Review on Nikon 50mm f/1.8D Lens: Perfect for Nikon DSLR Cameras! by Ewa Ozarek ᠌

I will not try to hide the fact that the lens was purchased for its price, which was a total of 4,000 dollars. The cost of the competitor 1.4D was 2.5 times more, while the cost of the new 1.4G was 4 times higher. Exists on the D700. I gave it a shot as a "beginning" to evaluate my future requirements, and it's possible that I won't make any adjustments to it. Perhaps, on the older 1.4D, but only because to the improved design of the newer model (less plastic). If you compare them directly, you have reason to believe that they are comparable in terms of image quality. This means that they both have similarly low levels of distortion and aberration, similarly low levels of "hares," the same level of sharpness (at the same aperture), and so on. Why should people pay more in general? Never anything destructive. The new G-lens is not to my liking because of its plasticity (it is not any better than the 1.8D) and its slow speed. I am able to raise my own, aim, and fire off a few shots while the motorized G-version only has time to focus. So, as a result of the work, I am able to say that the wide f1.8 aperture is not very suitable; it should only be used for taking pictures at night and in other "poor" situations, where low sharpness is likely fairly adequate to high ISO. That would be the same with 1.4D; however, 1.4G would be preferable because it is already sufficiently sharp at f2.0. Furthermore, based on the "sharp values" of the aperture. In this situation, it would be best for me to take a "sigma" 50 mm lens, which is a "macro" lens: for a price comparable to 1.4D, it would also come with "macro," and it would have good sharpness from its 2.8 aperture.