| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/22/2008 03:31:56 PM · #1 |
| im thinking on buying a 50 mm for my d70 but cant decide whether its really worth it to spend the extra money and time on f1.4 when I can get the alot less cheaper f1.8. Is there really that BIG of a difference, or would a f1.8 do me almost just as good? |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 03:47:31 PM · #2 |
It depends on why you want the lens. If you want the max in low light potential
the 1.4 is better. It will help in some portraits where you want only the face
or portions of the face to be in exact focus. The 1.8 is pretty good even though
the build quality is not quite as good as the 1.4. Plastic barrel rather than
probably metal for the 1.4. I've got one I don't ever use I could let you have
for $70US shipped to the lower 48. But for only 25 to 35 more you can get one
brand new with a 5 year warranty from B&H. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 04:02:02 PM · #3 |
| In my opinion, the 50 1.8 is a must have lens. Spend that money your saving on more glass, lighting equipment, or save it for your next body-upgrade. I have a feeling that considering your current lens, you are going to be blown away by the quality of the 50 1.8 anyways. Honestly, unless you are VERY serious about shooting professionally, and have the money to drop on the 1.4, go for the 1.8. It may not "feel" as good as a metal built lens, but I have never thought the Nikon 50 1.8 as anything but solid. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 04:10:42 PM · #4 |
i'm currently testing the MF 50 1.4 and must say it's great to have the extra wide aperture. i'm even thing about getting a used 50 1.2 but on the other hand i have to admit that it's very difficult to get the focus spot-on with a MF lens so i'm also thinking about getting the AF one.
maybe you want to wait for the Sigma 50 1.4, maybe it'll be cheaper than the nikkor 50 1.4 (?) |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 04:38:31 PM · #5 |
| Thanks for the input! I guess i would say im looking for a lens great for portraits and in some low light cases. Im pretty sure if i go with the 1.4 i wont be disappointed at all, but if body design plays a huge roll in the price difference, id probly be better off with the 1.8? But i could be wrong.. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 04:48:36 PM · #6 |
| The 1.4 is a much better build. A tad faster as well. I have heard arguements that the 1.8 is a bit sharper But I believe that depends on how much you crop. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 05:25:06 PM · #7 |
| I read some reviews on both of the lenses and all of them said that each lens is very sharp, except the 1.4 becomes sharper at f/2, but all are the same by f/4. Although the 1.8 has a bit less distortion. Body design wise, they are both made out of plastic. I most likely will use this lens more in daylight, but will also at times use in low light situations. So it seems like my best bet would be to buy the 1.8 and use the rest of the money i would of spent on the 1.4 to buy more equiptment =) |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 05:57:23 PM · #8 |
If you never tryed a 50mm f1.8 you're going to be very surprised.
GRab your panths because that's just one of the moust sharper lens you've ever will see. And yes, the f1.8 is sharper than the f1.4 allthough not the same build quality.
I'm very curious about the sigma 50mm f1.4 because I have the sigma 30mm f1.4 and it's great. Sharp focus, great build. I'm hopping that they also build a 70 or 85mm f1.8/1.4 that is affordable. If manual focus wasn't a pain and if it cousted half the price it does I even considered buying the Zeiss Distagon 85mm!
