DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> f/1.8 lenses
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 45, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/03/2007 09:13:31 PM · #1
so, whats up with fast aperture lenses? are they really that sharp? i am looking at getting the f/1.8 50mm for nikon, i plan on using it in portrait shots and low light situations. for $115 it sounds like a really good deal. are they really that bright and sharp? will the 1.7 apature difference be that much of an improvement compared to my 18-55 mm f/3.5-5 in low light situations? or should i spend the extra money on a VR 55-200mm ?
 10/03/2007 09:17:20 PM · #2


Examples

10/03/2007 09:19:14 PM · #3
The difference between f/3.5 and f/1.8 is two full stops; that's four times as much light at f/1.8. A huge difference! Of course, DoF is substantially smaller as well.
yes, the fast 50mm lenses are usually quite sharp, with some softness wide open, especially in the corners. Stopped down even a little, they will be *very* sharp. The 50mm primes (Nikon, Canon and others) are usually the best value in a lens, in bang for the buck. Do be aware, the build quality will be, well, what you'd expect in a $100 lens.
 10/03/2007 09:21:29 PM · #4
I have the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8........once you use them you will never go back, they are wonderful



10/03/2007 09:22:54 PM · #5
More examples with the 50 mm 1.8D
I have this version and find no problem with the build quality, much better then the kit version that you have. it has a metal mount and that lens is plastic mount I believe. Definitely worth the money.
Two of my examples
shot at f/1.8
shot at f/8

Message edited by author 2007-10-03 21:25:31.
 10/03/2007 09:23:30 PM · #6
The 18-55 is going to be closer to 5.5 which puts a differential of approximately 3.8. Much larger gap at around the 50mm focal length than the 1.7 mentioned.
 10/03/2007 09:28:20 PM · #7
OK, if I'm not mistaken (I often am) the D40 won't Autofocus with the 50mm 1.8. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 10/03/2007 09:30:57 PM · #8
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
OK, if I'm not mistaken (I often am) the D40 won't Autofocus with the 50mm 1.8. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


Don't you still have a Rebel XT??? :P
 10/03/2007 09:31:16 PM · #9
Some examples of mine with the 50mm 1.8

[thumb]500516[/thumb]

10/03/2007 09:33:04 PM · #10
Originally posted by bergiekat:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
OK, if I'm not mistaken (I often am) the D40 won't Autofocus with the 50mm 1.8. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


Don't you still have a Rebel XT??? :P


*sticks tongue out at Kitty*
 10/03/2007 09:41:06 PM · #11
wow, sounds like they really are as amazing as they seem to be made out to be. ill really have to get one now. btw Konador, great pics, especially the forest one, that one is awsome.
 10/03/2007 09:41:21 PM · #12
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
OK, if I'm not mistaken (I often am) the D40 won't Autofocus with the 50mm 1.8. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

i think you might be right, but I am mistaken often too.
 10/03/2007 09:41:29 PM · #13
generally speaking prime lenses are sharper than zooms and/or have better image quality cause there is less glass, fewer moving parts to keep aligned, and no compromises to be made.

The drawback is convenience - one lens that zooms 24-105 for example can give you exact framing anywhere in there - for primes to do it you have to have (and carry) many lenses (24, 28, 35, 50, 60, 85, 100 primes are available from canon). to some extent you can 'zoom' with your feet, but images made with a 24 and an 85 have totally different looks to them that can't be duplicated just by walking closer.

Like any other lens, there are cheap, mid and good prime lenses. Canon offers a 35 2.0 for around $225, a 28 1.8 for $400 and a 24 1.4 and 35 something for about $1000. They have a 50 1.2 ($1500 or so), 50 1.4 ($400 ish) and 50 1.8 ($70). lens optical quality focus speed, coatings, build quality all differ. The expensive lenses are sharp wide open, the cheap ones need stopped down to be sharp.

Why a fast lens? Shallow DOF is one practical reason that will give you images a different look. the other is they let a LOT more light into the camera making focusing easier and sometimes faster. You still have to obey the laws of physics and keep the shutter speed about 1/focal length - so a 50 1.8 should be shot at 1/50 or better. I have a 17-55 2.8 IS lens and with IS I can handhold at 50mm to 1/5 of a second, so the stop plus advantage of the 50 doesn't necessarily translate to being able to shoot successfully in super dark places.
 10/03/2007 09:54:20 PM · #14
I have the Canon 50mm 1.8 and it's by far my favorite of the four lenses I own. It's super sharp and so small and light. I also love being able to go down to 1.8. I love really shallow DOF shots, so my 50mm tends to be the one I use most often.
 10/03/2007 09:59:47 PM · #15
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
OK, if I'm not mistaken (I often am) the D40 won't Autofocus with the 50mm 1.8. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

i think you might be right, but I am mistaken often too.


