Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF Lens vs Nikon 50mm f1.8 G AF-S Lens

[clydinho]

Hi people, I would like to know the difference between these two lenses. thanks! Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF Lens and Nikon 50mm f1.8 G AF-S Lens

[Goldcoastgolfer]

There's a couple of reviews on the net - a reasonably in depth one by Ken Rockwell.

G lens is the newest iteration of the 50mm, focuses on bodies that don't have focus motor built in such as the D3100 and the D5100, and I guess uses some newer technologies to (eg aspherical lens included to reduce aberration). The G lens does have a little distortion though where the D lens doesn't. The D lens is almost half the price of the G lens.

I just bought the G lens myself - purely because I needed something that would autofocus on my wife's D5100 as well as my D7000. If I were to summarise I'd say:

Benefits of the f1.8 D: Price, no distortion, light weight
Benefits of the f.18 G: In-built focus motor, manual focus ring to over ride auto focus without hitting a switch, weather sealed.

[Letrow]

I agree with Malcolm, take a look at some of the reviews and think about how much you are going to use this lens. I have the D variant. It is a great little lens, with a very nice price. For me it is fine, because it does not get too much use anyway. If I want to travel light I take the 18-200mm and for most other subjects the most used lens is my 105mm.
If you know for sure that this is going to be one of your main lenses I would probably tell you to look at the G.

[shreds]

The D is a beauty at an unbelievable price. Of course that depends on the camera you have but I think the G is also slightly larger. Reviews seem to regard the extra money for no great advancement on the G unless you need it for your body. And any lens with more distortion on the latest version will not curry favour with me.

I have the f1.4 and it is a brilliant lens for night work. Think you will find that most folk who are serious have a 50mm stashed away somewhere in the kit bag.

[thequacksoflife]

The D is a beauty at an unbelievable price. Of course that depends on the camera you have but I think the G is also slightly larger. Reviews seem to regard the extra money for no great advancement on the G unless you need it for your body. And any lens with more distortion on the latest version will not curry favour with me.

I have the f1.4 and it is a brilliant lens for night work. Think you will find that most folk who are serious have a 50mm stashed away somewhere in the kit bag.

apparently the G is an improvement over the D whether it is worth the money is a different matter.

anyway here is a review http://bythom.com/nikkor-50mm-f18-lens-review.htm

I think your last line is very slightly misleading. true the fast 50's are often in a pro's bag (this is often a throw back to film when they were the kit lens!) and today they are used by pro's who use FX(Full frame cameras) for us DX users the 35 f1.8 is the equivalent with the 50's becoming short telephotos for portraits.

[MiniChris]

I have the 50mm AF Nikkor 1.8, an old film camera lens that couples perfectly with my D7000. Locking it at F/22, it autofocuses perfectly. I've seen them for sale at B&H photo or KEH for $124.95 US http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...kkor_50mm.html

I shot this guy with the above lens. He was about 75 feet out, loping along as pelicans do.

[clydinho]

10x for your help =)

[Goldcoastgolfer]

for us DX users the 35 f1.8 is the equivalent with the 50's becoming short telephotos for portraits.

My understanding is that the the 35mm offers the same viewing angle (width) on a DX body as the 50mm does on the FX body but the 50mm still represents the same viewing depth as the human eye.... hope that wasn't too confusing.

[thequacksoflife]

My understanding is that the the 35mm offers the same viewing angle (width) on a DX body as the 50mm does on the FX body but the 50mm still represents the same viewing depth as the human eye.... hope that wasn't too confusing.

sort of but the field of view on a 50mm on a DX is equivalent to approx 75mm on an FX body. hence I said it was a little misleading as I suspect most people use DX bodies.

I suspect most people are more concerned with width than depth. whether that's right or not.....

[Goldcoastgolfer]

sort of but the field of view on a 50mm on a DX is equivalent to approx 75mm on an FX body. hence I said it was a little misleading as I suspect most people use DX bodies.

I suspect most people are more concerned with width than depth. whether that's right or not.....

Agreed

[Silver Halide]

Like others here, I use the "D" version on my D3s and D300 bodies. The upside is that it is slightly sharper than the "G" (although whether the difference is noticeable in normal use is debatable), it is much less expensive and it has an aperture ring so it can be used, inverted with a reversing ring or extended by non-auto extension tubes for macro work. The only downside is that it won't AF with the cheaper Nikon cameras such as the D3100.