Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

Nick,

more than a decade ago I had an AF Nikkor 50/1.4 and used it (obviously) on film bodies like the F3 and F90X. It wasn't all that great wide open and I didn't care much for its bokeh, so I sold it again soon.

Last year I bought another one (AF-D this time, but the opics are the same) for use on my digital Nikons. I find it to be an excellent performer even wide open and yes, the bokeh is also very nice.

I use an old HS-4 hood on it which was originally intended for the 105/2.5 (first version). On the DX bodies this works just fine without any vignetting.

Carsten

50 mm f/1,4 is the lens I mount most of the time on my D200. It's sharp and it has really nice tones. An example here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5630616 . I disagree on it being sharp open wide and about its bokeh which is too harsh for my tastes. For portraits, it must not be used too close in order not to make nose bigger(i.e. it is not meant for headshots...). Apart from this, best bokeh of nikkor prime lenses is 85 1.4's IMHO.

Nice review. It might be important to mention that this lens will not autofocus on a D40 or D40x. Whereas the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 should, because it has HSM. Am I correct about this?

I own both the 50mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4, and to my surprise I very much prefer the 1.8 over the 1.4 as a walkaround. Mine is sharper, gives more consistent autofocus results on my D80, weighs even less than the 50mm 1.4, and its lens is so deeply recessed in its tiny body that there is no appreciable risk of flare, nor chance of damage to the lens when going filterless. For almost every use, the small decrement in maximum aperture has been no appreciable disadvantage. (f/1.4 yields such a tiny DOF that, in my use, 1.8 or 2.0 is preferable for almost everything).

Of course samples vary, and my 50mm f/1.4 might just be a dud, but still....the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 might be a better place to begin at only $100 street price.

Ari,

you're right about the D40(x).

I also had a 50/1.8 AF-D but find the 50/1.4 to be far superior in terms of bokeh. Didn't run any real sharpness tests, but both lenses were very good in that respect.

Carsten

50 mm is a rather tedious focal length (for full frame cameras), especially in comparison to 55/57/58 mm and its geometric half, 40 mm.

On an APS-sensor digital SLR, 50 mm is cropped to a perspective equivalent to 70 - 80 mm, with a result quite different from the ordinary normal lens.

Tested this lens extensively in comparison with other alternative 50mm prox choices, including the Nikkor 60mm f2.8 micro, and zooms with this range included. Unfortunately, I encountered extensive CA throughout the range from f2.8 to f5.6 on strong backlit images. Not only was the 60 micro much better in this regard, but even my 18-70 DX lens had no CA at widest aperture shooting the same scenes, as well as the 28-70 AFS.

Tested this lens extensively in comparison with other alternative 50mm prox choices, including the Nikkor 60mm f2.8 micro, and zooms with this range included. Unfortunately, I encountered extensive CA throughout the range from f1.4 to f5.6 on strong backlit images. Not only was the 60 micro much better in this regard, but even my 18-70 DX lens had no CA at widest aperture shooting the same scenes, as well as the 28-70 AFS. Here's an example.

In the above image, the stained glass framing should be all black, with NO blue. This is the extreme extent of the CA visible with this lens.

I find the Nikon AF-D 50mm f/1.4 perfectly usable from f/2 to f/11 as far as sharpness and contrast are concerned (excellent IQ). From f/1.4 to f/2 it lacks contrast and it is not sharp enough (IMHO). Bokeh is smooth, unless there are highlights in the bokeh present. They have the shape of the 7 diaphragm instead of nice circles (also unevenly illuminated). Sometimes the lens hunts for focus on my D200 when the subject has little contrast and is in low light. I really do like the 50mm FOV on a D200. I use it mainly for portraiture under natural lighting conditions. It is a joy to use this lens.

I have used both the f1.4 and the f/1.8. I find the f/1.8 sharper than the f/1.4 iat f/1.8 most of the time. However, at low light situation I can see the benefit of the f/1.4, however I personally don't think it's worth the added price.

nose in focus

I recently purchased the 50 1.4 nikkor lens for children's portraiture work. I chose this lens because of the beautiful bokeh it produces when opened up to f/1.4

However, I could use some help please.....

When I take a picture of a child's face at f/1.4, only a small portion of the face is in focus (either the eyes or the nose, etc.)

I will try and post an image.

I understand the concept of DOF, however, if this lens is so great for portraits with the great bokeh, what is the point of even shooting at f/1.4 if I cannot get the whole face in focus?

I've bought it recently and started testing on my D300 but I'm not so satisfied.

CA is really unbereablew from f 1,4 to 3,5 and it is so poorly sharp.

But what's more disappointing to me is that autofocus always works wrong at short and middle distances.