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: <<prev 1 2 3 next>>
May 1, 2014 11:13:55   #
LyneLa Mesa
 
I am on the verge of moving from the D5100 to a Df full frame, once my husband gets used to the idea. I have spent the last two years reading and listening here to everyone's comments. I am no expert, but I hear loud and clear better photography is all about the light. Go with the best you can afford at the time. We have the same conversation here over and over. If there is a choice for the better lens and you can afford it, go for it. If a few hundred dollars does not matter too much to you, pay more now and hopefully you won't want to upgrade later. I have found Ken Rockwell's lens reviews and DP Review are helpful to compare lenses.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 11:36:43   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
Nikonian72 wrote:
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.
I have been challenged on my statement above. Here is a chart from http://oberphotographytips.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/aperture-2
f/1.8 to f/1.4 is actually 2/3-stop difference. Thanks to UHH member phlash46 for correction.



| Reply
May 1, 2014 12:38:36   #
bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.
 
how important is the .4 to you? do you make a living with your camera? are you a perfectionist that can tell the difference at a glance? in the end only you can tell. good luck.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 12:39:43   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
No, most times you won't. That said, the F1.4 will let in more light which in turn makes it easier to see thru the viewfinder in low light situations & the extra light helps the AF system acquire focus faster...Bottom line is that it is a personal decision. I have both F1.8 & 1.4 in both manual & auto focus versions... Seldom use any of them...
Rongnongno wrote:
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
May 1, 2014 15:34:39   #
treadwl Loc: South Florida
 
Just to muddy the waters a bit the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens is quite good. On a crop sensor camera it will have the focal length of a "normal" lens so you would be getting roughly what the 50mm lens is on a full frame camera. The lens cost about $200. It is sharp, contrasty and has a very good reputation.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 15:40:51   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
It will have the same FOV as a 50mm on FX (Field Of View) not the same focal length. The focal length remains the same regardless of sensor format.
treadwl wrote:
Just to muddy the waters a bit the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens is quite good. On a crop sensor camera it will have the focal length of a "normal" lens so you would be getting roughly what the 50mm lens is on a full frame camera. The lens cost about $200. It is sharp, contrasty and has a very good reputation.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 15:43:19   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
It will have the same FOV (Field Of View) as a 50mm on FX, not the same focal length. The focal length remains the same regardless of sensor format.
Correct.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 16:01:26   #
phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York
 
treadwl wrote:
Just to muddy the waters a bit the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens is quite good. On a crop sensor camera it will have the focal length of a "normal" lens so you would be getting roughly what the 50mm lens is on a full frame camera. The lens cost about $200. It is sharp, contrasty and has a very good reputation.


It is an excellent lens and a bargain for DX shooters. However, while far more expensive, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is better and more flexible (and bigger and heavier). It's purely a matter of $$$.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 16:40:50   #
Racmanaz Loc: In my bedroom why?
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
No, most times you won't. That said, the F1.4 will let in more light which in turn makes it easier to see thru the viewfinder in low light situations & the extra light helps the AF system acquire focus faster...Bottom line is that it is a personal decision. I have both F1.8 & 1.4 in both manual & auto focus versions... Seldom use any of them...


Am I correct that both lenses will let the same amount of light in until both are at it's widest apertures?

| Reply
May 1, 2014 17:02:01   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
Racmanaz wrote:
Am I correct that both lenses will let the same amount of light in until both are at it's widest apertures?
As an example, f/2 allows the same amount of light through, for both lenses.
The difference is only when both lenses are wide-open: one at f/1.8 and one at f/1.4.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 17:03:34   #
LyneLa Mesa
 
It took me awhile to get my head around why one lens will be better than another. I now have the opinion that a lower f number on a lens is better, not only for clarity, but for mechanics. Price is an indication of quality too, and usually corresponds to lower f number. A lower f number means larger opening-more light. More light, better clearer pictures. These are prime lenses and do not open or close. Am I wrong?

| Reply
May 1, 2014 17:07:36   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
LyneLa Mesa wrote:
It took me awhile to get my head around why one lens will be better than another. I now have the opinion that a lower f number on a lens is better, not only for clarity, but for mechanics. Price is an indication of quality too, and usually corresponds to lower f number. A lower f number means larger opening-more light. More light, better clearer pictures. These are prime lenses and do not open or close. Am I wrong?
Which do you consider a "lower f number": f/1.8 or f/1.4? f/2 or f/16?

| Reply
May 1, 2014 17:15:49   #
LyneLa Mesa
 
Yes, always. Lower f number equals better bokeh and greater flexibility in shutter speed. It is always better.

| Reply
May 1, 2014 17:21:35   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Long Beach CA
 
LyneLa Mesa wrote:
Yes, always. Lower f number equals better bokeh and greater flexibility in shutter speed. It is always better.
You did not answer the two questions.
Which do you consider a "lower f number":
f/1.8 or f/1.4?
f/2 or f/16?

| Reply
May 1, 2014 18:04:21   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
LyneLa Mesa wrote:
Yes, always. Lower f number equals better bokeh and greater flexibility in shutter speed. It is always better.


Re: bokeh...
To quote Inigo Montoya (Princes Bride): Link
"I do not think it means what you think it means"
You read Ken Rockwell. Check his description of bokeh HERE

LyneLa Mesa wrote:
These are prime lenses and do not open or close. Am I wrong?

Primes have working (opening & closing) apertures. They differ from zoom lenses by only having one fixed focal length.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 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.