My new 50/1.4G at f1.8 was definitely better than my 50/1.8D at f1.8... combined with AFS, that means bye bye 50/1.8D - you were great. The 35/1.8G, the 50/1.4G are a great small combo. All I need is an AFS 20/1.8G (or just get the 24/1.4) to round out the kit. Currently using a 20/2.8D in that role which is OK but not mind-blowing. It's not crushing my 18-55 kit zoom like the 35 and 50.

Had my old AF 85/1.8 in my bag for a long while - like 12 years - I now have an ancient NAI 85/1.8 that's better - especially bokeh-wise - the old 85/1.8 is sharper, too! (In reality, I use my 100/2.8VR in these situations nowadays.)

fakekenrockwell said:
...I loved my 1.8D, regret selling it, but I'd use it over the 1.4G today.

If you're referring to the 85mm f/1.8 over the 50mm f1/.4G... then I agree.

I have a 50mm f/1.8 that I never use and just sold to pickup the 50mm f/1.2. I needed *something* to excite me at that focal length!

kanuck said:
One other thing about the 50mm 1.8 D which I absolutely love, is there doesn't seem to be any sample variation at all. I have probably had about 5 samples of these the past 10 years and all are great despite cheap appearance and feel. They are a real workhorse for you especially for the money. A definate hall of fame Nikon lens for sure. Grab one! :)

How did you manage to go through so many samples in the last 10 years?

The max angle of view for an 85mm f/1.8D on an FX body is about 28 degrees.
The max angle of view for the 50mm f/1.8D on a DX body (75mm "equiv" ) is about 31 degrees.

Don't get hung up the 10 effective millimeters. The actual angle of view is almost identical. The 50mm f/1.8D is a no-brainer as a portrait lens on a DX body (D90/D7000 etc). Now, some people prefer a farther working distance and 70, 85 or 135mm are all decent options depending on your preference. For what it is worth, FX users have to pay 3-4 times for basically the same results.

Get the 50mm f/1.8D if you can't afford the 1.4G, it is a crazy good lens for the money. And, oh, it's lighter, cheaper, if you break it, it almost costs about as much as a good lens filter to replace. I loved my 1.8D, regret selling it, but I'd use it over the 1.4G today.

jbl said:
I don't understand those saying the 50mm is inconvenient on DX.

Agreed. And it's even shorter (~75mm) than an 85mm would be on FX. For years I had a 50mm f/1.8 on my D80 and it almost NEVER left.

And now I have the new 85mm f/1.4 AF-S on a gripped D700... and it rarely leaves... and I even have a 70-200 (which I basically only use at 200) and a 14-24.

Segura said:
...As far as build quality compared to the 85mm f/1.8, they have the same build quality . . . they are both low end prime lenses, and certainly not Pro builds.

Focus, the 50mm is much faster than the 85mm, which I find pretty slow.

Have you owned both lenses? The 50mm f/1.8 is plastic from China. The 85mm f/1.8 is metal from Japan. I'm not saying the 85mm f/1.8 is on par with the ED/N lenses, but it's DEFINITELY a cut above the 50mm. Also, it's slower to focus because it has a LOT more glass to move.

One other thing about the 50mm 1.8 D which I absolutely love, is there doesn't seem to be any sample variation at all. I have probably had about 5 samples of these the past 10 years and all are great despite cheap appearance and feel. They are a real workhorse for you especially for the money. A definate hall of fame Nikon lens for sure. Grab one! :)

heartyfisher said:
Yeah.. I have had a look at that 28mm sigma.. pretty old design and huge too and IQ not the best.. waiting for nikon to give us a dx 28 .. but I think I will never get one.. Maybe tokina ? or tamron? sigh... unlikely too I think.

Yes, I think that front element is 67mm, or 72mm, I forgot.

Massive massive lens, and it's so soft wide open there's no point shooting at 1.8 anymore.

Plus the autofocus override is strange, you need to slide the ring forwards or backwards (I forget which direction) to manually focus, but the ring will spin whether or not you have slid it in the right direction or not.

Definitely not a lens I would recommend.

Yeah.. I have had a look at that 28mm sigma.. pretty old design and huge too and IQ not the best.. waiting for nikon to give us a dx 28 .. but I think I will never get one.. Maybe tokina ? or tamron? sigh... unlikely too I think.

heartyfisher said:
Do you think me asking for a 28mm 1.4 dx here will help? Nikon ! hear this! 28mm 1.4 dx!
sigh.. would sure work well with a 50mm 1.4.. I guess I will have to get that sigma 30mm 1.4 after all..

I would love a fast DX wide angle- something like an 18mm would be nice.

My cousin has a Sigma 28mm 1.8 for the Canon mount. Wide open, it's nowhere near as sharp as the 35mm 1.8.

If you have the extra $100, then get it, but I would jump for the 85mm first.

Segura said:
For $100, you can't go wrong. Get it.

.....

Since you already have the 35mm, and are looking at getting an 85mm, I would skip the 50mm at this point

umm, so your latter response is your final answer?

Do you think me asking for a 28mm 1.4 dx here will help? Nikon ! hear this! 28mm 1.4 dx!
sigh.. would sure work well with a 50mm 1.4.. I guess I will have to get that sigma 30mm 1.4 after all..

For $100, you can't go wrong. Get it. Even if you use if infrequent it is the cheapest lens you can buy, and the prices hold up. Used ones sell for $90-$100. Better yet, pick up used.

And to correct the other posts, the 50mm is only normal on FX. On your D7000 it is a mild telephoto. The 35mm mentioned would be a "normal" lens on DX.

As far as build quality compared to the 85mm f/1.8, they have the same build quality . . . they are both low end prime lenses, and certainly not Pro builds.

