Nikon 50 mm f/1.4 G A - S Nikkor Lens
Feb 17, 2015 22:18:36 #
I am about to order a Nikon D7100. I am wanting to get two lenses for it initially, that will cover as much as possible. This lens will be my "go to" lens for indoor and outdoor portraits. I realize it is considered a prime lens, my question is, what are the pro's versus con's of choosing this lens over a 1.8 lens ???
Thank-You, in advance for your time....Winterhawk1960
Thank-You, in advance for your time....Winterhawk1960
Feb 17, 2015 22:31:20 #
The F1.4 is faster and when shot wide open will have less depth of field, sometimes useful in portrait photography. It is considerably more expensive than the F1.8. You probably will not notice any meaningful difference in optical performance. You did not not mention what the second lens you are considering was, but if it were me and I wanted, as you state, to cover as much as possible, I'd get the 18-300mm G VR. Pricy but very versatile.
Feb 17, 2015 22:38:08 #
For the extra $200 you get an extra stop f/1.4 vs f/1.8, less distortion, better bokeh because of 9 blades instead of 7.
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Feb 17, 2015 22:39:20 #
Gobuster, thank-you for your response. So, perhaps I should go with the 1.8 lens then ? I posted another thread about the very lens (18 - 300).....if you can find it. I'm pretty sure it is the very lens you are talking about.
Winterhawk1960
Winterhawk1960
Feb 17, 2015 22:47:53 #
It is 1/2 stop faster that meant something in film days for low light photography. With your D7100 the 1/2 stop of ISO will make very little difference in quality. The f/1.8 rates a little better in sharpness. The wider the aperture the harder it is to make a sharp lens. You will have a short enough depth of field to get a nice blur when you shoot wide open. With the money you save buying the f/1.8 you can get a 35mm f/1.8 and have a prime lens that is considered "normal" for a crop camera. That's what I did. - Dave
Feb 17, 2015 22:49:39 #
Winterhawk1960 wrote:
Gobuster, thank-you for your response. So, perhaps I should go with the 1.8 lens then ? I posted another thread about the very lens (18 - 300).....if you can find it. I'm pretty sure it is the very lens you are talking about.
Winterhawk1960
Winterhawk1960
Well, if portraiture is very important the points skiman raised are valid and may justify the extra cost of the 1.4. I have the 50mm 1.8 D lens and find it to be my least used of all lenses, as for portraiture, even when using my crop sensor (DX) body, I prefer the 85mm F1.8G FX lens, it doesn't cost much more than the 50mm F1.4 and is said to be one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes. You might want to check it out. Love the perspective for portraits.
Feb 17, 2015 22:59:01 #
Dave, so I should get both the 50 mm 1.8 and be able to pick up a prime lens that's 35 mm 1.8 for about the same money ?
Winterhawk1960
Winterhawk1960
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Feb 17, 2015 23:10:09 #
Winterhawk1960 wrote:
Dave, so I should get both the 50 mm 1.8 and be able to pick up a prime lens that's 35 mm 1.8 for about the same money ?
Winterhawk1960
Winterhawk1960
This is purely my personal opinion and I'm sure many will disagree with me, but I wouldn't buy any prime lens to start! Get the 18-300 G ED VRII DX lens and go out shooting. It covers all the focal lengths of the primes and then some. Observe your results, see what focal lengths you use the most. Determine if the lens has shortcomings that could be addressed with a prime, then based on your observations, select a suitable prime to address your needs. My guess; it won't be a 50mm or 35mm :shock:
Feb 17, 2015 23:14:49 #
That makes sense on the prime lens purchase. So, what would you get for portraits, indoors ? We have 5 grandchildren and will take lots of pictures of them.
Feb 18, 2015 06:29:44 #
That is my plan, I just ordered the 50mm f1.8 AF-S G for indoor low light on my D7100, due here today. My 18-140mm works fine outdoors at 18-140mm, I am sure the 18-200MM would too and be a great walk around lens. Nice bokeh at f5.6 at 140mm. I will also get the 85mm f1.8 in the future because I hear it is that good. Everything I read says the f1.8 is a better value for DX Cameras (50mm). The D7100 will handle 1600 ISO before noise becomes an issue. I am also working with Neil Van Niekerk's books studying his on camera fill flash techniques (bounce, quality & position of lighting). Still shooting in JPEG but raw is coming. The D7100 is a great camera IMHO. I am shooting grandchildren so studio setup type lighting is challenging and not as much fun as candid shots. I got my camera in April of 2014 and find Darrel Young's Book "Mastering the D7100" plus the owners manual a must. I am re-reading sections over and over "to get it", slow learner, lots to absorb if you don't use all of the functions often. Have Fun!
Winterhawk1960 wrote:
Dave, so I should get both the 50 mm 1.8 and be able to pick up a prime lens that's 35 mm 1.8 for about the same money ?
Winterhawk1960
Winterhawk1960
Nikor 50mm f1.8, natural light no flash
(Download)
Nikor 18-140mm using high speed sync fill flash
(Download)
Feb 18, 2015 06:31:28 #
Correction.....18-140mm works fine outdoors 85-140mm. Nice boken at f5.6 at 140mm.
ABJanes wrote:
That is my plan, I just ordered the 50mm f1.8 AF-S... (show quote)
Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Feb 18, 2015 06:41:40 #
I am shooting (4) grandchildren, they move fast and there is no time to think. You have to keep the shutter speed up to prevent blur i.e. 1/250th, so sometimes flash is a must but if I shoot with side window lighting as shown before there is enough with the 50mm f1.8 to keep the ISO below 1600. The 85mm is to long for in the house for me anyway unless you have large rooms.
Winterhawk1960 wrote:
That makes sense on the prime lens purchase. So, what would you get for portraits, indoors ? We have 5 grandchildren and will take lots of pictures of them.
Feb 18, 2015 06:55:50 #
I have been working with flash trying to get a natural light look. The SB700 pointed straight up with the white bounce card up works quite well and I often shoot in Auto White Balance 2 (warmer) in doors. I am also testing techniques using the black foamy thing (snoot/shield) and directing my flash to the ceiling or side walls to soften the effects of flash and give it more direction to simulate natural side light. For me 'natural light rules' as the look I like best but a good flash is a must to cover all lighting conditions. The pros use fill flash even with the 1.8-2.8 primes and zooms.
Feb 18, 2015 11:17:53 #
Just a small comment;in the past'Portrait' lenses were always of large aperture to reduce 'sitting' time, and of soft focus to flatter skin blemishes and wrinkles.
The latter condition might still apply.
I believe Voigtlander, or someone similar, used to make a lens of variable definition.
These days, any midrange zoom would do the trick.
Save your money for a good macro lens.
The latter condition might still apply.
I believe Voigtlander, or someone similar, used to make a lens of variable definition.
These days, any midrange zoom would do the trick.
Save your money for a good macro lens.
Feb 18, 2015 13:33:40 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
wilsondl2 wrote:
It is 1/2 stop faster that meant something in film... (show quote)
i agree with your post. the 1.8 has less distortion edge to edge. the 1.4 is really for when you are in a situation where every bit of speed is a necessity.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.