Nikon 50mm 1.8 or nikon 50mm 1.4?

Can someone tell me what the difference between these lens are and which one is better for shooting everything?

Not much but for the added cost of the f/1.4.

Back in the days when the fasted film was ASA (ISO) 400, that 2/3rds stop could mean a lot.

Now with photographers shooting indoor sports routinely with f/2.8 and f/4 lenses at 3200 ISO up to 12, 800, even a full stop doesn't mean much.

An f/1.8 or f/1.4 will allow you to control depth of field down to selecting just a few inches of actual focus, but between f/1.8 and f/14 you will not see a difference

Simply put, the 1.4 is a faster lens, great for low light shots and very shallow depth of field, a tad shallower than the f/1.8

basically, if you can afford the 1.4, that would be the lens to get.

For what its worth i would opt or the 50mm f/1.8. I don't think that extra 0.4 is worth it especially since you can just boost up your iso and tweak your shutterspeed settings. Their both great lens but if you really need that extra light you might as well get that 50mm f/1.4. Also watch the review on both those lens from digital rev:

Back in the 80's, the 1.8 was a "standard " lens cameras came with. The 1.4 is just a little faster. I'd go with the 1.8 myself. I'd suggest a short zoom as an everyday lens though. The 50mm has it's limitations.

Both are well suited for general shooting with the f/1.4 version being better for low light, action and blurring backgrounds. The f/1.8 is far much cheaper though so weigh your options.