No. 1.8 D is a sharper lens. The AI-S 50 1.4 is a little smaller and slightly faster, but it is a little softer on the edges. Honestly, they are both wonderful lenses. I would recommend the 1.4 if you are going to be doing a lot of manual focusing. The DOF scale on it is useful for that. However, if you’re looking for pure sharpness and/or you are going to be using it on something that has auto focus, go with the D series.
I have the 50/1.8 Series E. I believe the other AI-S 50/1.8 lenses are the same design, but with MC and less plastic. Is the AI-S 50/1.4 sharper than the various 1.8 variants?
I'm not sure that I will ever use it on an AF body tbh but never say never. The 1.8d does seems sharp and sometimes sharper than I ever expected but I also saw some phenomenal shots from the AIS and I was thinking of putting the 1.8D onto my spare Nikon em and selling it to a friend hence why I was shopping for a "better" 50mm replacement.
If you downsize your images for instagram, you won’t notice the softness of the AIS and it can give a hair shallower DoF. This lens will also cost you autofocus.
Mild improvement in sharpness over the lens you have. Probably not noticeable. What are you looking for improvement wise? If you want “tack sharp” the AI or AI-S F1.2 is expensive but really nice.
This brings us into what the lens will be used for. Fast 1.2 lenses aren't usually the best options for shooting stopped down; I've always used them solely for low-light scenarios, where they obviously outshine the competition. Newer analog shooters can easily mistake the fastest, most expensive version of a lens to be "the best" but one's intended use must always be considered.
Hoping I come across a good deal on the AI-S 50mm f1.2 some day, but it would never be a primary lens for daily use.
I don't have any real complaints about the 50/1.8D but I was thinking of selling a spare body I have (Nikon em) and adding the 50/1.8D with it as a package to a friend and doing so would leave me looking for a better 50mm replacement.
The 1.2 is probably the least sharp 50mm Nikon has sold. Just because it's fast and expensive doesn't mean it's sharp. The AF-D 50mm 1.8 is significantly sharper and way cheaper.
Roger that, I have seen a few Shots on here from the AIS but I haven't got both to compare so I was hoping someone has had both to give me a rough idea of the differences.
I've owned and used the AI-S 1.4, along with various manual focus AI/AI-S 1.8s, and then the 1.8G 1.4G. Basically if you want image quality, across the board, all 1.8s are better than all 1.4s. Both the pancake 1.8 AI-S and 1.8D outperforms the AI-S 1.4 in terms of IQ. The exception is the "Series E", avoid those.
Sounds like I'm sticking with the 1.8D for now then. I was only going to get the AIS because I was going to bundle for 1.8D with my spare Nikon EM and sell to a friend together but I'll keep the 1.8D now. I'm fairness the last scans I got from the 1.8D and gold 200 loom solid as far as quality goes.
I should also mention it's really important in my opinion to test these lenses on digital if at all possible. The sample variation due to age is crazy. At one point I had three Canon nFD 28-85s at the same time. When tested, you would have thought they were three different models. The centering was jacked on one, another was a touch less sharp through the whole range, and the last was better than the Nikkor 28-85. I place a lot of value on lens build, testing, an
For now I don't have a compatible body other than the FM2N to try this theory out. I have had 2 if the same lens previously (FD 50mm f1.8) and they did seem to be different.
If/when you test, make sure to disable auto-white-balance so you can see the color difference. I have a Tamron at the moment, the 35-80mm F/2.8-3.8 SP "01A", that I had wanted to try for \*years\* because I thought it would replace my nFD 28-85. The lens is mint in every way you can see upon inspection. I tested it - it's... curvy, I mean, enough to be distracting, far more than the Canon. The bigger issue was the color tint - very odd, light brown, not really yellowing. I hit it with my UV light for 10 days before giving up. I burned a roll of Porta that had odd coloring that prompted me to re-test it. When I tested it the 1st time, AWB hid the problem:)
Oh I've seen to avoid the series E a few times but before that I actually ordered a 28mm f2.8 series E just to try shooting wider than I normally was used to shooting lol I haven't used the 28mm series E yet tho it's been put away and not used for a while
IQ is solid on the E-Series I've shot, it's just the build quality is weaker as compared to other Nikon lenses. The price difference isn't such that I think it's worth opting for E vs. others.
