Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AF-D. I didn't buy the AF-S because I've yet to read any review that says the AF-S is worth more than the AF-D. This is a quick test that has no real factual value, and should be taken as it is: a quick "test".
Pictures shot with the fan-fucking-tastic nikkor 16-85 VR (at f5.6):
100% crop straight out of camera, no sharpening applied, just adjusted the exposure:
I'm very very very happy with the 16-85. Now, how does it compare to the 50mm f1.4? I shot this scene with both lenses at f5.6 and 50mm. Well, the 16-85 was set at 50mm, but it turned out to be more like 47-48mm.
The scene:
50mm f1.4 at f5.6 100% crop:
16-85 f5.6 100% crop
(exposure adjusted to +1 ev with camera raw)
50mm f1.4 at f5.6 100% crop:
16-85 f5.6 100% crop
(exposure adjusted to +1 ev with camera raw)
I was suprised to see how different the camera measured the light with these lenses. The 50mm picture looks about +0.25-50 over exposed, while the 16-85 is about -1.0 to 1.25 under exposed. As far as sharpness and capturing details goes, the 50mm has a slight advantage - but not by much. It also seems like the contrast is better on the 16-85.
The only real advantage the 50mm has over the 16-85 is bokeh - it's much smoother on the 50mm. And, ofcourse its low light capabilities