50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8
Jul 21, 2020 23:23:03 #
The 1.4 is about 3/4 of a stop more light (somebody check my math) but I suggest there are other factors to consider. Like sharpness and distortion, DOF and bokeh, and price. I suggest reading some reviews and then buy the lens that is the best fit for you, considering all the parameters, not just speed.
Jul 21, 2020 23:33:34 #
JD750 wrote:
The 1.4 is about 3/4 of a stop more light (somebody check my math) but I suggest there are other factors to consider. Like sharpness and distortion, DOF and bokeh, and price. I suggest reading some reviews and then buy the lens that is the best fit for you, considering all the parameters, not just speed.
Already bought. 1.8 was my choice. Hope to try it out soon
Jul 22, 2020 01:02:30 #
WCS wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm new to this forum... but when talking about a lens, shouldn't we talk about the camera format? FX, DX 4/3rds', etc.. FIRST?
Because the formats impact 'relative' focal lengths, comparing a 50mm on a FX camera will 'similar' to the output of a 35mm on a 'DX crop factor' camera?
It seems that we're answering questions without understanding the 'application'.
Or, am I missing something?
Thank you,
WCS
Because the formats impact 'relative' focal lengths, comparing a 50mm on a FX camera will 'similar' to the output of a 35mm on a 'DX crop factor' camera?
It seems that we're answering questions without understanding the 'application'.
Or, am I missing something?
Thank you,
WCS
The FL of 50mm is a given, not a variable or an unknown per the OP. Read the query and see where you are indeed “missing something”. Format is a nonissue.
His intended uses might affect the choice of lens speed but FL is not in question, so format is irrelevant. And since the query is about whether the imaging at about f/8.0 will differ between the two 50s under consideration, intended use is irrelevant.
How will the results at f/8.0 differ, if at all. Simple question.
Jul 22, 2020 01:15:28 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
kymarto wrote:
If you wish to have the maximum separation between subject and background using shallow DOF it is worth considering the 1.4. If this means nothing to you the f1.8 will be fine.
Just common sense, isn’t it?Jul 22, 2020 01:31:14 #
RWR wrote: Just common sense, isn’t it?
Just common sense, isn’t it?Yes thaz the difference between 1.8 and 1.4, but the OP asked us what difference might occur at f/8.0.
The usual UHH version of common sense means that most replies discuss use of maximum aperture and very few replies address the results at f/8.0.
Jul 22, 2020 02:22:10 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
User ID wrote:
... but the OP asked us what difference might occur at f/8.0.
My comment was not addressed to the OP.
Jul 22, 2020 05:14:50 #
Hi, I just bought secondhand for £45 here in U.K.,Nikon 50 mm f1.8 D and I,m happy with it.
Seems sharpest at f4.
Attach a cat shot with it.
Graham
Seems sharpest at f4.
Attach a cat shot with it.
Graham
Jul 22, 2020 06:37:29 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
First off 50 @ f8 is 50 @ f8 and at anything smaller than 16 X 20 you would be hard pressed to see a difference.
Here's a car analogy. A 2020 CORVETTE will do 194 MPH while a 2020 FERRARI will do 211 MPH. They are identical in 0-60. The CORVETTE is substantially less expensive. At 65 MPH the difference is nil. If you simply have to drive 211 because 194 won't work for you ... buy the FERRARI. If you seldom to never drive faster than 194 ... buy the CORVETTE. Both are fast and sharp.
I've owned both.
The differences:
- The 1.4 is 2/3 stop faster. Insignificant with high ISO's that are now common. A tad more shallow DOF.
- The 1.8 is IMHO a tad sharper from f1.8 through f16 with more vibrant colors.
- Just as the 1.8 can't reach to 1.4, the 1.4 can't reach to f22 while the 1.8 can.
- The 1.4 is about 60% heavier at 8 ounces vs 5 ounces, each plus or minus a tiny fraction of an ounce in AF versions. AFS version of each are a bit heavier and still about 3 ounces difference with the 1.4 heavier.
The 1.4 is slightly longer.
- The AFS variant of both uses a plastic hood, the AF and AFD versions use either a collapsible rubber hood or a metal hood.
- The 1.4 is more expensive.
If you have a D7XXX or higher body, I would buy neither in AFS and opt for the AF version. As an example, if you paid more than $100 for a pristine 50 1.8 AF with hood used ... you IMHO paid too much.
