why the huge price difference?

[amberskies]

Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF = $150
Nikon 35mm 1.8 AF-S = $270
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF = $380
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF-S = $560

What makes the huge differences in price? And is it worth it? I wanted to buy the first one on my bestbuy card but they don't have it online right now... and the next closest thing they have is the last one, for $560. I really don't think it's reasonable to pay nearly FOUR TIMES the price simply for autofocus and a .4 difference in the aperture. Why are they so much more? Can someone explain to me?

[Jamie Hickey]

I have the 35mm f/1.8 and love it. Bought it from Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 199.00. Went to get the nifty fifty but it will not auto focus on the D5000. What I bought is working out well.

[amberskies]

Originally Posted by Jamie Hickey

I have the 35mm f/1.8 and love it. Bought it from Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 199.00. Went to get the nifty fifty but it will not auto focus on the D5000. What I bought is working out well.

yeah it's always going to be cheaper in the US... the prices I listed are Canadian. But still, why are they SO different?? Is the 1.4 AF-S really FOUR TIMES better than the 1.8 AF??

[LoveDSLR]

50 f/1.8 is a special case because it was the standard/kit lens for SLR and there are millions of them out there.

Originally Posted by amberskies

What makes the huge differences in price?

Supply & demand and better optics.

Originally Posted by amberskies

...I really don't think it's reasonable to pay nearly FOUR TIMES the price simply for autofocus and a .4 difference in the aperture.

This is not that expensive when you consider Leica 50 f/2.5 is ~$1,300, 50 f/.95 is ~$10,000 and Canon 50 f/1.2 is ~$1,550.

Originally Posted by amberskies

And is it worth it?

In economics, it is called diminishing marginal returns. If you like to get auto focus, VR, better bokeh, micro contrast, saturation or skin tone from a lens then you have to pay for it.

BTW, I haven't used my 50 f/1.8 AI for decades.

[MikeM]

If I'm not mistaken then you must have the AF-S lenses to get autofocus on some Nikon bodies otherwise you're left with manual focus.

1.8 to 1.4 is half a stop so in the end it doesn't translate into that much more light or bokeh but it is some. Typically the faster lenses are also better quality all around too. Find your sweet spot. I'd really recommend getting something that will AF with whatever body you have.

[Digidave]

Originally Posted by amberskies

yeah it's always going to be cheaper in the US... the prices I listed are Canadian. But still, why are they SO different?? Is the 1.4 AF-S really FOUR TIMES better than the 1.8 AF??

Better build if I'm not mistaken. Better lens coatings because it's a newer lens model. Has a built in motor for auto-focus. I think that about covers it. Only you can decide if it's worth the extra expense.

[kirbinster]

Do some research and you will understand. I have a Nikon 70-300 that sells for around $500, I also have a Nikon 70-200 that sells for around $2,000.

[AdamR]

There's an interesting article about this here: With Prime Lenses, Faster Is Always Better - Gadgetwise Blog - NYTimes.com.


Basically, "'larger lenses will suffer more chromatic aberration and flaring, and you have to correct for that.' In other words, a 50mm F/1.4 lens is a much more complicated piece of equipment."

[amberskies]

ok, so the optics are better. Is it enough to make a noticeable difference to an amateur?

I just hesitate because I would love to get the better one, but not just for the autofocus--it'd be cheaper to upgrade my camera body if it's only autofocus that I'm gaining. But if the lens itself is actually that much better, then maybe the 1.4 is a worthy investment...?

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by AdamR

There's an interesting article about this here: With Prime Lenses, Faster Is Always Better - Gadgetwise Blog - NYTimes.com.


Basically, "'larger lenses will suffer more chromatic aberration and flaring, and you have to correct for that.' In other words, a 50mm F/1.4 lens is a much more complicated piece of equipment."

Typical for the NYT - much false data!

Almost no one would use a 50mm lens a a portrait lens. Further, even though a f/1.4 lens is a better lens than a f/1.8 lens you typically don't want to use any lens wide open unless you absolutely have to. I would like to see the portraits this clown takes at f/1.8 where the tip of the nose is sharp and the eyes are out of focus.