Nikon AF FX NIKKOR 50mm F/1.4D DSLR Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

Let's get this out of the way first. Your max aperture is simply a mathematical ratio describing the len's ability to gather light entering the front element. It does not measure the amount of light where it's important -- light exiting the rear element on to the film or sensor. That's always LESS than the max-ap because the glass and surface-to-air planes absorb light. The amount of light that hits the sensor (or film plane) is known as a t-stop and it's what cinematorgraphers use. The max f-stop and t-stop readings can be off by a surprising amount. As measured by the tech website DXOmark, the vaunted Canon 1.2 has a t-stop of 1.5. Guess what DXOmarks measures this Nikon's t-stop rating as? 1.5. Same as the Canon. This is the best max aperture to t-stop ratio I'm aware of. 1.4 max aperture, 1.5 t-stop. Same as the Canon 1.2 -- see for yourself. Now, on to the review.This is a lens for those who appreciate a classic standard focal length prime that uses the timeless seven element in six groups planar optical formulation. Every major manufacturer from Zeiss, to Olympus, to Yashica (RIP), to Pentax, to Minolta to Canon, to Sigma has made nearly an identical lens using the same classic configuration. They're basically the same lens (sorry Nikon but you know it's true...) It's a simple lens compared to modern lenses -- no fancy coatings, few elements and groups, no vibration reduction, no exotic glass, no aspherical elements. None of that stuff. As a result, this lens will vignette a little and be a bit softer at wider apertures, especially in the corners. You will always get some barrel distortion that will look terrible on "internet lens testing sites" but will hardly be noticeable in the field. It will be more susceptible to flare at wider apertures. Newsflash -- f1.4 is not a "working aperture", really. Working apertures for this lens are f 2 to f 8. Let's go through -- f 1.4 is "in case of emergency". If you need every photon available for available darkness shooting -- it's there. Also, use it to squeeze every bit of bokeh possible out of the lens for creative effect , playing and experimentation. F 2 -- 2.8, used to provide subject isolation. Great for environmental portraiture, ambient light shooting, or natural light still lifes. You'll get very good to excellent center sharpness, corners will be acceptable, and you'll get nice bokeh while losing a good bit of the chromatic aberrations and vignetting associated with shooting wide open. F 4 -- now were starting to get some serious sharpness in the center, corners improving dramatically, vignetting gone. F 5.6. BAM! If you're after max sharpness especially in the center with good depth of focus and some subject isolation (depending on focus distance) this is your aperture. You will be hard-pressed to find a sharper optic at any price. Center sharpness is off the charts, almost literally. Good daylight, flash, outdoors, that's your aperture. Whenever you're looking for optimal sharpness. Or? F 8. This will give you excellent corner sharpness at the expense of some center sharpness (which is still excellent) but no "bokeh" everything pert much in focus. F 11 -- image quality now visibly degrading due to diffraction. Still quite usable. Kinda the reverse of f1.4 except now you're going for max depth of focus. F 16 -- not a working aperture imo. Too much image degradation from diffraction but it's there if you need it for some reason.So. Why this lens? Why is it still relevant after 20 years of production? Why is it still made? A number of reasons. Modern FX cameras are pretty heavy. My "little" D600 weighs 2 lbs (I think). Now, slap a lens on it that easily adds another pound (or more) and it becomes a drag lugging this kit around and there's a good chance you leave it home and not use it at all, Your big, pricey FX camera is not doing any good setting on the shelf. This is the smallest and lightest f1.4 lens Nikon makes. It's great for "lug management". Not only that? It is very bright and is capable of completely professional results. Some of the greatest photographers shot solely with a 50 taking brilliant images with them. Since my camera has a built-in focus motor, I prefer to use that. (It's also purportedly faster on this lens...). I think the tiny motors built-in to the newer lenses will eventually wear out. I think this guy is simply more durable.Finally, I use two sites when choosing a lens: DXOMark and Flickr. DXO rates lenses objectively using an indexing scale and you can match lens performance to you camera body. There was one modern 50 by a 3rd party manufacturer that topped this one by a bit -- but it's a big, heavy, expensive behemoth. I can make just as good "ART" without lugging that thing around. No thanks. This lens was tied for 2nd among standard non-specialty "everyday" focal lengths. (Scrolling way down the list you start getting to your pricey pro zooms...) It was also a good bit cheaper (especially used and they're plentiful), smaller, and lighter. Then I went on Flickr -- some talented folks taking some amazing images with this lens.That comes as no surprise. This is a better lens than I am a photographer. Henry Cartier Bresson, Ralph Gibson, and others mostly shot a 50mm 1.4 their entire careers.Sold!

