If anyone wants to study the output of the 50 1.4 in human subjects this photographer posts on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wilkes_snaps
He switched form the 50 1.8S to the 50 1.4 in late September. You can click through his posts and really see the subtle differences between these lenses. He uses a Z9 which really discriminates differences in the character of these lenses. I like the style.
I like mine for its output wide open. If you don't need 1.4 then the 1.8 could be a better choice, but I have bagged some nice looks with the 50 1.4. It really is surprising how good the lens is wide open for its price, (definitely better than the 35). I don't understand some of the gripes about close focus. This lens is fantastic close and wide. But yes, a little CA here and there. The hint of the vintage look is just right for the Zf. The soap bubble/foliage thing is maybe my biggest gripe but rarely an issue. The 1.8 makes more sense on a Z8, Z7II, etc, for a lot of situations.
Hoping for a release a 85 1.4 with this capability soon.
BSPhotog wrote:
I agree in-as-much as the lens needs to be judged in actual use. The 1.8s is very predictable and consistent, so knowing how and when the 1.4 is going to perform differently can be an important deciding factor. I haven’t set a timeline but I plan to keep it for at least a month before really evaluating the results.
Any verdict yet? I am keeping mine for one reason. It is a fine in-door run and gun in low light without flash. A perfect lens for chasing kids indoors. On Christmas morning in low, natural light, I ran some tests of the 40 2, 50 1.8S, 50 1.4, 35 1.4 on a Zf of the family opening presents. The 50 1.4 with the extra 2/3 stop light gathering led to better AF results in many situations even over the 50 1.8S which at lower light would not nail eye focus in some situations where the 50 1.4 did. Not a huge surprise though. The 50 1.8S is a great low light lens. But the issues with low light AF on the Z cameras is well documented. I find the 1.4 wide open to be very usable and reliable. I use it at 1.4 most of the time. If I was doing outside walkabouts, yes then the 50 1.8S is preferred. That is a narrow use case but that was enough for me. YMMV.
I pair this lens with the 58 1.4 which is not reliable below F2 for adequate subject resolution in many situations depending on distance and light levels. But the looks out of that lens on a Zf are stunning, even with a kiss of flash. The 50 1.4 compliments that lens quite well when I need a bit more light gathering. It is my go to low light lens. I see the S line better suited for the higher res sensors. The Zf brings out the best of the more vintage oriented lenses, which now includes the 50 1.4. If I was still using my old Z7II, or a Z8 I would probably want the 1.8 as the slight extra resolution and contrast is stunning in its own right. Sharpness is not everything though. The Zf camera has really shown me that fact. But thankfully the 50 1.4 catches up well to the 1.8 albeit about a stop behind.
Any verdict yet? I am keeping mine for one reason. It is a fine in-door run and gun in low light without flash. A perfect lens for chasing kids indoors. On Christmas morning in low, natural light, I ran some tests of the 40 2, 50 1.8S, 50 1.4, 35 1.4 on a Zf of the family opening presents. The 50 1.4 with the extra 2/3 stop light gathering led to better AF results in many situations even over the 50 1.8S which at lower light would not nail eye focus in some situations where the 50 1.4 did. Not a huge surprise though. The 50 1.8S is a great low light lens. But the issues with low light AF on the Z cameras is well documented. I find the 1.4 wide open to be very usable and reliable. I use it at 1.4 most of the time. If I was doing outside walkabouts, yes then the 50 1.8S is preferred. That is a narrow use case but that was enough for me. YMMV.
I pair this lens with the 58 1.4 which is not reliable below F2 for adequate subject resolution in many situations depending on distance and light levels. But the looks out of that lens on a Zf are stunning, even with a kiss of flash. The 50 1.4 compliments that lens quite well when I need a bit more light gathering. It is my go to low light lens. I see the S line better suited for the higher res sensors. The Zf brings out the best of the more vintage oriented lenses, which now includes the 50 1.4. If I was still using my old Z7II, or a Z8 I would probably want the 1.8 as the slight extra resolution and contrast is stunning in its own right. Sharpness is not everything though. The Zf camera has really shown me that fact. But thankfully the 50 1.4 catches up well to the 1.8 albeit about a stop behind....Show more →
I think your thoughts actually mirror my experience pretty well. I'm using only the Z8, so my hands-on impressions have different data points. The 1.8S is still my preference in almost all circumstances. It is my suspicion that the 1.4 would hold up a little better on a 24MP sensor. Speed and handling all felt good. I think by itself, the 1.4 is a good lens.
There were some challenging uses that I had the 1.4 in a snowy outdoor location. I had some kids/dog at medium distance that I wanted to try to have some separation with the depth of field. CA and sharpness for the in-focus area were off-putting for me, mostly because I'm really comfortable with how the 1.8S performs in these circumstances.
BSPhotog wrote:
I think your thoughts actually mirror my experience pretty well. I'm using only the Z8, so my hands-on impressions have different data points. The 1.8S is still my preference in almost all circumstances. It is my suspicion that the 1.4 would hold up a little better on a 24MP sensor. Speed and handling all felt good. I think by itself, the 1.4 is a good lens.
There were some challenging uses that I had the 1.4 in a snowy outdoor location. I had some kids/dog at medium distance that I wanted to try to have some separation with the depth of field. CA and sharpness for the in-focus area were off-putting for me, mostly because I'm really comfortable with how the 1.8S performs in these circumstances. ...Show more →
Yes that makes sense. CA is a nuisance but correctable. I think outdoors I want the 1.8. I had issues with the foliage on the 1.4. But indoors, I like the 1.4. Truthfully, there is a case to own both. Nikon figured this out didn't they?
