Well, no more, but too expensive.

I'm doing photography for 40 years connoisseur, I think I have a good foundation in this respect, nothing more.
My opinion is strictly personal and is not intended to come thwart many already formulated opinions and all have their relevance. After Pentax Olympus, Canon, and now I'm as Nikon for 3 years. My hardware: D7000 + Nikkor 35 1.8 G, 50 1.8D, 1.4G 50, 16-85, 10-24, 70-300. As I recounted in my opinion on the product, I was looking for a 50 to make the portrait. The many praises on the 50 1.8D did buy me, but I was disappointed because it does not seem appropriate to me D7000 as is the 35 1.8G I had also acquired with the case. As 1.8D cost me about 100 I kept it. I use very little, not that its optical quality is bad (I think she is as good as the 50 or 35 1.8D 1.4G, to mention only fixed optics), but its design, mechanical quality The roughness of the AF that works with the engine casing, frustrated. Wanting absolute portrait of children, I turned round several months to find the exception in the matter, and as for the 50 1.8D, I let myself be influenced by numerous reviews, tests and other experienced practitioners pro and personal. Well for the second time, I am disappointed by the acquisition of Nikkor 50 1.4G. First of all it is too expensive for the overall quality it represents (looks like the 35 1.8G 2 times cheaper to manufacture, and the optical quality of 50 1.8D 3 times cheaper, because in fact opening 1.4 is, in my case, almost impossible to use. So if I am overall happy with the 1.4G, it worth the price? So what? Everyone will see after their own interests in the trying and comparing, we are all different in feel of a material whatsoever, but it is not because I bought it and I intend to keep it, as I encenserais for me convinced I made the right choice as this seems to be the case for many opinions, in my opinion not very objective and rather confusing for potential buyers undecided.