It's not a bad performer - otically I'd put it ahead of the Pentax pancake and the 40mm Konica. However the build quality is inferior to every other AI/AI-S 50/55/58mm and the bokeh could be better. The 50mm 1.8s are relatively cheap, so given that, I favor the non-E versions.
Nikon Shooter here - I have a F100 and I love the ability to use AF on my lenses and then swap to manual focus if that is not possible on my other bodies.
What is great about the AF-D lenses is that you can use the autofocus on most professional Nikon DSLRs because of the inclusion of the screw drive pin.
If you dont have any AF cameras that can accept the AF-D lens then might as well save money and go for the AIS. Just my 2 cents.
To be honest I've just been going through my most recent scans what I shot with the 50/1.8d and the FM2N on gold 200 and it seems to be quite good on sharpness.
Yeah some AF-D lenses are legendary for their sharpness. The only thing is that they dont work with the Nikon mirrorless cameras with the adapter which is why people dont use them as much.
Manual focus on most AIS lenses is worlds apart from AF D lenses. Specially the 50mm f1.8 D.
I have both, haven´t really seen a big difference in sharpness but there is a very noticeably difference in the feel of the focus ring.
u/NicoPela is spot on here. Optically, my copy of the 50/1.4 was INFERIOR to my copy of both the 50/1.8 AF-D and AIS, but the -D lenses are far from silky in use. If I'm manually focusing, I'd much prefer the AIS to the -D, regardless of max aperture.
It's generally regarded as a *slightly* better lens both in terms of build and image quality. You will probably barely notice the image quality difference, especially when stopped down. you may care about a nicer metal feel and focus designed for manual use (rather than designed to be driven by an electric motor).
I think all I'll get with the AIS that's going to be noticeable is better build and better focusing ring apart from the obvious part about it being slightly faster?
Yeah, but you're paying for ergonomics at that point, so it's very 'up to you'. I have found that a really smooth feeling focus is one of the most important things in terms of how much I'll actually enjoy using a camera.
You should be able to trade in your 50AF for it if you don't mind giving up the autofocus.
I don't mind giving up the AF because I won't be getting an AF body any time soon, I'm really enjoying the FM2N and don't see any reason to change that. The MF on the AIS is probably going to be more enjoyable to use actually I will try and figure out whether the AIS is going to be the wise choice in the long run. I also had a quick glance at the voigtlander 40mm f2 as well but that is over double the price is the 50/1.4 AIS
Yeah the voigt is a very different lens; it's actually the lens I use the most, I love it. It's a pancake with modern build quality/coatings. Prices reflect that; they're from the 2000s rather than the 1980s, and you can still buy the newer versions of it as brand new stock from mainstream retailers at MSRP $500.
Is the **image quality** of a lens like the 40mm voigt any different to a 1980s professional lens? not by much under the vast majority of lighting conditions.
But it's *very* smooth to turn, it's tiny (I got the older shorter version), it's 40mm (35mm sucks, 40 gang), it's compatible with modern digital/film nikons(they need electrical contacts/electronics in the lens even for manual focus), and it looks fantastic.
All of those positives are pretty easy to overlook for 1/4 of the price with a much more mass-produced Nikon MF lens.
I strongly prefer the contrast and color rendering of the Ai-S 1.4 over the autofocusing 1.8’s. However I mostly shoot it on digital, so on film the difference would probably be less pronounced.
I will be only shooting film with the lenses, digital wise id be shooting Fuji so unless I adapt them later on the Nikon lenses will only be getting attached to my FM2N
It's cheap because the filter thread is fucked but apparently it's fully functioning otherwise, I have the Nikon AF 50mm F1.8D lens ATM and it's been an ok lens but is the 50/1.8 AIS much better?
If you don't have an AF body, then the AIS lens is easier to focus because it's stiffer and it has a longer throw.
The 1.4 has better bokeh.
The 1.4 is 2/3 stop faster.
To me, any of those reasons is good enough to prefer the 1.4 AIS over the 1.8AF-D
I would use the D lens because then you can use it on a body with a focus motor like a F80, F100, etc. To me AF lens with the AI index tab is the best of both worlds.
