A better way to phrase it is:  Is the 1.4g worth the huge price difference?  Are the extra fractions of one stop worth the hundreds of dollars?  In a word, no, they’re not.  The other improvements of this lens, are.   That’s not to criticize the 1.8g – it’s a completely fantastic lens and totally worth  it.  Let’s get started on some information :

35mm 1.4G AF-S

Small & light, wide enough to shoot almost anything, fast enough to isolate your subject for portraits.  It’s very, very light and the AF is fast. The AF is probably faster than the 50mm 1.4 we’re comparing it to.  The lens itself only covers DX cameras.  This means that it emulates a 50mm on an FX/Full Frame camera.  This is where the versatility of the lens comes from.

These specs mean that it’s just as useful as the 50mm 1.8 lenses you used to get with a camera before zooms dominated the market.  Great colour, and sharp as you need.

As you can see, it’s sharp and fast.  Really, what more could you want?

50mm 1.4g AF-S

The fastest AF lens Nikon make – it’s considerably more expensive than the 35mm and a lot heavier.  It boasts all the features of the 35mm 1.8, adding more metal and a distance focus scale.   The focus scale is pretty much useless for most people, as it’s tiny and crampted.  The lens covers FX/Full Frame, so if you’re shooting a D700 or D3 series, you’ll be more interested in this, thought the 35mm allegedly can cover FX in a pinch.

The big improvement is the 50mm length.  As the 35mm is wider, there’s less isolation and bokeh.   The 50mm 1.4D has the same speed & length, but not the AF-S system which boasts quiet, smooth focus.  It’s a shame that this lens actually focuses slower than the 35mm 1.8.  I suspect the DOF scale actually weighs down the AF mechanisms, so it’s two for two, useless and a disadvantage.

Note the isolation.  A must-have for some, but probably not worth the price hike.

So…

Both are absurdly sharp & fast lenses – the cheaper 35mm .18 stacks up admirably, although the 50mm 1.4 has the shallow depth of field that a lot of people crave.   It’s a shame that they’re compared, really, as both give great results and their differing lengths allow different shots.  The AF-S in both is good, though the 35mm is faster.

That Means :

The 50mm 1.4 is way more expensive.  A lot more.  If you can’t afford it, get the 35mm 1.8 as soon as you can.  Every photographer needs a lens at least as fast as f/2 and this fill the gap perfectly.  The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens, but the extra expense may not be worth it.  If you can swing it, get both.  In most circumstances, I grab the 35mm 1.8G if I’m not sure what’s going to be happen.  I can still get shots like this with it:

Got a nikon d90 the other week, still getting used to it compared to the D40. I like the dials a lot more, which makes a pretty big difference. I also like the bigger screen.  I particularly like the way it handles low-light situations.  This was taken under one or two CFL bulbs, which are terrible.

I’ll also mention my Flickr and the photos of sydney’s dust storms, before I forget to blog for another couple of months.

Yay! A new section for some of my favorite photos I’ve taken.