Alex does some really nice comparison videos, and to me, the rendering (and that includes sharpness and contrast) of the 1.8 clearly stands out from the 1.4.
If they are the same size, (and they are), I'm picking the 1.8 every time.
I have no clue why anyone would compare the 40/2 to either the 1.4 or 1.8...entirely different use cases and entirely different rendering styles. As said above, you could make a case to own the 40, 1.4/1.8, and APO and get use out of all of them, as they are all quite different.
RoamingScott wrote:
Alex does some really nice comparison videos, and to me, the rendering (and that includes sharpness and contrast) of the 1.8 clearly stands out from the 1.4.
If they are the same size, (and they are), I'm picking the 1.8 every time.
I have no clue why anyone would compare the 40/2 to either the 1.4 or 1.8...entirely different use cases and entirely different rendering styles. As said above, you could make a case to own the 40, 1.4/1.8, and APO and get use out of all of them, as they are all quite different.
That's a good review.
It's pretty clear that the f1.4 is intended to carry on the overall look of Nikon's (now classic) 50 f1.4 tradition of lower contrast wide open, with some veiling flare and aberrations, but then clean up and perform well stopped down just a little. Their 50 1.4's have done this since the pre-AI days.
The f1.8 is just an amazing lens - definitely modern in that it is sharp wide open, and you can simply use the apertures to adjust your depth of field.
Both lenses are very different, and for a 50mm junkie like me, both are must haves. The only thing that's stopping me on the f1.4 is the 40 f2, whose rendering seems very similar to the f1.4, and it's smaller and lighter. Plus, I already own it...
RoamingScott wrote:
Alex does some really nice comparison videos, and to me, the rendering (and that includes sharpness and contrast) of the 1.8 clearly stands out from the 1.4.
Thanks for the helpful link! I "watched" with audio off so as to not be distracted by Alex's views before I formed my own.
I largely agree with you. If one's goal is to make the background less distracting the 1.8 is actually doing a better job even when the 1.4 is shot wide open. Yeah, the 1.4 bokeh is slightly "bigger", but it is also much more "busy" at the same time drawing attention to itself. The background "disappears" much more effectively in the 1.8 shots. And of course the 1.8 is also sharper at the plane of focus, not that the 1.4 is "soft" by any means.
All that said, sometimes folks want a blurred background that doesn't "disappear" but instead intend it as part of the composition. In that case the 1.4 bokeh is potentially advantageous as drawing attention to itself may be the photographer's desire.
To make a lame analogy, woodwind players are forever jumping between playing as part of an ensemble within the orchestra and playing as a solo accompanied by the orchestra. In both cases the woodwind is playing at the same time as much of the rest of the orchestra. The difference is in whether the woodwind is meant to "stand out" in that particular piece or passage. Players will use vibrato and sharper articulations to stand out from the orchestra in a solo accompanied section while they will use a steadier note and smoother articulation to blend in during ensemble sections. Neither playing technique is "more correct" or "better" than the other, they each have their use and place within orchestral music, often within the very same piece of music.
Anyway, that's an excellent comparison video that should help people better understand which lens is going to better suit their intent.
RoamingScott wrote:
Alex does some really nice comparison videos, and to me, the rendering (and that includes sharpness and contrast) of the 1.8 clearly stands out from the 1.4.
Did he compare the two lenses by setting f/1.8 or f/2 on both?
The 50/1.4 has probably the worst bokeh of the bunch here, but it's not crazy bad or anything. A little bit of CA and a small bright ring edge are visible, but still a good performance. The 50/1.8S is next, with good generally smooth bokeh. THe CV is technically very good, but shows a little more contrast than the others, while the 50 GM is very creamy (though not super perfect.) The 50 GM shows significantly more blur than the 50/1.4 here, and that continues in the shot below with both at f/1.4. This is partly because the 50/1.4 is actually slightly wider than the other lenses here (with the CV being slightly longer, yet having the smallest specular highlights), but there's something else going on with the GM, because it is MUCH more blur than you would expect given the aperture differences.
At f/2, the bokeh on the 50/1.4 smooths out a little and becomes very nice. Maybe even very slightly better than the 50/1.8S. In fact, it was an improvement enough that I went back and took shots of both at f/1.8, and even there, the 50/1.4 is very slightly better, in my opinion, with the exception of slightly different shapes to the edges of specular highlights toward the edges. Still, when comparing 50/1.4 vs 50/1.8, the 50/1.8 offers little advantage. That shot is below: https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/50bok_18s.jpg
Here, all the lenses look quite good, and honestly quite similar, which is surprising. So there you have it. Hopefully that helps people. Honestly, the 50/1.4 looks pretty good. It's objectively the worst of this group, but in this group we have two of the best 50mm lenses I've ever used in the 50GM and the 50/2 APO Lanthar, along with the already known to be outstanding 50/1.8S, so that's very, very stiff competition. ...Show more →
My key take away from this thread is mostly how amazingly the Sony 50/1.2 GM performs, even via adapter on a Nikon mirrorless body.