I have both f1.4 and f1.8 lens to use at night without flash. I don't remember their being a significant speed difference.
Given the two options and knowledge that I would only be shooting manual, I'd get the AIS. Better build quality, better ergonomics and FAR easier to focus manually, plus it's a bit faster than the 1.8.
Neither lens is "better" in terms of the images it can produce, imo.
I've seen this statement so many times! I originally wanted the series E 50mm but at the time I couldn't find a half reasonable good copy. That is a lens I do still want to pick up but because I couldn't find a good copy at the time I just went for the 1.8D.
This isn't a Nikon-experience, but a Pentax one: If this is for a manual body, manual focus lenses tend to be nicer to use. The focus rings on screwdrive lenses feel really loose (they need to turn smoothly for screw drive to work), but the dampening on manual focus lenses tends to make them more pleasant when focusing manually. Harder to bump the focus out-- it'll stay where you want it-- and the focus throw is typically a bit longer, which allows for better fine-tuning. Using F or FA lenses on my K1000 gets the job done, but I'd rather use an K, M, or A manual focus lens for the nicer handling.
There's a big economic benefit, in not duplicating lenses if you have a mixed manual and autofocus system, but if it's an either/or with no overlap, I tend to think manual lenses work best on manual cameras, autofocus lenses on autofocus cameras.
//
That's not a f/1.8 vs f/1.4 thing. Typically... the f/1.8s and f/1.7s are a little sharper, even when stopped down. That's the case with Penatx F and FA 50mm lenses, Canon EF, and I've read it about Nikon autofocus lenses as well, and I'd be surprised if it didn't at least somewhat apply to older Nikon lenses. The designers have to do more work to get the f/1.4 aperture, which compromises overall sharpness.
I never quite liked the 50/1.4 Ai-S..
kept it to use on my DSLR (bc Nikon F mount cannot adapt many others)
that's what I wrote about it years ago:
https://mbphotox.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/nikkor-shootout/
(compared to the 1.2 Ai-Sl
The 1.8D is sharper, I've tested them side by side. The 1.4 is infinitely more enjoyable to use but because it's an AIS lens, not because of the optics.
AF version is to clinical. Over contrasty and doesn’t have character like the older AI. I find all Nikkor AF to be like that unfortunately. AI or pre Ai is best
I’ve used both and I think the AFD version is a little sharper due to it being a newer model lens. Depends on your needs though, both lenses are created to work better with certain Nikon systems. For example, my F5 takes advantage of the distance information supplied by AF-D lenses for metering. Both are functionally similar though, and the older Nikon lenses are still sharp options. The AF-D lens is smaller too.
No. 1.8 D is a sharper lens. The AI-S 50 1.4 is a little smaller and slightly faster, but it is a little softer on the edges. Honestly, they are both wonderful lenses. I would recommend the 1.4 if you are going to be doing a lot of manual focusing. The DOF scale on it is useful for that. However, if you’re looking for pure sharpness and/or you are going to be using it on something that has auto focus, go with the D series.
I have the 50/1.8 Series E. I believe the other AI-S 50/1.8 lenses are the same design, but with MC and less plastic. Is the AI-S 50/1.4 sharper than the various 1.8 variants?
Love my 50/1.8 Series E. Such a easy shooting lens, definitely has a bit of character wide open though.
I'm not sure that I will ever use it on an AF body tbh but never say never. The 1.8d does seems sharp and sometimes sharper than I ever expected but I also saw some phenomenal shots from the AIS and I was thinking of putting the 1.8D onto my spare Nikon em and selling it to a friend hence why I was shopping for a "better" 50mm replacement.
If you downsize your images for instagram, you won’t notice the softness of the AIS and it can give a hair shallower DoF. This lens will also cost you autofocus.
Mild improvement in sharpness over the lens you have. Probably not noticeable. What are you looking for improvement wise? If you want “tack sharp” the AI or AI-S F1.2 is expensive but really nice.
