Another trick when you want to use a shallow DOF is to double your distance from the subject which increases you DOF big time. Then when doing you PP you crop in giving away 50% of your resolution. People often forget unless your planning on printing a 24X30 picture you don't need 20MB or more, giving up half still allows you to print nice stuff and of course for the internet is doesn't matter.

Picture taken at 3.5 feet at f/11 on a 85mm 1.8 which is considered a portrait lens. F/11 is still in the sweet spot on this lens, nice and sharp. Then I cropped the snot out of it in PP .............. you get the idea.

BTW, the flowers in the background were 6 - 8 inches away, you've got to love the 85mm 1.8, not a macro but it pulled off the task just fine because it's just so darn sharp in it's sweet spot.

In my new quest to go from street photographer to grand-daughter photographer I'm about to throw in the towel. I did the research on the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 on our site and on Google etc. The main concern was, is the 1.4 worth an extra two hundred bucks. Most said not really but I also read a few articles that said yes. My thought was I wanted to take a lot of natural light shots of a baby so why not get all the light I can? After about a few hundred pictures out of focus to my eye, which means 99% of the viewing world say, oh what a great picture, the 1%, you and I, say, hey that's out of focus! So after re-reading the manual and trying every possible combination humanly possible and getting nowhere I came across "focus shift and spherical aberration". Well there's some information I could have used earlier! OK so I get it now, I think, the lens is weak wide open. Very frustrating process. I just want to be able to take a picture from two feet away and have both eyes in focus without having to go back to college. Now the question becomes when if ever will I shoot wide open, knowing in the back of my mind there will probably be issues? Attached are two pictures, both taken on a tripod with Nikon D610 for your analysis. Photo #1 1.4 ISO 220 #2 5.6 ISO 2800. Thank you for any and all input. Marty

With a 50mm on full frame at f/1.4 from two feet away, your depth of field is less than 1/2 of an inch. I would think you would have to shoot that on a macro rail on a tripod to get the shot. As you move farther away, your DOF will increase. You really want to make sure you are in continuos single point focus and not on any of the auto or dynamic focus modes to ensure you have control on where you are focusing. It is definitely has a learning curve, but it is a great lens once you understand it. Don't give up yet.

With a 50mm on full frame at f/1.4 from two feet away, your depth of field is less than 1/2 of an inch. I would think you would have to shoot that on a macro rail on a tripod to get the shot. As you move farther away, your DOF will increase. You really want to make sure you are in continuos single point focus and not on any of the auto or dynamic focus modes to ensure you have control on where you are focusing. It is definitely has a learning curve, but it is a great lens once you understand it. Don't give up yet.

To me, you're delving into the issue of style here. When I shoot a portrait, it is most often wide open unless there is a compelling (to me) reason to do otherwise. I like to use the bokeh of the lens to help me produce my style of shooting. In choosing this method, I realize that there is a very narrow depth-of-field and I try to take this into account in my posing, angle of shooting and lighting. Personally, I like this method, you may not!

For portraits, I most often use my 85/1.4G but other lenses as well depending on what I have available at the time. In general, I shoot wide open as it's just my style and preferred way. When the need arises, I can and do stop down, but that is usually to shoot an object like a firetruck, or something that needs to be in focus and is at a range of distances from the lens. Upon occasion, I do use the philosophy of "f8 and be there!" which works well when the time is right. Best of luck. In my opinion, there is no one "right" answer to this question!

In my new quest to go from street photographer to grand-daughter photographer I'm about to throw in the towel. I did the research on the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 on our site and on Google etc. The main concern was, is the 1.4 worth an extra two hundred bucks. Most said not really but I also read a few articles that said yes. My thought was I wanted to take a lot of natural light shots of a baby so why not get all the light I can? After about a few hundred pictures out of focus to my eye, which means 99% of the viewing world say, oh what a great picture, the 1%, you and I, say, hey that's out of focus! So after re-reading the manual and trying every possible combination humanly possible and getting nowhere I came across "focus shift and spherical aberration". Well there's some information I could have used earlier! OK so I get it now, I think, the lens is weak wide open. Very frustrating process. I just want to be able to take a picture from two feet away and have both eyes in focus without having to go back to college. Now the question becomes when if ever will I shoot wide open, knowing in the back of my mind there will probably be issues? Attached are two pictures, both taken on a tripod with Nikon D610 for your analysis. Photo #1 1.4 ISO 220 #2 5.6 ISO 2800. Thank you for any and all input. Marty

I've done quite a bit of stuff with my Canon 50/1.8 wide open in house under window light. One thing to remember doing these kinds of shots. The DOF at that aperture is extremely short so getting both eyes in focus, if the subjects face is turned at all, won't happen. Almost any distance change will show as out of focus - even slightly.
Frustrating I know but that's the way it is.

As far as I know the Nikon version of the 50 is a good lens just as my Canon is. Mine is tack sharp and very accurate.
But don't forget the DOF.