| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2007 05:25:18 PM · #1 |
How much faster is the 1.4, really? As in, what real examples of lighting represent the difference? One 100W bulb vs. 2? 30 minutes after sunset vs. an hour? A large difference in price means I'd like to know as I build my SLR plans. :)
|
|
|
|
03/26/2007 05:32:10 PM · #2 |
| It is faster but the biggest difference is with the 1.4 you can achieve a much shallower DOF. Great for portraits. But that said I opted for the 1.8 because of the $ difference. |
|
|
|
03/26/2007 05:34:45 PM · #3 |
2/3 stop. Take any lens, find the right exposure, now add 2/3 negative exposure compensation and you know what you gain in terms of light (the pic will become darker, that's the extra darkness you can compensate for).
The advantage of the 1.4 is not so much that light advantage but that it is sharper at the faster apertures (the 1.8 is sharper stopped down a bit) and better build.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2007 05:38:24 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
The advantage of the 1.4 is not so much that light advantage but that it is sharper at the faster apertures (the 1.8 is sharper stopped down a bit) and better build. |
Ah, so lenses vary in sharpness depending on the chosen f-stop? I think I'd heard something like that, and I've noticed my own camera seems sharper at higher f-stops, but I wasn't sure it was the camera vs. me. :)
|
|
|
|
03/26/2007 05:39:31 PM · #5 |
I have the 1.4, got it for real cheap off e-bay. At 1.4 I get some halos in scenes with lots of contrast. It seems a bit soft at 1.4, I realize the DoF is razor thin at 1.4 but I still think it's a little soft. Honestly I think I would have been just as happy with the 1.8 because for practical purposes I just don't find the 1.4 all that useful.
I'm curious which would be sharper though, the 1.4 stopped down to f/1.8 or the 1.8 wide open. |
|
|
|
03/26/2007 07:39:30 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I have the 1.4, got it for real cheap off e-bay. At 1.4 I get some halos in scenes with lots of contrast. It seems a bit soft at 1.4, I realize the DoF is razor thin at 1.4 but I still think it's a little soft. Honestly I think I would have been just as happy with the 1.8 because for practical purposes I just don't find the 1.4 all that useful.
I'm curious which would be sharper though, the 1.4 stopped down to f/1.8 or the 1.8 wide open. |
funny i feel the same way about the 1.2 // can barely take a sharp pic (1/5 maybe) but i find it real sharp at 1.4 ;)
|
|
|
|
03/26/2007 07:43:36 PM · #7 |
| I just happened to order the 1.8 last night and B and H shipped it today. I'll have to put it the test but I think that I'll be pretty happy with it considering what I've read about it. |
|
|
|
03/26/2007 08:05:53 PM · #8 |
I have the 50mm 1.4 and I am very happy with it. I really don't think that 1.4 is absolutely necessary but you can shoot in a lot of very low light situations without a flash. It's also a nice lens for portraits and actually, it makes a good walking around lens.
The one thing with 1.4 is the DOF is S-U-P-E-R shallow. |
|
|
|
03/26/2007 08:09:56 PM · #9 |
Sounds like you should expect less than optimum results with most lenses at their fully opened aperture and, if it is a zoom, at its maximum zoom. Is this correct?
|
|
|
|
03/26/2007 08:11:28 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Sounds like you should expect less than optimum results with most lenses at their fully opened aperture and, if it is a zoom, at its maximum zoom. Is this correct? |
Generally, yes, that is correct. |
|
|
|
03/26/2007 08:35:28 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
The one thing with 1.4 is the DOF is S-U-P-E-R shallow. |
If at or near it's minimum focusing distance and wide open.
 
------------ At f/1.4 -------- --------- At f/8.0 ---------- |
|
|
|
03/26/2007 08:49:01 PM · #12 |
| Hey Jeffrey, I also found THIS lens and it has become my favorite. It is so sharp it is unbelievable. I found it used so it was much cheaper than the regular price of around $425.00. |
|
|
|
03/26/2007 10:32:15 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Hey Jeffrey, I also found THIS lens and it has become my favorite. It is so sharp it is unbelievable. I found it used so it was much cheaper than the regular price of around $425.00. |
Well, obviously, that lens sucks. I mean, just look at the top shots taken with it. ;)
|
|
|
|
03/26/2007 11:39:32 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Hey Jeffrey, I also found THIS lens and it has become my favorite. It is so sharp it is unbelievable. I found it used so it was much cheaper than the regular price of around $425.00. |
Well, obviously, that lens sucks. I mean, just look at the top shots taken with it. ;) |
this lens is on my short list of realistic next lens purchases :). I would say that the 1.4 would be sharper at 1.8 than the 50 1.8 at 1.8 and would be where the quality of the lens would show through. However I find my 1.8 wide open plenty sharp and certainly able to be sharpened up in PP. This shot was taken wide open. Here is before and after PP.
before and after |
|
|
|
03/27/2007 12:20:51 AM · #15 |
Thanks everyone.
Does the "D" after the lens indicate it's made for digital cameras, to take into account the field of view crop for the smaller sensor?
If so, are "D" and "DX" the same thing?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2007 12:40:24 AM · #16 |
| The D designates a generation in development. The DX is a lens for use in a APS-C dSLR only. |
|
|
|
03/27/2007 02:19:44 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Thanks everyone.
Does the "D" after the lens indicate it's made for digital cameras, to take into account the field of view crop for the smaller sensor?
If so, are "D" and "DX" the same thing? |
What Nikon are you interested in?
The Nikon-D lacks a focus motor in the lens and therefore the AF is driven by a screw from the camera. Camera's like the D40 and D40x do not have this screw and you would only be able to use it in manual focus. D50, D70, D80, D200 are fine. All AF-D lenses were made for 35mm camera's.
I agree with some of the others that the 50 1.4 is soft at 1.4 and lacks contrast there, but is good by 1.8/2.0 . The 35-70 f/2.8 is the same like that, soft and lacking contrast but great one stop down. My 30 f/1.4 is the only lens that is sharp right from f/1.4 and the 70-200 is pretty good at f/2.8
|
|
|
|
03/27/2007 02:45:38 PM · #18 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 07:47:13 AM EST.
