| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2006 03:56:25 AM · #1 |
| is it really worth the extra money |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 04:43:18 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 04:49:16 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 05:11:07 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 05:17:16 AM · #5 |
but you would be happy & impressed with the 50mm 1.8 if you don't have/want to spend the extra cash. The 1.8 is a huge step up in terms of quality and flexibility from the kit lens that you have profiled.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 07:41:52 AM · #6 |
DO a forum search on it and you will find probably a handful of threads.
I started one too...
It was discovered that while the f/1.8 is sharper at f/1.8 than the f/1.4 at f/1.4, the f/1.4 outclasses it in almost every other way.
There seems to be something about the autofocus with the f/1.8 that makes the lens miss focus on a lot of shots... Sloppy tolerances would be my guess...
Weird though... the 85mm f/1.8 USM that I used for a while blew the 50mm f/1.8 out of the water.
I have the f/1.8 and I will attempt to pick up a Mk I if possible at the end of september as a straight trade, but if not, I will definitely go for a f/1.4 (straight from the factory of course :).
Message edited by author 2006-08-16 07:43:14. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 07:44:48 AM · #7 |
eschelar how did the 85 outperform the 50 1.4,
also what is the min focus distance for the 50 mm ?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 07:45:17 AM · #8 |
yup probably much better
of course, i haven't been able to part with my $300 to get one knowing I have "almost" the exact same thing - nothing wrong with it, that takes stunning pictures.
but i do want the 1.4
Message edited by author 2006-08-16 07:45:42. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 05:08:37 PM · #9 |
| I had the 1.8 before, but it werent sharp at all before f/2.5 and it didnt feel very good. I bought a used 50\1.4 and im happy with it. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 06:11:59 PM · #10 |
| Aside from a significan difference in build qaulity and the speed advantage of the 1.4, the biggest difference is the bokeh; the 1.4 has very pleasing bokeh, while on the 1.8 it is much less pleasing. There is really a pretty significant difference. If that aspect of image quality is important to you, consider the 1.4. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 08:58:21 PM · #11 |
Rami: Please re-read my post. The 85mm outperforms the 50mm f/1.8 in a major way. Mostly in consistency of results and accuracy, but pretty much most other ways too.
I will also mirror Gnarf's comment that below f/2.5 it's quite soft. It does get sharp, but only at around f/4 in my experience.
I checked the price of the 35mm f/1.4L and decided that my next prime will be the 50mm f/1.4. I've already lined up someone who might buy the 50. It all depends on how things go with my search for the Mk I version and how well it performs. |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 09:00:23 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
08/16/2006 09:08:50 PM · #13 |
If anyone wants to send me a 50 1.4 I will gladly do comparison shots of one of my nude models and post full res pics. I'll even give the donor free prints. :-)
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 09:13:19 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
If anyone wants to send me a 50 1.4 I will gladly do comparison shots of one of my nude models and post full res pics. I'll even give the donor free prints. :-) |
UPS just dropped off my 50mm 1.4 but it only works for Pentax mount :P
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 09:21:12 PM · #15 |
| I have both ,, YES IT IS WORTH IT |
|
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 05:37:28 PM EST.
