, elliptical, and polygonal.
50 1.4D & 1.4 AI - Much softer bokeh. Out of focus lights are circular/polygonal. Not much outlining.
50 1.4G - Even softer bokeh. Out of focus lights are elliptical/circular. Not much outlining. Slow autofocus!

I picked the 1.4D.

I've had the 50/1.8 but now use the 50/1.4 D for FX and it's great! Much better than the 1.8 in my opinion. Better build quality, smoother bokeh and the extra f-stop are all worth the extra cash. At least for me.

I would however never consider a 50mm prime on a cropped sensor for anything other than portraits. If that's your intended use then I say go for the 50/1.4 D. If you want an every-day-walk-around-lens for DX then buy the great 35/1.8 AFS instead!

50mm on Dx vs 50mm on fx are 2 very different things. on FX its a normal do everything lens (where mostly you just want it sharp :-) ). On DX its a low light portrait lens. I have the the 501.8 and a AIS 50 manual focus and I have played with the 50mm G (friend loaned it to me for a few days) and looked through a 50mm D. The Bokeh of the 1.8 is not great I hardly ever use it any more. I much prefer my old 50mm AIS manual focus . The bokeh is superb. But That 50mm AFS is a real wonder. I dont know if its faster to focus than the AFD but its very accurate. I hope to consolidate my lenses (once I stop procrastinating) and get that AFS some day. The bokeh of that 50mm afs is smooth. Its as good as the old AIS with the additional convenience of super accurate focusing and of course autofocus :-). The old AIS lens also reflects points of light back on to the sensor so its not good for city lights at night. also the coating of the old lenses are not as good as these modern lenses. ( I dont know if the AFD does that but I suspect that it may a little). I dont think the AFS is that much more money. It will be worth it in the long run I think.

But It really depends on what you intend with your 50mm. If its for general low light photography, then get the 35mm F1.8 instead. or the 30mm F1.4 sigma.

I agree with Drab. I own the 1.4G, but I plan on selling it soon. I don't really like the focal length - for me, it's too long for anything indoors, and too short for the rest. Sure it takes nice photos (except for being soft until about f/2.2), but so does my $200 35mm 1.8G.

If I were you I'd go for the 50 1.8. Spend the money on something better than half a stop (or whatever it is) and full time manual focus.

As I've said before, I bought an AF-S 50mm f/1.4G, and found it both softer and slower-focusing than my AF 50mm f/1.4D (so, I returned it). But, I really would prefer shooting with the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G instead, if only for its internal focusing mechanism, since I'm constantly inadvertantly leaving fingers wrapped around my AF-D 50's focus ring (I guess out of habit from holding manual-focus lenses, years ago). So, having an AF-S motor would greatly enhance the ergonomics of my particular handheld technique.

I really like shooting with a 50mm f/1.4, since it's the fastest AF lens I own (although, I also own a manual-focus 50mm f/1.2 AI-S), and I do like its 75mm-equivalent focal length on a DX body. If Nikon were to make an AF-S 50mm f/1.2, I'd probably opt for that. But given the current options, it looks like another (hopefully, sharper) AF-S 50mm F/1.4G is still in my future. Sure, the 50mm f/1.8 can be had at a bargain-price, but, at least for me, speed is paramount.

You will never get such a bargain and as great a lens as the 50mm 1.8 D its an absolute steal for around $100-120. Sharp as hell and equally light plus a real joy to use. Don't need to spend anymore for this focal length prime. Grab one!

I own both 1.4s and have used the 1.8. Just got the AFS for Xmas and have been testing it endlessly.

Overall here are the main points I have found:

If the AFS is slower I sure can't tell tracking two puppies in a frame. It is able to focus between objects faster and can hunt if you are not using single point AF. That is the only way I can see it being slower. The focus on single point is faster than my old AFD.

Manual override is fantastic to have especially with the shallow DOF of the 1.4.

The new AFS bokeh has rounded highlights where as the older AFD and 1.8 have a hexagon shape. On my D300 I use it as a portraiture lens and the rounded highlights make a difference to me personally.

Big bonus - The front lens is inset a good distance from the front. This helps with flairs and the ability not to use a hood.

I respect KR for showing that cheap or older lenses can have very little trade offs. He does push cheaper alternatives to the best lenses - that is until it comes to Leica, then everything else is garbage. If you look at what he really uses, they all are the highest price or the newest ones for almost all of his images.

If you are not worried about price, the AFS is the better combination of everything. The others are good lenses as well, but this is a great upgrade!

broxibear said:
Check out Ken Rockwell's site as he has a detailed comparison of the Nikon 50mm Lenses.

Oo i did do that. Nothing but praise from the review. Which is good.

I have to agree that from browsing photos on flickr. It is super sharp :D

I think for now i will probably get a 50 1.8. The extra money is now calling from a sb-900

Thank you everyone for your input :D

Of those 3, I only have the 50/1.8, but it's a great lens. It always amazes me how sharp it is, especially stopped down, where I've found I consistantly get equal or better results than lenses that cost much more, including the Tokina 11-16, 135DC and 70-200VR. Whether or not to get the other ones depends on if you need (or would want) the 1.4 or not. If you don't then it's probably not worth it- the difference in performance stopped is going to be too similar to make a difference, but the difference in price is significant. If you want the 1.4, then I'd say to go for it- there's no real alternative.

Personally, of the two 50/1.4 lenses, I'd go for the AF-D version, since it costs less than the AF-S version, with probably no difference in performance.

As far as AF performance goes, I've never had any issues with my 1.8 with tracking very fast moving subjects (except maybe at very close range: 5-10 feet), which is on par with my experience with other lenses, such as the 70-200VR, 70-300VR, and the 135DC.

I love my 50 1.4 G. Yes, it's slow but it's not THAT slow. If nikon would make a better 50 1.2 with better focus then I'd jump to that but either 50 will be good. The 1.8 is cheap, the 1.4's are close.

The old 50mm 1.4 also uses 52mm filter threads, that might something annoying if you already own lots of 52mm filters.

Brokibear is exactly right. The 1.4 gives you 1.4 and instant manual focus override.
That's it for the positives.

Is that worth three times the price? Only you can decide.

I prefer a 35 as my one-lens-solution on FX and a 24 on DX. I've often said how much I dislike 50 on DX, but that's me. I find it too short. I like 85 on DX and I can't afford its equivalent on FX. :(

Hi iChilliPepper
Check out Ken Rockwell's site as he has a detailed comparison of the Nikon 50mm Lenses.
I use the f1.8AFD on my D3 and it's super sharp...if money is no object get the f1.4 AFS G, it's 3 times the price but it isn't 3 times better.

If you don't know which one you want, save your money and buy the 1.8.

Hi everyone.

Im in the market of buying a 50mm prime. I was planning to buy a 50mm 1.4 G as it looks newer but heard some people saying its soft and slow to focus.

I want to get a nice 50. Don't mind spending the extra money if it has some additional benefits.

I heard good things about all lenses above in the title. Anyone had any experiences with any? Recommendations?

I bought a d7000 today if it helps :D