Been bit with the fast prime lust...

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/17/2008 08:52:01 AM · #1

Well... after owning my two lenses for around a year, I've come to the conclusion that it's time to expand my bag. The one issue I have is that none of my current lenses are good in low light / around the house. While I do have a SB-600 and that helps some, I want the ability to get low light shots.

So... here is the real question: Is the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 worth the $165 more than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8?

From what I've read, both are incredibly sharp -- a really important factor to me. As far as image quality goes, I hear the 1.4 gets really good around f/2.0 or so while the 1.8 doesn't sharpen up to around f/2.8.

I can afford either if necessary -- but that extra $165 would be nice to use toward a better tripod or head.

Opinions?

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 08:52:37.

Camabs

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

01/17/2008 08:57:04 AM · #2

I've been asking myself the same question (for Canon, but it's comparable) and also got a load of advice from others. Here's the bottom line:

Yes, the 1.4 is worth the extra money, but if you allready own a 1.8, there is no hurry. The biggest advantage of the 1.4 is not so much the extra aperture, but its capability to autofocus in low light. And in the case of Canon, build quality is also better, but I am not too sure for the Nikon, their 50/1.8 is allready more sturdy than Canon's.

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 08:58:36.

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/17/2008 09:25:39 AM · #3

(another Canon comment)

Indeed - I was playing with a friend's 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 16-35 f/2.8, and 50 f/1.4 indoors the other evening. The first two $1500 lenses couldn't compete with the $280 fast prime in the dim conditions.

I also agree with Mark - it'd didn't feel like it was much superior to my 50 f/1.8, except for the focusing speed which may well be worth the extra money. Since it looks like you don't have the 1.8, I would spring for the 1.4 to start with. I wonder if anyone can comment on the 1.2 version.

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 09:26:59.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

01/17/2008 09:36:28 AM · #4

Since I have neither (my fastest glass is my 18-70 f/3.5 - f/5.6), I think that the initial investment in the faster (f/1.4) is probably the way to go. That's really the problem... I don't want to get the 1.8 and then have to upgrade.

From what I can tell, the Nikon f/1.8 is plastic (though quite durable from all reports). The f/1.4 version has more metal and is a bit better built. Low light is really my deciding factor...

Any other opinions? Apparently I like arguing with myself...

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

01/17/2008 09:46:32 AM · #5

I got 1.4 and I like it. Can't answer your question since I don't have 1.8.

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm f/2.8 ZA

01/17/2008 10:00:34 AM · #6

I also have the 1.4 and I love it. For the 6 months of having my D70s it was the only lens I used.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

01/17/2008 10:11:01 AM · #7

ok, I've been back and forth as to whether or not I wanted to say this out loud, but here it goes :)

The 50mm prime in general is an awesome lens, but I think the vast majority of photographers eventually end up using "something else" as their go-to lens. For that reason alone I'd go with the cheap one.

(but of course now there's going to be at least 3 posts from people who have been exclusively using the 50 for 35 years)

:)

Camabs

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

01/17/2008 10:42:24 AM · #8

Originally posted by hopper:

You are right about using other lenses more. But that's not the point. The question is whether a lens can do what you want, not whether you use it all the time. The 50/1.8 is great for portraits for instance, but close to useless in theaters, churches and concert halls. It hunts like crazy in dim light and often misfocusses. So if you want to go there, spend the extra dollars for the 1.4, even if you only use a 50 every now and then

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 10:43:04.

option

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

01/17/2008 10:59:14 AM · #9

my 50 1.4 is my cameras body cap, its on all the time.

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/17/2008 11:10:09 AM · #10

Rent one, Ill work you a deal. How about 2 for 1. Rent any 2 you want and Ill only charge you for the more expensive one and shipping for both.

1 week only.

//www.rentphotostuff.com

If interested let me know ahead of time, I will have to do refunds since the site does not support discounts at this time. This goes for anyone.

01/17/2008 12:31:54 PM · #11

Originally posted by hopper:

The 50mm prime in general is an awesome lens, but I think the vast majority of photographers eventually end up using "something else" as their go-to lens. For that reason alone I'd go with the cheap one.

(but of course now there's going to be at least 3 posts from people who have been exclusively using the 50 for 35 years)

:)

That's good information -- I'm glad someone said it.

Ideally, I'd have a go-to lens somewhat like the 17-55 f/2.8. I'm sure I may even go there down the road a few years. But for a few specific needs (mainly some stock photography and some product photography), I'm really looking for the following:
Good bokah
Excellent quality
Ability to isolate a subject

These all push me toward a fast prime (especially since I'm not actually making any money off my photos just yet). I'm hoping I can get a good portfolio together but do realize that a 50mm prime isn't the final step in my lens purchasing.

My secondary reasons are more for me. Over the holidays, I realized just how limited my current setup is (or just how dark my house is...). For this type of photography (indoor, gatherings, etc...) my current glass just doesn't cut it.

I'm heavily leaning toward the 1.4. If I do plan on making a business out of this, I really don't want to cut corners (especially $160 corners) on glass.

I hate decisions...