Your both right, with the d40 only your af-s lenses(or equivelant with other brands HSM for sigma I think) will auto focus. It's good practice for manual focus but this is trying if your new to MF and are doing some portraits for instance, the model WILL get impatient. I found the 85mm f1.8 to be easier to manual focus than the 50mm f1.8.

Don't let that deter you, its still an amazing lens. Plus it WILL autofocus once you get awesome and buy a D300 :)
 10/03/2007 10:13:36 PM · #16
Honestly I have had a lot of frustration with my 1.7 50mm lens because it isn't as sharp as all the pictures would lead you to believe, i made the pictures really crisp with usm but most of the time they are not nearly as sharp as I would want them to be. When doing shots from further away I use 1.7 and its great, but what i have found for an up close portrait its better to go with 2-3 fstop so that more of the face is in focus. Either way, I would take a 1.7 lens over 3.5+ lens ANY day!
[thumb]593632[/thumb] full body shot at 1.7 aperture,
closeup portrait at I think a 2.5 aperture

10/03/2007 10:15:25 PM · #17
I can take indoor pics at ISO 250 w/o a flash at 1/60 to 1/100 with no problem with my 1.8
 10/04/2007 10:20:11 PM · #18
ok, so do you guys think it's worth it to pay the extra $160 to get the 50mm f/1.4 instead of the 1.8? or is it not much greater? it's supposed to be sharp all the way through and brighter right?
 10/04/2007 10:25:27 PM · #19
Originally posted by ETphonethishome:
ok, so do you guys think it's worth it to pay the extra $160 to get the 50mm f/1.4 instead of the 1.8? or is it not much greater? it's supposed to be sharp all the way through and brighter right?


Totally worth it. I did a head to head comparison between the two some time back. The 1.4 is first and foremost better built (not plastic), next is faster, next is sharper, and then practically sees in the dark. So worth less than $200. I used it as my primary studio lens for a good year and a great walk-around too.

Edit typing

Message edited by author 2007-10-04 22:51:20.
 10/04/2007 10:29:29 PM · #20
1.4 is a great lens and worth the dough. Only irritation is sometimes you really don't want the vignetting that comes with shooting it wide open.

edit: doh, nm i see yer a nikon guy

Message edited by author 2007-10-04 22:32:41.
 10/04/2007 10:31:48 PM · #21
Originally posted by ETphonethishome:
ok, so do you guys think it's worth it to pay the extra $160 to get the 50mm f/1.4 instead of the 1.8? or is it not much greater? it's supposed to be sharp all the way through and brighter right?

Definitely worth it, but I hope you noticed the earlier comments: it will not autofocus on the D40.
 10/04/2007 10:40:07 PM · #22
yeah, i know about the no auto focus, it should be fine, ive messed around with some lenses with no auto-focus and i think i can do it pretty well, so yeah, maybe i should get the 1.8 and later get an AF-S telephoto bc the one i have right now is a peace of crap.
 10/04/2007 10:45:37 PM · #23
GET the 1.8 best 110 bucks you'll spend and when you upgrade your body you'll love it even more.



Shot with the 50mm / 1.8 @ f2.8.

I love mine and so does my friend that's using it to shoot his entire parts catalog for his business.

Message edited by author 2007-10-04 22:46:29.
 10/04/2007 11:17:17 PM · #24
Originally posted by ETphonethishome:
yeah, i know about the no auto focus, it should be fine, ive messed around with some lenses with no auto-focus and i think i can do it pretty well, so yeah, maybe i should get the 1.8 and later get an AF-S telephoto bc the one i have right now is a peace of crap.

It's a great lens, and will push the D40 much better than a similarly priced zoom lens (i.e. a cheap one). I was using MF with my 55-200 today for a bunch of landscapes, and actually enjoyed slowing down and taking the time to focus myself (although the colour on that lens sucks compared to my primes).
 10/04/2007 11:26:13 PM · #25
How about this picture, shot with the 85mm f/1.2L lens:



And a 100% crop to show you just how sharp this thing really is:



NOTE: This was shot at ISO 1000!!! I was in my studio and found that, at f/1.2, I could NOT turn my strobes down far enough to light the cat with the strobes. So instead, I used the modeling lamp in the strobes. I bumped the ISO up to 1000 just so that I'd be sure to stop the cat at 1/250th of a second.

P.S.
This is my daughter cassilda_terry's new kitty. She wanted pictures she could take to work. :-)

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 06:57:33 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 12/30/2025 06:57:33 AM EST.