| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/28/2005 02:15:04 PM · #1 |
I'm going to purchase one of these lenses in the near future and want some opinions on which one to get, especially those with d70s. Sigma, Nikon? Is the money for the 1.4 worth it...I know it's not that much but still don't understand the difference .4 makes. Any other advice is welcome.
I'm guessing there is a forum out there on this but I can't seem to find it.
Thanks J
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 02:24:06 PM · #2 |
Edit: Deleted photo.
JV
Message edited by author 2005-06-09 20:30:09. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 02:26:32 PM · #3 |
| it depends what you are shooting. I have the 1.8 and it is more than sufficient. Unless you are shooting in super low light all the time you might not need that extra half stop or whatever it is. Think of it this way...you could shoot at 1.4 at iso 200, or 1.8 at like iso 320 and get pretty much the same result. Those numbers might not be exactly correct but you get the idea. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 02:33:23 PM · #4 |
Both are lens are excellent optics. The 1.4 besides the obvious speed advantage has a better build quality than the 1.8. With the 1.5x crop factor of the D70 the 50s are now quite suited to portraiture. This gives another advantage to the 1.4 with even more limited DOF possible than the 1.8.
The 1.8 does have some advantages over the 1.4. First would be weight. Another is cost. A advantage not just in initial cost, but the chance to get some shots that would make one hesitant to use a more expensive lens. And lastly the 1.8 is also a better performer in the macro range, especially with extension tubes, than the 1.4. The 1.4 begins to lose sharpness in the corners at its closest focusing point, and this continues past its closest focusing point with extension tubes. The 1.8 is also a better candidate for reversal on a prime telephoto for extreme close ups.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 03:40:13 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
The 1.8 does have some advantages over the 1.4. First would be weight. Another is cost. A advantage not just in initial cost, but the chance to get some shots that would make one hesitant to use a more expensive lens. And lastly the 1.8 is also a better performer in the macro range, especially with extension tubes, than the 1.4. The 1.4 begins to lose sharpness in the corners at its closest focusing point, and this continues past its closest focusing point with extension tubes. The 1.8 is also a better candidate for reversal on a prime telephoto for extreme close ups. |
I am so glad to read this. I placed an order for Nikon 105mm f2.8D macro and 50mm f1.8 along with reversal ring, just an hour ago. I was inclined towards f1.4 initially and now was debating myself if I did good or made a bad decision to go with f1.8 and how would it effect in terms of reverse mount higher magnification & DOF.
Thank you...I am feeling much relaxed now :D
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 04:43:13 PM · #6 |
Ok so now let me throw this in the mix. Would you rather have either of the 50mm lenses or a 20mm f1.8?
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 07:45:46 PM · #7 |
//www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
All the informtion you wanted on these two lenses and more...
My take would be that if you want the better bokeh, and 1/3rd of a stop and money isn't an issue go for the 1.4, but the price increase is huge..
Flare resistance is the only area where the 1.4 is really better IMHO. I have the 1.8, but may upgrade to the 1.4 at some stage if I can pass the cost on to a customer. :-).
edit: DOH!!!! Didn't notice you were a Nikon user... Oh well...
Cheers, Me.
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 19:49:11.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 07:51:09 PM · #8 |
Get the Nikkor f/1.8 (under $100) and take the money you save and spend it on other accessories/lenses.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 09:32:08 AM EDT.
