Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
1.4 vs. 1.8. Is it worth the extra cost?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Apr 30, 2014 18:33:30   #
wingnut1956
 
Hi fellow hoggers. .
I have a d3200 kit, being replaced tomorrow by a new d7100 body, and my lens of choice for all around is the tamron 18-270 which I think is a pretty nice lens for the money. I'm looking for a prime lens and would like some opinions. .first, considering the crop factor, am I better off with the 35mm or the 50mm for just general use, (leaning towards the 50 at the moment) looking for some nice bokeh. Secondly, and the one I'm having the hardest time with, Is it worth paying basically double ($219 vs $439 for the Nikor AF-S) to go from a 1.8 to a 1.4? I know other things come into play- I understand it lets in almost twice the light, and from what I understand lenses at their extremes aren't as good as if you back off a bit. If thats true would the 1.4 give me a better shot at 1.8 than the 1.8 itself would? Also, just to confirm what I've read here ...am I still better off with an af-s lens as opposed to the cheaper af? It seems the af lenses are slower focusing

| Reply
Apr 30, 2014 18:42:55   #
Nikonian72
 
With slow color film stock back in the day (ASA 25, ASA 64), even an 1/2-stop increase in illumination was valuable to shorten shutter duration.
Not so much today, with our higher ISO sensors.

f/1.8 to f/1.4 is an half-stop increase in light.
f/2 to f/1.4 is a full-stop increase in light.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2014 18:44:42   #
Erik_H
 
Personally, I prefer af lenses over af-s. I'll probably hear some flack over that, just my preference. I use a 50mm D af on my D7000 and it focuses quite fast. As far as 1.8 vs 1.4, unless you plan on shooting in really low light you should be fine with 1.8 and save yourself some money to put towards more glass :-)

| Reply
Apr 30, 2014 18:48:36   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
wingnut1956 wrote:
Hi fellow hoggers. .
I have a d3200 kit, being replaced tomorrow by a new d7100 body, and my lens of choice for all around is the tamron 18-270 which I think is a pretty nice lens for the money. I'm looking for a prime lens and would like some opinions. .first, considering the crop factor, am I better off with the 35mm or the 50mm for just general use, (leaning towards the 50 at the moment) looking for some nice bokeh. Secondly, and the one I'm having the hardest time with, Is it worth paying basically double ($219 vs $439 for the Nikor AF-S) to go from a 1.8 to a 1.4? I know other things come into play- I understand it lets in almost twice the light, and from what I understand lenses at their extremes aren't as good as if you back off a bit. If thats true would the 1.4 give me a better shot at 1.8 than the 1.8 itself would? Also, just to confirm what I've read here ...am I still better off with an af-s lens as opposed to the cheaper af? It seems the af lenses are slower focusing
Hi fellow hoggers. . br I have a d3200 kit, being ... (show quote)


As pointed out earlier, the slight speed gain in the lens is going to probably get costly. Whereas, the "slower" lens can be compensated by tweaking the ISO a bit higher. I go with the 1.8, unless cost is not a problem. Then I definitely look at the 1.4.
--Bob

| Reply
Apr 30, 2014 18:48:56   #
oldtigger
 
wingnut1956 wrote:
Hi fellow hoggers. .
I have a d3200 kit, being replaced tomorrow by a new d7100 body, ...I'm looking for a prime lens and would like some opinions. .... looking for some nice bokeh. ... Is it worth paying basically double ($219 vs $439 for the Nikor AF-S) to go from a 1.8 to a 1.4? ...am I still better off with an af-s lens as opposed to the cheaper af? It seems the af lenses are slower focusing


Have and use a 50/1.8 AF. and have and use a 50/1.4. The AF is a bit slow focusing on the 7100's motor but it doesn't hunt.

Use the 50/1.8 10 to 1 over the 50/1.4 because for quality the 1.4 has to be shut down to f 2 anyway.

Used to use the 1.4 for club shooting but the 35/1.8 does well enough for almost any occasion and i like the extra width when i can get close enough.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2014 19:08:21   #
chase4
 
You can always check out the lab/bench test stats at:
www.dxomark.com
with each lens on your d7100 body

| Reply
Apr 30, 2014 19:09:18   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
Before entering a non issue why don't you consider HOW you use your camera. You will see that you rarely use your lens at its maximal aperture...