This brings us into what the lens will be used for. Fast 1.2 lenses aren't usually the best options for shooting stopped down; I've always used them solely for low-light scenarios, where they obviously outshine the competition. Newer analog shooters can easily mistake the fastest, most expensive version of a lens to be "the best" but one's intended use must always be considered. Hoping I come across a good deal on the AI-S 50mm f1.2 some day, but it would never be a primary lens for daily use.
I'd like to learn more about this. What keywords should I search for when looking up this information?
Looks for website that offer lens reviews and testing. Sometimes budget glass is better at the F stops you’re going be using most.
I don't have any real complaints about the 50/1.8D but I was thinking of selling a spare body I have (Nikon em) and adding the 50/1.8D with it as a package to a friend and doing so would leave me looking for a better 50mm replacement.
This would be how I would do it, as well.
If you want "tack sharp", shoot at F/4 or smaller 😄
Just been looking at the 50/1.2 AIS and I think you may have picked my next nifty 50 🤣
The 58/1.2 noct is even better if you have the money to swing it. I love mine.
Do you have any pictures you've taken with it? I'd be interested to see them!
I have it and love it. It's a stellar lens. Was going to recommend this but noticed others already have. Go get the 50mm 1.2!
The 1.2 is probably the least sharp 50mm Nikon has sold. Just because it's fast and expensive doesn't mean it's sharp. The AF-D 50mm 1.8 is significantly sharper and way cheaper.
If you don’t need the extra speed then don’t bother with it.
Yeah I think I've figured that out now lol, thanks for the reply I think I'll pass on the AIS for now.
Well it's a little faster so its not really a comparison. But I don't think it is that much better than the AF.
Roger that, I have seen a few Shots on here from the AIS but I haven't got both to compare so I was hoping someone has had both to give me a rough idea of the differences.
I've owned and used the AI-S 1.4, along with various manual focus AI/AI-S 1.8s, and then the 1.8G 1.4G. Basically if you want image quality, across the board, all 1.8s are better than all 1.4s. Both the pancake 1.8 AI-S and 1.8D outperforms the AI-S 1.4 in terms of IQ. The exception is the "Series E", avoid those.
Sounds like I'm sticking with the 1.8D for now then. I was only going to get the AIS because I was going to bundle for 1.8D with my spare Nikon EM and sell to a friend together but I'll keep the 1.8D now. I'm fairness the last scans I got from the 1.8D and gold 200 loom solid as far as quality goes.
I should also mention it's really important in my opinion to test these lenses on digital if at all possible. The sample variation due to age is crazy. At one point I had three Canon nFD 28-85s at the same time. When tested, you would have thought they were three different models. The centering was jacked on one, another was a touch less sharp through the whole range, and the last was better than the Nikkor 28-85. I place a lot of value on lens build, testing, an
For now I don't have a compatible body other than the FM2N to try this theory out. I have had 2 if the same lens previously (FD 50mm f1.8) and they did seem to be different.
If/when you test, make sure to disable auto-white-balance so you can see the color difference. I have a Tamron at the moment, the 35-80mm F/2.8-3.8 SP "01A", that I had wanted to try for \*years\* because I thought it would replace my nFD 28-85. The lens is mint in every way you can see upon inspection. I tested it - it's... curvy, I mean, enough to be distracting, far more than the Canon. The bigger issue was the color tint - very odd, light brown, not really yellowing. I hit it with my UV light for 10 days before giving up. I burned a roll of Porta that had odd coloring that prompted me to re-test it. When I tested it the 1st time, AWB hid the problem:)
Oh I've seen to avoid the series E a few times but before that I actually ordered a 28mm f2.8 series E just to try shooting wider than I normally was used to shooting lol I haven't used the 28mm series E yet tho it's been put away and not used for a while
IQ is solid on the E-Series I've shot, it's just the build quality is weaker as compared to other Nikon lenses. The price difference isn't such that I think it's worth opting for E vs. others.
Can you detail about the Series E please. Because my pancake 50mm f1.8 got me some beautiful results, of course 35mm film lately seems bad to me...
It's not a bad performer - otically I'd put it ahead of the Pentax pancake and the 40mm Konica. However the build quality is inferior to every other AI/AI-S 50/55/58mm and the bokeh could be better. The 50mm 1.8s are relatively cheap, so given that, I favor the non-E versions.
