Nikon 50mm 1.4G slow to focus?

[Thronsen]

Hi everyone-

Ive talked about getting a 50mm 1.4G in other threads, and it seemed people here liked them. I was reading some more reviews, and some people are saying that the 1.4G is slow to focus. I was curious whether that is a real complaint, is it slower then say the 1.8D or 1.4D? Or is it a situation where they are comparing it to some 'pro' lens that most people wouldnt be using anyway.

Also read complaints that the Nikon 1.4G had much worse bokeh then the Sigma 1.4, though they also mentioned the Sigma was less sharp at the 1.4 to 5.6.

Finally, has anyone heard any rumors when they might be shipping out more? Every place I have checked with a reasonable price ($500) is sold out, leaving just the gougers ($700-$900) and countries without very competitive pricing markets (available in NZ for US$650).

Thanks.

[Uncle Chan]

I'm new to this, so forgive my innocence. Is this what you are searching for?

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=NA06999009550M&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=10&ActivateTOC2=&ID=24&BC=NA&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

[Thronsen]

Hi UC, thanks for your help, but that is the 1.4D. The 1.4G is a new model that came out a few months ago.

[Rooz]

thronsen the G is slow for AF to infinity, (same as the 1.4d), but its miles faster for AF point to point once focus is acquired. ie: once it gets a lock and you are tracking the subject its very fast to adjust. i wouldnt pay $800, you will be able to get the 35/1.8 afs for less than half that.

yes the sigma has nicer bokeh, yes the nikkor seems to be sharper at the wider settings.

[kjmdrumz3]

I love my 1.4G! And I can get them for around $470 USD. Just ask ;)

[Thronsen]

Hey Rooz-

Thanks alot for your reply, it was very helpful.

I thought about the 35mm alot after you suggested it in the last thread. For a day I kept my 18-105 on my camera as I wandered after my toddler, switching between 35mm and 50mm just to see how the addition of a 35mm lens might change things. There werent a whole lot of times where I couldnt readjust position such that only 35mm would have been usable and not 50mm. Most of the things he tends to do seem to be close in to his body I guess. So I returned again to thinking about the 1.4G to get the extra speed and sharpness, in my circumstances might prove to be used more.

Am I analyzing the differences between the lens correctly?

And which do you prefer for pictures of your child, the Nikons sharpness or the Sigmas bokeh? When I see a picture of my kid, all I ever really do is look at his face, so I suspect the Nikon is better for me. Or maybe thats just because I have never seen a good bokeh.

Thanks again for all your help.

[Rooz]

yeah, you're probably overanalysing a little. either 35 or 50 is fine. i use both pretty equally. i probably prefer the 35mm focal length cos i have a bit more room and the shorter foval length gives me a bit more wiggle room in depth of field. regarding speed, 1.4-1.8 is only a third of a stop, so its not too much and the 35/1.8 looks sharp right from the get go so you can shoot it at 1.8 comfortabley. i'll have the 35 in a couple of weeks if you want to wait that long and i will have some shots up for viewing.

i dont think there is enough difference between the sigma and the nikkor to pick one or the other based on a large advantage in image quality. either one will send you off the hook with the results coming from your current kit lens. i havent used the sigma personaly but it is very highly regarded. the only question mark i have with the sigma is AF, its more expensive and is much larger.

[Thronsen]

Hmm ok, I thought the only difference was whether or not I had to take a step back/forward to get the same picture. You are saying that you can get a better depth of field (at the same aperture) with the 35mm instead of the 50mm?

I already have the 50mm 1.8D, but find it so incredibly useful I dont mind spending more money for a better/different lens for my primary task of chasing a toddler around indoors.

[Cyberwlf]

Im in the position of having a 50mm 1.8D too and considering the 1.4G too, but my first priority is getting the new 35mm, so i guess it'll give me time to consider if i still need the 1.4G for the sharpness I am looking for after that.

[fionndruinne]

Hmm ok, I thought the only difference was whether or not I had to take a step back/forward to get the same picture. You are saying that you can get a better depth of field (at the same aperture) with the 35mm instead of the 50mm?

I already have the 50mm 1.8D, but find it so incredibly useful I dont mind spending more money for a better/different lens for my primary task of chasing a toddler around indoors.

There's no objectively "better" depth of field; it depends on whether you need more or less of it. Shorter focal lengths have more depth of field. Between 35mm and 50mm you won't see a tremendous amount of difference, but at something like 200mm vs. 35mm, you'll definitely see a difference.

[Rooz]

^^^^^^ yes
if you already have the 50/1.8 i reckon the 35 is a better option.