Lens Upgrade: I shoot mostly with my Nikon D610 now. I have a Nikkor AF 50mm/1.8D lens. I am considering replacing it with a 50mm/1.4D or a 50mm/1.4 G lens. These 2 get equal scores on...

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

I shoot mostly with my Nikon D610 now.

I have a Nikkor AF 50mm/1.8D lens.

I am considering replacing it with a 50mm/1.4D or a 50mm/1.4 G lens. These 2 get equal scores on DxO mark tests.

I do not have a 1.4 lens, and would like one.

Thoughts?

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4g. I like the lens very much. DOF at 1.4 is very limited; but sometimes I use "focus stacker" and a tripod. That gives me more dof at 1.4 I'm very happy with my purchase. Compared to the 85mm f/1.4 it is a bargain. (I bought the f/1.8g 85mm.) Like that lens also.

amehta Loc: Boston

You don't need it, but if you want it, either one is good.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

I need it :) About once or twice a year. I shoot black cats in coal bins on moonless nights at midnight. ;)

The D I could use on my FA as well, The G just on my digital bodies.

It is a GAS buy, tho, you are right.

Dave

amehta wrote:

You don't need it, but if you want it, either one is good.

amehta Loc: Boston

dtparker wrote:

I need it :) About once or twice a year. I shoot black cats in coal bins on moonless nights at midnight. ;)

The D I could use on my FA as well, The G just on my digital bodies.

It is a GAS buy, tho, you are right.

Dave

Yes, I understand. Believe me, I'm there too, all my glass is the fastest Nikon makes. :-)

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

OK, I've done lots of research and the 50mm is not the lens to upgrade. :) I'll wait for an affordable upgrade to my 35mm f2D or my 24 f2.8D.

So, now I'm thinking of filling holes - either a 105mm or a 135mm. Maybe one of the DC Nikkors?

Dave

amehta Loc: Boston

dtparker wrote:

OK, I've done lots of research and the 50mm is not the lens to upgrade. :) I'll wait for an affordable upgrade to my 35mm f2D or my 24 f2.8D.

So, now I'm thinking of filling holes - either a 105mm or a 135mm. Maybe one of the DC Nikkors?

Dave

Here's a shot with the 24mm f/1.4. It's saved at half resolution, jpeg quality=80.

Millford Sound, NZ; D800, 24mm f/1.4, DxO OP9

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

Wow - maybe I should save for a trip to New Zealand! That is some pretty country, and the photo neat too, given all the differing terrain. That 24mm looks like a winner!

Dave

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

amehta wrote:

Here's a shot with the 24mm f/1.4. It's saved at half resolution, jpeg quality=80.

Polarizer?

amehta Loc: Boston

dtparker wrote:

Wow - maybe I should save for a trip to New Zealand! That is some pretty country, and the photo neat too, given all the differing terrain. That 24mm looks like a winner!

Dave

Yes, you should save for a trip to NZ!
And yes, the 24mm is definitely a winner. This lens definitely fits the "Getting the gear makes you shoot more" meme, I shoot more wide angle stuff because of it.

amehta Loc: Boston

mdorn wrote:

Polarizer?

I used the polarizer effect in DxOMark Optics Pro 9. Though, now that I think about, I'm sure I did also use the polarizer on it, I almost always did with the 24mm on this trip.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

dtparker wrote:

I shoot mostly with my Nikon D610 now.

I have a Nikkor AF 50mm/1.8D lens.

I am considering replacing it with a 50mm/1.4D or a 50mm/1.4 G lens. These 2 get equal scores on DxO mark tests.

I do not have a 1.4 lens, and would like one.

Thoughts?

I don't think the upgrade will do much for you. The f1.8 is a pretty good lens.

Your money is better spent toward another focal length or zoom lens.

amehta Loc: Boston

joer wrote:

I don't think the upgrade will do much for you. The f1.8 is a pretty good lens.

Your money is better spent toward another focal length or zoom lens.

I agree. The DxOMark difference between the 24mm f/2.8D and 24mm f/1.4G is 26/34. Between the 50mm f/1.8D and 50mm f/1.4 (G or D), it's 29/32. The price for the 24mm is much higher, but the benefit is pretty huge. But it also depends on what you like to shoot: I'm much more likely to blow up an image from the 24mm than from a 50mm.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

Pretty much what I decided - the 50mm 1.4D or G is out, for now.

Apparently the 35mm F1.8 FX has been announced at $599 shipping 2/20.

35 (or even 24) is not wide enough; I'm waiting for the upgraded 20mm. In the meantime, I'm gonna play with the 105mm and 135mm DCs, since I have noting fast longer than 85mm, and my 70-300G only rates a DxO 20....

Dave

amehta Loc: Boston

dtparker wrote:

Pretty much what I decided - the 50mm 1.4D or G is out, for now.

Apparently the 35mm F1.8 FX has been announced at $599 shipping 2/20.

35 (or even 24) is not wide enough; I'm waiting for the upgraded 20mm. In the meantime, I'm gonna play with the 105mm and 135mm DCs, since I have noting fast longer than 85mm, and my 70-300G only rates a DxO 20....

Dave

The angle of view is
* 50mm: 47deg, 0.9m
* 35mm: 63deg, 1.2m
* 24mm: 84deg, 1.8m
* 20mm: 94deg, 2.1m
* 14mm: 114deg, 3.1m
The second number is the width of the coverage area from 1 meter away. The difference between 20mm and 24mm isn't really that big. If Nikon comes out with a new 20mm, I agree, that would be cool. But if that doesn't happen any time soon, the 24mm serves the purpose really well.