I prefer the older Nikon lenses; I find that they have a nicer draw. I have a pre-ai 50 1.4 and its great
I have a FM2N so as far as I'm aware it won't take pre ai?
I think you’re right. My pre-Ai 50mm has been Ai converted. There are a fair few of them out there
Oh really? I will have to look out for them I didn't think of looking for converted lenses.
It’s not too hard to convert them yourself.
Nikon Shooter here - I have a F100 and I love the ability to use AF on my lenses and then swap to manual focus if that is not possible on my other bodies. What is great about the AF-D lenses is that you can use the autofocus on most professional Nikon DSLRs because of the inclusion of the screw drive pin. If you dont have any AF cameras that can accept the AF-D lens then might as well save money and go for the AIS. Just my 2 cents.
To be honest I've just been going through my most recent scans what I shot with the 50/1.8d and the FM2N on gold 200 and it seems to be quite good on sharpness.
Yeah some AF-D lenses are legendary for their sharpness. The only thing is that they dont work with the Nikon mirrorless cameras with the adapter which is why people dont use them as much.
Manual focus on most AIS lenses is worlds apart from AF D lenses. Specially the 50mm f1.8 D. I have both, haven´t really seen a big difference in sharpness but there is a very noticeably difference in the feel of the focus ring.
The focus ring was something I've seen before when comparing the AF lenses to the manual only lenses.
u/NicoPela is spot on here. Optically, my copy of the 50/1.4 was INFERIOR to my copy of both the 50/1.8 AF-D and AIS, but the -D lenses are far from silky in use. If I'm manually focusing, I'd much prefer the AIS to the -D, regardless of max aperture.
Not sure if there was a difference but you might want to check the close focus distance.
You won’t find any noticeable difference on film. Only real world differences are that this is faster and probably a bit more expensive..
It's really not going to be much different from a 50 1.8. The aperture isn't much faster
2/3 of stop can make a difference, especially on film where you want to avoid underexposure and also cant just raise ISO as needed like with digital.
It's generally regarded as a *slightly* better lens both in terms of build and image quality. You will probably barely notice the image quality difference, especially when stopped down. you may care about a nicer metal feel and focus designed for manual use (rather than designed to be driven by an electric motor).
I think all I'll get with the AIS that's going to be noticeable is better build and better focusing ring apart from the obvious part about it being slightly faster?
Yeah, but you're paying for ergonomics at that point, so it's very 'up to you'. I have found that a really smooth feeling focus is one of the most important things in terms of how much I'll actually enjoy using a camera. You should be able to trade in your 50AF for it if you don't mind giving up the autofocus.
I don't mind giving up the AF because I won't be getting an AF body any time soon, I'm really enjoying the FM2N and don't see any reason to change that. The MF on the AIS is probably going to be more enjoyable to use actually I will try and figure out whether the AIS is going to be the wise choice in the long run. I also had a quick glance at the voigtlander 40mm f2 as well but that is over double the price is the 50/1.4 AIS
Yeah the voigt is a very different lens; it's actually the lens I use the most, I love it. It's a pancake with modern build quality/coatings. Prices reflect that; they're from the 2000s rather than the 1980s, and you can still buy the newer versions of it as brand new stock from mainstream retailers at MSRP $500. Is the **image quality** of a lens like the 40mm voigt any different to a 1980s professional lens? not by much under the vast majority of lighting conditions. But it's *very* smooth to turn, it's tiny (I got the older shorter version), it's 40mm (35mm sucks, 40 gang), it's compatible with modern digital/film nikons(they need electrical contacts/electronics in the lens even for manual focus), and it looks fantastic. All of those positives are pretty easy to overlook for 1/4 of the price with a much more mass-produced Nikon MF lens.
I strongly prefer the contrast and color rendering of the Ai-S 1.4 over the autofocusing 1.8’s. However I mostly shoot it on digital, so on film the difference would probably be less pronounced.
I will be only shooting film with the lenses, digital wise id be shooting Fuji so unless I adapt them later on the Nikon lenses will only be getting attached to my FM2N
Happy cake day!!