Reg the Nikon 50/1.4 - it seems like a nice enough lens, but I would personally rather pick up a minty used 50/1.8 S at this point.
Thanks for the helpful link! I "watched" with audio off so as to not be distracted by Alex's views before I formed my own.
I largely agree with you. If one's goal is to make the background less distracting the 1.8 is actually doing a better job even when the 1.4 is shot wide open. Yeah, the 1.4 bokeh is slightly "bigger", but it is also much more "busy" at the same time drawing attention to itself. The background "disappears" much more effectively in the 1.8 shots. And of course the 1.8 is also sharper at the plane of focus, not that the 1.4 is "soft" by any means.
All that said, sometimes folks want a blurred background that doesn't "disappear" but instead intend it as part of the composition. In that case the 1.4 bokeh is potentially advantageous as drawing attention to itself may be the photographer's desire.
To make a lame analogy, woodwind players are forever jumping between playing as part of an ensemble within the orchestra and playing as a solo accompanied by the orchestra. In both cases the woodwind is playing at the same time as much of the rest of the orchestra. The difference is in whether the woodwind is meant to "stand out" in that particular piece or passage. Players will use vibrato and sharper articulations to stand out from the orchestra in a solo accompanied section while they will use a steadier note and smoother articulation to blend in during ensemble sections. Neither playing technique is "more correct" or "better" than the other, they each have their use and place within orchestral music, often within the very same piece of music.
Anyway, that's an excellent comparison video that should help people better understand which lens is going to better suit their intent. ...Show more →
Thats good analysis. The issue with the 1.8 is a lack of shallower DOF that the 1.4 can provide in some situations. I have been using the 50 1.8S and the 58 1.4 on a Z7II for some time. At various times I tried to get by with just one of these lenses, but found the differences compelling such that I could not part with either. The 50 1.8S will pop the subject like no other lens, with the good contrast, resolution etc whereas the 58 really blends and subtracts the background in a very meaningful way, with gradual transitions and extra smooth bokeh that draws you in to the subject. But the subject itself is frequently challenged. I had to shoot the 58 usually into the 2.2 and up aperture to ensure decent subject resolution. On the other hand, the 50 1.8s at times just came up a bit short on background separation due to lack of shallower DOF. Sometimes the extra 2/3 stop is just enough to make the difference.
I have always made a point of wanting to integrate the background into the shot to make a meaningful context. How a lens treats a background matters. I am somewhat turned off by the extra "fuzziness" of the S lenses on the high res sensors. The 58 on the other hand excels in smoothness of its bokeh.
The 50 1.4 will never achieve the quality that each of these lenses possess (50 1,8, 58 1,4). But I am moving away from adapted lenses as I want to reduce the bulk factor of my kit. The 50 1.4 blends a hint of the 58, an old 50 1.4D and 50 1.8 into one lens. Sure, you can say jack of all.....master of none and that would be totally true. But it to me represents a good distillation of qualities I am looking for and when combined with the Zf sensor, makes some nice SOOC images. If I want jaw dropping high impact subject pop, then yes the 50 1.8 on a 45 MP sensor, no debate. Pictures of things work quite well with this lens. But if I had all of Nikons 50 offerings including the 58, I would pick this new 50 1.4 (and have) as maybe best all around for a random people/street user case that will satisfy the widest range of situations I shoot for. Which is how Nikon is marketing this lens. YMMV, just my thoughts.
I recently moved to a 24 MP sensor camera as i want to take some of the edge off, I like the looks that Nikon has developed on the Zf and the 1.4 lenses. Just looks "nice" to me.
I found this review compelling and I align to much of what he stated here....
The more I shoot with this lens, the more I like it. Really strikes a nice balance of good to very good sharpness (even wide open on the Z8), without being clinical. Bokeh is generally very nice, but you can still let it get a little wild at f/1.4. Overall, I'm really pleased with the lens.
