If funds weren't an issue, would you buy a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G or f/1.4G?

If funds weren't an issue, would you buy a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G or f/1.4G? - 1

Definitely the f/1.4G

Actually the Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4D scores slightly higher than the other two, but not enough to make much difference unless of course, you are using a new Nikon D850 with its sensor having a whopping 46 mp onboard. A typical DX camera will not be able to utilize any of the qualities found on any of those three lenses

The resolution of the lens, usually LN/mm. A high-end lens with an MTF-50 of 50 LP/mm will appear far sharper than a lower quality lens with an MTF-50 of 20 LP/mm. Since it is rare that lens makers list these findings, all you can do is make your own tests.

For instance, before I purchased my new Nikon D500 (around $3,000 including a battery grip and two 64 gb high-speed memory cards), I rented one and shot a football game with it.

None of these lenses cost more than $450, renting may not be worth the time and expense.

If you have a Nikon camera which is better than the entry level Nikon cameras, then maybe the $370 Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4D is just the ticket, however, when you look at the link below, you should see that there's NOT a whole lot of difference in image quality

If money wasn't an issue, I'd go for the manual focus f/1.2 version!

Between those two, the f/1.4 of course.

I'd think about buying the Pentax equivalent, because a Nikon won't fit my camera.

As it is, I use my 1980s 50mm f1.7 SMC-M, which suffices on the rare occasions when I need a 50mm.

Neither, get a Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*.

But funds really are an issue, right? So buy the f/1.8 because the f/1.4 doesn't offer much in sharpness over the f/1.8… Especially for the price premium. And if you're being serious that funds AREN'T an issue, then buy the f/1.4 already instead of asking random people on the internet.

I bought the 1.8…