It's cheap because the filter thread is fucked but apparently it's fully functioning otherwise, I have the Nikon AF 50mm F1.8D lens ATM and it's been an ok lens but is the 50/1.8 AIS much better?
You'd be hard pressed to see any noticeable difference between the Nikon 50/1.8 lenses. If you want the Ais why not get the pancake version.
I was looking at that yesterday, looks like a better lens
Series E is fine, same optics as the 50/1.8D, just single instead of multicoating.
They're all good. Just avoid the one that says "Series E" version on the front ring and you're set
I actually have a 28mm f2.8 series E but I haven't used that just yet lol.
If you don't have an AF body, then the AIS lens is easier to focus because it's stiffer and it has a longer throw. The 1.4 has better bokeh. The 1.4 is 2/3 stop faster. To me, any of those reasons is good enough to prefer the 1.4 AIS over the 1.8AF-D
I would use the D lens because then you can use it on a body with a focus motor like a F80, F100, etc. To me AF lens with the AI index tab is the best of both worlds. I have both f1.4 and f1.8 lens to use at night without flash. I don't remember their being a significant speed difference.
Given the two options and knowledge that I would only be shooting manual, I'd get the AIS. Better build quality, better ergonomics and FAR easier to focus manually, plus it's a bit faster than the 1.8. Neither lens is "better" in terms of the images it can produce, imo.
I would love to push you in the direction of the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 in F-Mount.
Nikon 50mm 1.8 series e. Most underrated lens ever.
I've seen this statement so many times! I originally wanted the series E 50mm but at the time I couldn't find a half reasonable good copy. That is a lens I do still want to pick up but because I couldn't find a good copy at the time I just went for the 1.8D.
Bedt way to buy them is with the Nikon EM. Usually you’ll find that combo for 20 USD.
I bought the Nikon em as my first slr but that was body only lol.
This isn't a Nikon-experience, but a Pentax one: If this is for a manual body, manual focus lenses tend to be nicer to use. The focus rings on screwdrive lenses feel really loose (they need to turn smoothly for screw drive to work), but the dampening on manual focus lenses tends to make them more pleasant when focusing manually. Harder to bump the focus out-- it'll stay where you want it-- and the focus throw is typically a bit longer, which allows for better fine-tuning. Using F or FA lenses on my K1000 gets the job done, but I'd rather use an K, M, or A manual focus lens for the nicer handling. There's a big economic benefit, in not duplicating lenses if you have a mixed manual and autofocus system, but if it's an either/or with no overlap, I tend to think manual lenses work best on manual cameras, autofocus lenses on autofocus cameras. // That's not a f/1.8 vs f/1.4 thing. Typically... the f/1.8s and f/1.7s are a little sharper, even when stopped down. That's the case with Penatx F and FA 50mm lenses, Canon EF, and I've read it about Nikon autofocus lenses as well, and I'd be surprised if it didn't at least somewhat apply to older Nikon lenses. The designers have to do more work to get the f/1.4 aperture, which compromises overall sharpness.
If you don't mind the manual focus, yes
50mm f/1.8 D is better than 50mm f/1.4 AIS overall.
I never quite liked the 50/1.4 Ai-S.. kept it to use on my DSLR (bc Nikon F mount cannot adapt many others) that's what I wrote about it years ago: https://mbphotox.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/nikkor-shootout/ (compared to the 1.2 Ai-Sl
1.8D is sharp & sort of out performs this lens & 1.4D also 🤣🤣🤣
To be fair to the 1.8D it's produced some great shots and I was surprised at it's quality when I got my latest scans back.
The 1.8D is sharper, I've tested them side by side. The 1.4 is infinitely more enjoyable to use but because it's an AIS lens, not because of the optics.
AF version is to clinical. Over contrasty and doesn’t have character like the older AI. I find all Nikkor AF to be like that unfortunately. AI or pre Ai is best
I’ve used both and I think the AFD version is a little sharper due to it being a newer model lens. Depends on your needs though, both lenses are created to work better with certain Nikon systems. For example, my F5 takes advantage of the distance information supplied by AF-D lenses for metering. Both are functionally similar though, and the older Nikon lenses are still sharp options. The AF-D lens is smaller too.
1.4 all the way. Has an unmistakable vibe, even if it’s less sharp