Focus, the 50mm is much faster than the 85mm, which I find pretty slow.

Since you already have the 35mm, and are looking at getting an 85mm, I would skip the 50mm at this point

Don't worry, that one was a joke.

i figure i can afford 2 of the three lenses in the next year, so its just a question of setting priorities.

My recent spike on sports shooting has made the decision harder, the 70-300 is a minor to moderate improvement to my 55-200 in every way, while the 85mm is a huge improvement for hockey or basketball.

This is not a choice i really need help on, i figure a specific shoot will force me to go one way or another when the time comes.

I don't think the 85 1.8 is that heavy. It balances very well on the D90. Ditto what kanuck said, though.

I'm not sure how to answer your question, gelu, but I guess you can see your 'quick' question is a hard one and depends on another question: the best for what?

The 35 and 50 are a very close range. I have always felt the 50 to be nice and small and great in a pinch for portraits. The 85mm is much heavier and useful for portraits, but expensive as well. For $100 I'd just add the 50 and still save up for the 85mm. You won't regret it I believe.

Thanks everybody, lots of great advice and lots of ideas to consider.

I guess i'll skip the 50mm for now and save up for the 85, the problem with that is that its in a similar price bracket to the 70-300 and the Sigma 10-20, which are also on my wishlist.

So Quick: whats the best lens, the 85mm 1.8, the 70-300 or a 10-20? ;)

though honestly if i'm not getting a 50 then i'll have to wait longer for my finances to recover, so this is a conversation i'll have a few months from now.

Thanks again everyone.

I don't understand those saying the 50mm is inconvenient on DX.

Of course it's no longer a normal lens.. it becomes more of a portrait lens.. with 75mm it gets almost similar to the 85 on FX.. which is quite useful..

Of course if you need a good lens for hockey, the 85 on DX would be awesome.. if I was to get the 35mm + 85mm.. I wouldn't need a 50mm... However, considering its price.. I'd probably get the 50mm anyway.. at worse, you lose 20-30$ by selling it used.. that's like renting the lens.

The 50mm f1.8 AFD is a stunning lens, I use it all the time on my D3 and can't fault it.
It amazes me that it's Nikon's cheapest lens and would be worth it at double the price.
I'd hire out a 85mm and 50mm for a weekend and see which one suits you best...what's right for me may not be right for you, and as far as quality goes both lenses are fantastic.

I've shot with the 50mm 1.8 for 2 years because it was all I could afford. But I ordered the 50mm 1.4d when I ordered the d7000. For portraits, 50mm is great. I've shot a newborn session side by side with a friend me with 50mm, her with 35mm, we both shot around the same fstop with her opening up slightly more than me(2.8 vs 2.2), and my bokeh was more blurry than hers(ie better in these circumstances). I've wanted the 35mm for a while due to more ability to shoot indoors, but after seeing her results next to mine, I choose the 50mm 1.4d instead when ordering the d7000. :)
But since you already have the 35mm, you might go with the 85, especially if you shoot outside a lot, then save for the 50mm 1.4 perhaps.

I hear different things about that lens all the time. Some say it's awesome on DX, some say it's a really odd focal length. I guess if you could, you should try it out at a camera store and see if you like it or not.

heartyfisher said:
I am a DX shooter. Personally I didnt like the 50 1.8 because its main use in dx is as a portrait lens and as a portrait lens its not the best, the bokeh is not to my liking. The 50mm G however is a different beast. Sweet bokeh and accurate focusing. The 85 1.8 is also nice.
The best use of the 50 1.8 is as a general low light lens on FX. for DX the 35 1.8 takes its place. I would say save up for the 50 1.4G or 85 1.8.

I couldn't agree more. (almost)
IMHO 50mm is a very inconvenient length on DX. Often too long for in-home shooting, and often too short for in-venue shooting. Before the 35 1.8, though, it was a great way to get an inexpensive fast lens.

Sean are you an FX shooter? It will make a diff if you are as Gelu is a dx shooter.

I am a DX shooter. Personally I didnt like the 50 1.8 because its main use in dx is as a portrait lens and as a portrait lens its not the best, the bokeh is not to my liking. The 50mm G however is a different beast. Sweet bokeh and accurate focusing. The 85 1.8 is also nice.
The best use of the 50 1.8 is as a general low light lens on FX. for DX the 35 1.8 takes its place. I would say save up for the 50 1.4G or 85 1.8.

GL HF

Loaded question.

I have shot 75,000 frames in the past two years, and I would say under 2,000 with a 50mm lens... and probably around 50-60% with the 85... the 85mm f/1.8, even. I JUST got the f/1.4 about six weeks ago.

BUT, mileage will vary. I personally just don't like to shoot in "normal" range. I like wide and telephoto. There really is no great substitute for a 50mm prime when you need a mid-range focal length. I would say the argument should be 35 vs 50, not 50 vs 85. The 85 is definitely into telephoto range.

But you cannot look at the millimeter differences as totally finite. While on paper 35 to 50 is a difference of 15, and 50 to 85mm is a difference of 35... It's not the simple. The wider your lens is, the more substantial each millimeter becomes. 200mm and 210mm appear marginally different. But 14mm and 16mm are substantially different. So that 15mm between 35 and 50 is effectively larger than it appears. With that said, I don't think the 50mm is redundant in regards to 35mm. It definitely has a place. 50mm works better for portraits better than 35mm.

Also, just so you know, the 85mm f/1.8 is in a TOTALLY different build and quality class from the 50mm f/1.8. When you're climbing the tower of quality, it really is the gateway to pro-build lenses.

I think you should get the 85mm... but I'm not saying you should discount the 50mm in sake of it. While I don't like to shoot 50mm, I keep one in my bag at all times.