I purchased this lens after trying out a 50mm f1.8G and being disappointed with it. I know... Different type of lens and different price point. But the reason I came to this lens rather than the 50mm 1.4G is a conclusion that I came to somewhere in-between those two purchases:Great lenses don't stop being great because the next thing comes out. It just means that the newer thing may possibly be better.Now I'm sure plenty can be argued about whether this is a "great lens" or not, but the simple point is that this lens, like the 35mm f2D, 85mm f1.4D, and plenty of other older lenses, has served countless photographers and produced countless amazing photos since its inception. The appearance of more capable lenses today doesn't mean that the 50mm 1.4D is suddenly incapable of creating great photos. And let's be honest... how many of us are actually taking photos that can even hold a candle to so many of those photos taken in decades past on all of that "inferior" equipment?I have a Nikon D810 (recently upgraded to full frame from my old D300), so as I build my FX lens collection, I've been facing some odd decisions. Given the fact that I can use these older lenses, I am not forced to default to the newer "G-Series" lenses where some others might unfortunately already have that decision made for them by virtue of the fact that their camera bodies cannot autofocus with older lenses.And while the newer lenses are largely superior in IQ as well as aperture in some cases, the ultimate question I have to ask myself is whether or not those advances are truly meaningful to me at my level. I can definitely tell you that I'm not a pixel-peeper (although even at 1:1, the 50mm 1.4D seems to perform just fine) and I believe that, in fact, technical aspects like that are probably the last thing to worry about behind lighting, composition, etc. And if I'm not really getting meaningful value (as a function of the limits of my own ability as a photographer) out of the newer lens, why spend the extra money to get it? By the time I get to a point where it might actually matter somehow, it's entirely possible that something even newer and better will be out as the endless march of technology continues.If you're still with me after my ramblings, let me simply say that I've found this to be an absolutely wonderful lens that has more than served my needs. While it's true that my camera may push the limits of this lens on a sheer technical level, my abilities as a photographer have not even begun to outgrow it. It may be different for some of you, but I'm more concerned about nailing a good composition and capturing the feel of scenes than I am about staring at photo comparisons to see which lens renders bokeh slightly better than another or which lens is sharper at the pixel level—things that I can assure you that nobody on the other side of the camera will ever care about or even notice.If you're one of the elite photographers for whom this lens will honestly be a limitation, you already know you don't want this. If you're an owner of a body for which this lens will not autofocus because of technical limitations, you should look elsewhere. But if you fall into the same category as me where you have a camera body that can use this lens, but you're still on the journey of learning the art of photography, I encourage you to save a little bit of cash and explore the possibilities of this lens. It will ultimately reward the trust you put in it when you do start taking some of those great photos, and you'll be reminded by the fact that you're doing it on equipment that many people will turn their nose up at as being somehow "obsolete" that the essence of your photography doesn't lie within the gear in your camera bag. It is within yourself, gained through experience, study, and hard work.

I bought this lens to use for fast action/sport photography in low light conditions (inside gyms). Worked really well although being only 50mm, you really had to use your feet to frame the pictures. I was able to get some great shots in even the darkest of gyms. I started experimenting with it for everyday use, and found that I really loved the results. As most other reviewers have said, it is pretty soft at 1.4, but once you stop it down a bit, the pics come out super sharp.Now for the bad news. I use it on a D90, and unfortunately after a month and a half, the lens simply stopped working. I got an error message of "fEE" and the lens was completely unusable in auto or manual modes. I called Nikon warrenty service, and they said "oh, you'll have to send the lens in to get it repaired". Well, I packed it up and sent it off (cost of 12 bucks to me for shipping and insurance)and am now waiting for it to be returned. In the mean time, I'm without my new "go-to" lens for who knows how long. This lens is made in China. I'm not sure if Nikon has another manufacturing plant which may produce higher quality lenses, but I'm pretty disappointed with this copy.One more complaint...the rear lens cap is a cheap plastic type that simply slides over the mount. Can't believe that you can spend this much for a lens and not get something of a better quality.