The 50/1.4's vintage matters a lot. In 1970 I bought a Nikkormat and a 50/1.4 and some Nikon diopters so that I could shoot closeup with the 50/1.4. The 50's speed was very useful but it wasn't that sharp or contrasty, even stopped down. I used to go out shooting with a friend who had a Konica AR and a 58/1.2 Hexanon. His slides were always sharper than mine.

Later in the year I decided that the 50/1.4 + Nikon diopter wasn't good enough to use closeup -- massive curvature of field -- so I bought a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. By the end of '71 I'd retired the 50/1.4 and used the 55/3.5 when I needed that focal length. I understand that later (redesigned) 50/1.4 Nikkors are better than the one I bought.

This is not to say that the 55/3.5 MicroNikkor is the best lens for general out-and-about shooting. Modern Photography and Popular Photography never published tests of any of the various vintages of 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. I once asked Norman Rothschild why not. He explained that the lenses had been testing and found wanting. Both magazines published only "good" test reports to avoid losing advertising.

I now have a couple of 50/1.8 Nikkors, one a type E, the other a regular Nikkor. Same optics, same faint red hot spot in the center of the frame at some apertures.

The 55/2.8 MicroNikkor is a better lens than the 55/3.5 and than the 50/1.4. If you want just one generally useful normalish lens for a Nikon, get a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor.