Nikon 50mm f1.8D vs Nikon 50mm f1.8 Series E version II. Which one is better?

[MattCarey]

Or a better uncle

pentaxuser

Sounds like a lot. But KEH has the 50mm in ex+ for $99.

I don't really understand it. I like the series E lenses (I have the 100mm and the 75-150), and I'd like a series E 50mm for portability and weight, but I don't see why they should go for this much.

[CGW]

Sounds like a lot. But KEH has the 50mm in ex+ for $99.

I don't really understand it. I like the series E lenses (I have the 100mm and the 75-150), and I'd like a series E 50mm for portability and weight, but I don't see why they should go for this much.

Fast MF 50mm Nikons are getting picked off by micro 4/3s users. The teensy E series is near-perfect for them.

Agree about the E series. They're most often dissed by people who've never shot them.

[ColdEye]

The series E is nice, it's compact and produces nice pics. But in your case I'll go with the AF 50mm. Your uncle is pricing it too high.

[CGW]

The series E is nice, it's compact and produces nice pics. But in your case I'll go with the AF 50mm. Your uncle is pricing it too high.

Ever try to manual focus the wobbly 50/1.8AF?

[ColdEye]

Nope, but what I have used is a Canon EF 50/1.8 MK. II, and I bet that is much worse than the Nikkor AF 50mm. Compared to my Series E 50mm, the only gripe I have with manual focusing the EF 50mm is that the manual focus ring is thin. Being wobbly, or plasticky depends on the user, But in terms of value for the money, the AF 50mm is the way to go.

[CGW]

Nope, but what I have used is a Canon EF 50/1.8 MK. II, and I bet that is much worse than the Nikkor AF 50mm. Compared to my Series E 50mm, the only gripe I have with manual focusing the EF 50mm is that the manual focus ring is thin. Being wobbly, or plasticky depends on the user, But in terms of value for the money, the AF 50mm is the way to go.

Nope, but what I have used is a Canon EF 50/1.8 MK. II

Should have stopped there! They're awful compared to the Nikon E series 50/1.8. There's nothing subjective about the widely-recognized wonky focus "feel" of the Nikon 50/1.8AFD--a nice lens on an AF body. The OP has an FM3A.

[ColdEye]

Yes I know they are awful, that's what I said. If the OP can manage with the "wonky" feel, most probably the the AF 50mm is better. Plus If ever you want to get an AF Nikon film camera, you already have an AF lens for it.

[jdnewberry]

I have owned both lenses. My first AF nikkor was the 50/1.8, but didn't like how it focused manually. I upgraded later to the 50/1.8D, but still didn't care for how it felt. Although I own 4 AF bodies, I still tend to do most of my shooting in MF, so the feel of the focus ring is very important to me.

Long story short, I got rid of both of my AF 50/1.8 lenses, but kept the E series as a daily shooter.

As far as the E goes, it may be single coated but the design is so simplistic multicoating is not necessary. It is also one of the sharpest lenses ever made by Nikon. Compared to the 50/1.4 Nikkor, the E series is sharper when both are wide open (and with less distortion). The E is very sharp at f/2.8, but exceptional at f/4.

Some may say it is "cheaply" made, but I say "inexpensively" made. The version II you have been offered does have a few plastic parts, but maintains a very nice feel and has very tight tolerances. I recommend the E series, but suggest you look elsewhere for it. That price is WAY too high!

Also, if you can locate one, look into the 50/1.8 AI. It costs about the same, is multicoated, better constructed and almost identical, optically.

[lxdude]

I have owned both lenses. My first AF nikkor was the 50/1.8, but didn't like how it focused manually.

Pretty awful, huh? It was the first AF Nikkor I ever handled, and could hardly believe they put the Nikkor name on it. Given the slick, light and precise focusing Nikkors always had, the sticky focusing was appalling.

[olleorama]

I have a 50/1.8 pancake (I think AI, how do I tell the difference?), I rate it as very sharp. have done some 12x16" test prints from tmx from it. It blev me away when I saw them. I can't honestly see any difference in sharpness at that print size from my '94 summicron with the same film. I used it on a FM2N for a few years as my only lens (well, I had more, but just used the 50). The price is high though.

I can't understand why it wouldn't look good on the FM3A??? It's a slim pancake lens that makes the camera perfect for everyday carry.