But be aware: when you got used to thins kind of lens you will be spoilled by large appertures and you might begin to think that f2.8 lenses are just slow.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2008 06:30:08 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
But be aware: when you got used to thins kind of lens you will be spoilled by large appertures and you might begin to think that f2.8 lenses are just slow. |
YEAH, THE FASTER THE BETTER!!! :)))
i'm also kinda infected with that sickness, as i'm even thinkin about selling all my lenses except for the 85 1.8, 20 1.8, 50 1.4 and getting another 30 1.4 (sigma) or nikkor 35 1.4 MF ;-)
edit, cus i can't type
Message edited by author 2008-03-22 18:31:32. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 06:47:05 PM · #10 |
| well if anyone is intersted in selling a 1.4, please let me know =) |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 07:01:09 PM · #11 |
I have read this quote when I was shopping for a the 1.8: "nikon 50mm 1.8 will make you a better photgrapher" and I agree with it wholeheartedly. You will not be disappointed one bit when you buy the 1.8. And considering the price, you should probably jump on that lens cause there ain't nothing better than that lens at that price.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2008 07:53:04 PM · #12 |
| Get the 50mm 1.8 lens. You wont be disappointed! |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 09:44:20 PM · #13 |
I have owned all four Nikkor 50mm lenses - f1.8, f1.4, and f1.2 and the 52mm f1.2. Currently, I have the new AF 50mm f1.4D used with the D3 and the D300 and an older MF 50mm f1.4 matched to Nikon F film cameras that I collect.
The advantage of the f1.8 is price. It is extremely well priced for the performance. So, if cost is a major concern, then it is a perfectly acceptable solution. Otherwise, go for the AF 50mm f1.4D for the quality of the construction. The extra f-stop is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. A good flash to go with your D70 would be a smart investment if paired with the AF 50mm f1.8D lens.
Either lens will be a good match to your D70 body.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2008 07:45:42 AM · #14 |
| I don't have the 1.4, but I shoot a lot of headshots with the 1.8 and in my experience, you probably wouldn't want to shoot portraits with the aperture open anyway. At 1.8 parts of the subjects face (depending on how close you are of course) are already going to be out of focus. My point is, if portraits is your goal, I would think you'd be better off getting the 1.8 and using/saving the $200 dollars you'll be saving towards another lens. |
|
|
|
03/23/2008 11:42:26 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by elsmacko:
I don't have the 1.4, but I shoot a lot of headshots with the 1.8 and in my experience, you probably wouldn't want to shoot portraits with the aperture open anyway. At 1.8 parts of the subjects face (depending on how close you are of course) are already going to be out of focus. My point is, if portraits is your goal, I would think you'd be better off getting the 1.8 and using/saving the $200 dollars you'll be saving towards another lens. |
I totally Agree with your conclusions; too many people place too much emphasis on a fast lens when it may directly affect the photograph due to excessively shallow depth of field (DoF). Sometimes, the shallow DoF effect is desired. Other times, the low light capability is valuable. But, for most occasions, they are not necessary or do not provide the added value that demands the extra dollars.
A new camera with low noise capabilities such as my new Nikon D3 and D300 go a long way to eliminate the need for a fast lens. These new cameras will change photography forever and the methodology used to capture a low light image.
In short order, it is preservable that these leading edge low light CMOS chips will make there way down market into lower price cameras and therefore provide similar value to a user of a camera with a D70 price tag. Most professionals tend to shoot images at f8 or f11 as normal anyway. So f1.4 would be less desirable even if you have the lens, as I do. I bought it for the robust construction and the calibre of the optics, not for the speed of the lens.
Food for thought...
|
|
|
|
03/23/2008 01:18:28 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
too many people place too much emphasis on a fast lens when it may directly affect the photograph due to excessively shallow depth of field (DoF). Sometimes, the shallow DoF effect is desired. |
Of course that could just mean that more people place a value on shallow depth of field than you seem to think. |
|
|
|
03/24/2008 10:26:40 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Originally posted by Morgan:
too many people place too much emphasis on a fast lens when it may directly affect the photograph due to excessively shallow depth of field (DoF). Sometimes, the shallow DoF effect is desired. |
Of course that could just mean that more people place a value on shallow depth of field than you seem to think. |
Yes, I recognized the perspective that you offered, which is why I provided a fairly balanced perspective on the DoF issue. However, if you look at most professional work, you will see a significant leaning towards deeper DoF compared to shallow DoF. Just an observation... |
|
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: 08/25/2025 10:02:02 AM EDT.
