Like everyone else you could ask the question: which to choose? And like everyone, the Cornelian dilemma may haunt you even long after you have made your choice.
Then proceed with order and method. I have no claim to present here the results of a professional test, you will find excellent in specialist magazines or on certain sites. I will book here my personal experience.
The bright aperture of f / 1.8 and the remarkable compactness of this streamlined optical (less than 200 grams, it must be stressed!) Make it a very attractive target as well on small APS-C sensor as the D3100, D5100, D 7000 , D90 or D300 as the FX housings D3x and D700 type. In the first, cropping due to the sensor size will give an equivalent 75 mm F 1.8. Ideal for portraits in low light or looking for effects, or with a reduced depth of field. And as the APS-C only use the center of the lens, the sharpness is particularly good, while reducing distortion and vignetting, more present on FX boxes. Obviously, this leads to have the defects of his qualities, since in contrast to full-format boxes will fit well, they, to 50 mm, the standard "history" of 24x36.
In terms of manufacturing quality printing is good: despite its low weight, it emerges from this perspective a solid feel, confirmed by its polycarbonate and metal composition. The fixing ring is provided with a welcome seal restricting entry of dust in the room. However, I prefer finishing the big brother, who she really is impeccable and made to absorb the worst conditions of use.
The development rubberized ring is nice, but a little thin for my taste. In itself this is not a problem, because the quality of autofocus is such that are used very rarely the focus manually. Like the 1.4, we can blame a certain torpor at AF. It is clearly not the fastest, but still effective in just about every type of situation. This should not be a determining factor in making your choice.
The optical system incorporates an aspheric element ensures high image quality. Personally, on D700 (FX) from the focal length 2.8 and beyond, I will draw on A3 detects no dive difference between 1,4 and 1,8. Vignetting on the other hand is a bit more present than 1.8.
Distortion is also marked on the little brother of the great. It seems to me more important than the version F1.8 AF-D. Chromatic aberrations are for their well controlled at all apertures.
Then at decision time finally take what perspective?
I would say if you have a D 3300, a D5200, D7100 or a D90 (short APS-C) and you do not spend your time to photograph the great-grandmother who continues to light up the candle or oil lamp, this objective is clearly right for you. The difference in price between -substantielle- version 1.4 and 1.8 is not justified version for amateur use, even very sophisticated. The picture quality is excellent in both cases. It will, however, seriously consider the alternative presented by the AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G twice cheaper and just as good on these boxes, especially if you do not plan to switch to full size.
For reporting to tax on capital as are the owners of the D4S, D800, and Df who usually work in more extreme conditions (whether light or shocks), quality better finish and opening 1.4 can take the decision.
Finishing more "beefy" and a little less vignetting at the focus placed 1.8 AF-S F 1.4 a bit in front of his little brother in terms of pure quality. In value, the newcomer who is carving the lion's share.
Note that Nikon sticks to its usual technical sales, leaving only 1.8 model until three years after the model 1.4 and for almost half the price. The pros and "addicts" of 50 mm F1.4 have already acquired a long time ago!
Anyway, the two optical deserve their 5 stars.
Have fun!