1.4 to 1.8? the aperture is not a consideration, in my opinion. What you may want instead to look at is the sharpness and optimal use of a lens.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2014 19:18:27   #
Nikonian72
 
Rongnongno wrote:
1.4 to 1.8? the aperture is not a consideration, in my opinion. What you may want instead to look at is the sharpness and optimal use of a lens.
Valid point.
99% of the time, you will close-down your aperture for image capture. You will view wide-open, but I doubt if you can actually see the 1/2-stop difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4.

| Reply
Apr 30, 2014 19:25:12   #
Haydon
 
Isn't build quality differences between these two lenses another factor? I can't speak for Nikon but the Canon 1.8 although a fine lens, doesn't have any metal to it at all and it's focus motor is rather primitive comparitively.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 05:54:34   #
johnst1001a
 
Go for the 1.4 for sure. And I would consider the 35mm before I would buy a 50 mm. The reason, 50 mm is too narrow for indoor shots. 35 is a bit wider, and with the 1.4, you need less light of course. You only live once, so get the 1.4, even if you have to wait a bit longer.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 07:24:02   #
Nightsky
 
As mentioned above, consider first how you will use this lens. What type of images are you looking to capture. You should also consider that the 35mm lens is available in a DX format so will act as a 35mm on your D7100 body. The 50mm however is available only in FX format (at least from Nikon) and will give the same effective view as a 75mm DX lens. With either lens AF-S is a better choice.

As to light gathering - unless you're shooting in very low light situations and don't want to sacrifice on the ISO, the 1.8 on either of these lenses will produce fine bokeh. In my opinion the jump in price is not worth the extra light unless you have special circumstances. Put the extra money away towards future glass - once you get used to the IQ on a prime lens you will want more of them.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 08:32:46   #
Db7423
 
Nightsky wrote:
As mentioned above, consider first how you will use this lens. What type of images are you looking to capture. You should also consider that the 35mm lens is available in a DX format so will act as a 35mm on your D7100 body. The 50mm however is available only in FX format (at least from Nikon) and will give the same effective view as a 75mm DX lens. With either lens AF-S is a better choice.

As to light gathering - unless you're shooting in very low light situations and don't want to sacrifice on the ISO, the 1.8 on either of these lenses will produce fine bokeh. In my opinion the jump in price is not worth the extra light unless you have special circumstances. Put the extra money away towards future glass - once you get used to the IQ on a prime lens you will want more of them.
As mentioned above, consider first how you will us... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup:

| Reply
May 1, 2014 09:45:58   #
GC likes NIKON
 
1.8 is the sharper lens at half the price..............

| Reply
May 1, 2014 10:03:00   #
Screamin Scott (a regular here)
 
Bench tests and real world shooting are different animals.... Most people won't be able to tell differences in images taken between lenses in real world shooting... Maybe if they pixel peep with lenses whose scores are drastically different, but especially not if the scores are fairly close...
chase4 wrote:
You can always check out the lab/bench test stats at:
www.dxomark.com
with each lens on your d7100 body

| Reply
May 1, 2014 10:08:11   #
Screamin Scott (a regular here)
 
The 35mm will act as a 35mm regardless of the camera it is used on... Being a DX format simply means the circle of the image on the sensor will be smaller than that of an FX lens... The FOV (Field Of View) of the 35mm lens will be equivalent to a 52.5mm lens on an FX camera... As for AFS lenses being a better choice, that is subjective...Not everyone feels that way...I have both AFS & regular AF lenses & the difference in focusing speed for most of them is negligible...IMHO
Nightsky wrote:
As mentioned above, consider first how you will use this lens. What type of images are you looking to capture. You should also consider that the 35mm lens is available in a DX format so will act as a 35mm on your D7100 body. The 50mm however is available only in FX format (at least from Nikon) and will give the same effective view as a 75mm DX lens. With either lens AF-S is a better choice.

As to light gathering - unless you're shooting in very low light situations and don't want to sacrifice on the ISO, the 1.8 on either of these lenses will produce fine bokeh. In my opinion the jump in price is not worth the extra light unless you have special circumstances. Put the extra money away towards future glass - once you get used to the IQ on a prime lens you will want more of them.
As mentioned above, consider first how you will us... (show quote)

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.