Thank you Jordan for your contributions to this thread. I really cannot add anything to your posts except to observe that the sharpness of the lens wide open for subjects at some distance is quite impressive. I am getting great eye resolution from 10 or more feet, and that I am not used to seeing that on a Nikon 50 1.4 (no surprise there). It is sharper than expected wide open as you said previously. Bokeh is not perfect but quite good and a little more predictable than maybe the 35 1.4? It really is a wide ranging prime. Paired with my 105 1.4 and I am quite satisfied here.
aerospace99 wrote:
Thats good analysis. The issue with the 1.8 is a lack of shallower DOF that the 1.4 can provide in some situations. I have been using the 50 1.8S and the 58 1.4 on a Z7II for some time. At various times I tried to get by with just one of these lenses, but found the differences compelling such that I could not part with either. The 50 1.8S will pop the subject like no other lens, with the good contrast, resolution etc whereas the 58 really blends and subtracts the background in a very meaningful way, with gradual transitions and extra smooth bokeh that draws you in to the subject. But the subject itself is frequently challenged. I had to shoot the 58 usually into the 2.2 and up aperture to ensure decent subject resolution. On the other hand, the 50 1.8s at times just came up a bit short on background separation due to lack of shallower DOF. Sometimes the extra 2/3 stop is just enough to make the difference.
I have always made a point of wanting to integrate the background into the shot to make a meaningful context. How a lens treats a background matters. I am somewhat turned off by the extra "fuzziness" of the S lenses on the high res sensors. The 58 on the other hand excels in smoothness of its bokeh.
The 50 1.4 will never achieve the quality that each of these lenses possess (50 1,8, 58 1,4). But I am moving away from adapted lenses as I want to reduce the bulk factor of my kit. The 50 1.4 blends a hint of the 58, an old 50 1.4D and 50 1.8 into one lens. Sure, you can say jack of all.....master of none and that would be totally true. But it to me represents a good distillation of qualities I am looking for and when combined with the Zf sensor, makes some nice SOOC images. If I want jaw dropping high impact subject pop, then yes the 50 1.8 on a 45 MP sensor, no debate. Pictures of things work quite well with this lens. But if I had all of Nikons 50 offerings including the 58, I would pick this new 50 1.4 (and have) as maybe best all around for a random people/street user case that will satisfy the widest range of situations I shoot for. Which is how Nikon is marketing this lens. YMMV, just my thoughts.
I recently moved to a 24 MP sensor camera as i want to take some of the edge off, I like the looks that Nikon has developed on the Zf and the 1.4 lenses. Just looks "nice" to me.
I found this review compelling and I align to much of what he stated here.......Show more →
I appreciate this summary! Thanks for sharing...I'm someone who loves the 50 1.8S, but, yes, the slower lens can sometimes make it more difficult to isolate the subject from the background, as I easily did with my 50 ART years back for environmental portraits (a lens I'm considering getting again if this 50 1.4 doesn't do the job). Truthfully, I use pro mist a lot with the 50 1.8S because it's just too sharp, even wide open.
What would you compare this 50 1.4 too? You mention the 58...Maybe Sonnar lenses like the Sony 55 or even the ART?
This was a comment on B&H I found pretty interesting:
I own the Z 50mm 1.2 and it works great but I dread bringing it anywhere, even professional assignments because it’s so big and heavy. I don’t even like how it looks. The photos are clinically excellent but lack character. Even though I own this very expensive lens I figured I’d give the 50mm 1.4 a chance and I’m so glad I did. The photos look great, it feels so light and easy to carry around, the bokeh is great, and there is some real dimension to the images. The biggest negative I’ve encountered is chromatic aberration. Obviously for this low price point there will be less fancy coatings to correct for that. I haven’t encountered any CA that couldn’t be fixed in Lightroom, and there’s definitely less CA than in lenses from a decade ago. Speaking of which, this lens reminds me most of the very divisive f-Mount 58mm 1.4. Similar character, similar bokeh, but that lens had a TON of CA. This is an improvement over that.
lukeiam wrote:
...The biggest negative I’ve encountered is chromatic aberration. Obviously for this low price point there will be less fancy coatings to correct for that...
Coatings increase transmission as measured in T-stops; and reduce reflections inside the lens, which can bounce around and decrease contrast. A tremendous amount of work has gone into coatings by all the major lens makers. It's fair to say that many of today's complex lenses would be noticeably less excellent had this work not been done.
There is little doubt the fewer air-glass surfaces a given lens has the greater its clarity will be. You can calculate this number by doubling the number of groups in which elements are arranged.
Ten is not a small number of elements for a fast 50mm. Cosina make four 50s faster than f2, with six to nine elements; their 50/1 has the nine element construction. The 50/2 APO has ten elements.
Looking forward to seeing more images from this new 50/1.4. Being fussy, the 2nd image at p3. #16 shows some over-corrected spherical aberration (donut form) but as stated, a torture test.