Overall, IMHO, the 1.8 is the better choice. Many people consider the 1.8 NIKKOR's sharpest lens ever, or at the worst among the top handful of sharpest NIKKOR lenses ever.
I've owned the 1.4 in MF and AF versions both, and kept the MF variant for when I rarely shoot film. I sold the 1.4 AF.
If you typically shoot at f8 or smaller apertures, keep the cost difference in your pocket and buy the 1.8. If you absolutely have to have the razor thin DOF of the 1.4, then buy it. Both are fast and sharp.
If cost is at all an issue, buy used ... especially the 1.8 AF. NIKKOR has made approximately a gazillion of them over time.
I hope this helps, My $0.02, your mileage may vary.
Here's a car analogy. A 2020 CORVETTE will do 194 MPH while a 2020 FERRARI will do 211 MPH. They are identical in 0-60. The CORVETTE is substantially less expensive. At 65 MPH the difference is nil. If you simply have to drive 211 because 194 won't work for you ... buy the FERRARI. If you seldom to never drive faster than 194 ... buy the CORVETTE. Both are fast and sharp.
I've owned both.
The differences:
- The 1.4 is 2/3 stop faster. Insignificant with high ISO's that are now common. A tad more shallow DOF.
- The 1.8 is IMHO a tad sharper from f1.8 through f16 with more vibrant colors.
- Just as the 1.8 can't reach to 1.4, the 1.4 can't reach to f22 while the 1.8 can.
- The 1.4 is about 60% heavier at 8 ounces vs 5 ounces, each plus or minus a tiny fraction of an ounce in AF versions. AFS version of each are a bit heavier and still about 3 ounces difference with the 1.4 heavier.
The 1.4 is slightly longer.
- The AFS variant of both uses a plastic hood, the AF and AFD versions use either a collapsible rubber hood or a metal hood.
- The 1.4 is more expensive.
If you have a D7XXX or higher body, I would buy neither in AFS and opt for the AF version. As an example, if you paid more than $100 for a pristine 50 1.8 AF with hood used ... you IMHO paid too much.
Overall, IMHO, the 1.8 is the better choice. Many people consider the 1.8 NIKKOR's sharpest lens ever, or at the worst among the top handful of sharpest NIKKOR lenses ever.
I've owned the 1.4 in MF and AF versions both, and kept the MF variant for when I rarely shoot film. I sold the 1.4 AF.
If you typically shoot at f8 or smaller apertures, keep the cost difference in your pocket and buy the 1.8. If you absolutely have to have the razor thin DOF of the 1.4, then buy it. Both are fast and sharp.
If cost is at all an issue, buy used ... especially the 1.8 AF. NIKKOR has made approximately a gazillion of them over time.
I hope this helps, My $0.02, your mileage may vary.
Jul 24, 2020 23:22:45 #
charlienow wrote:
Already bought. 1.8 was my choice. Hope to try it out soon
It is a fine lens. I’m sure you will enjoy it.
Jul 25, 2020 06:51:14 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
siamesecatmanuk wrote:
Hi, I just bought secondhand for £45 here in U.K.,Nikon 50 mm f1.8 D and I,m happy with it.
Seems sharpest at f4.
Attach a cat shot with it.
Graham
Seems sharpest at f4.
Attach a cat shot with it.
Graham
Excellent choice IMHO.
And as a general rule a lens is sharpest stopped down about two stops.
The 1.8 however is so sharp you might cut yourself if you aren't careful.
Jul 25, 2020 07:01:13 #
Longshadow wrote:
What was the argument?
(For my Canon I just decided on the ƒ/1.4 over the ƒ/1.8 because it allows more light through.
I didn't like the price of the ƒ/1.2)
(For my Canon I just decided on the ƒ/1.4 over the ƒ/1.8 because it allows more light through.
I didn't like the price of the ƒ/1.2)
I think you are better off with the 1.4. I have both the 1.4 and 1.8 and use the 1.4 more because it is a smoother operating lens. I tried the 1.2 and regardless of the price I didn't like it as well as the 1.4. At 1.2 the one I was experimenting with was not very sharp even after adjusting it to my camera. It got sharper as I went up to 1.4 but if I have to shoot at 1.4 to get a sharp image I may well just use the 1.4.
Jul 25, 2020 10:13:36 #
waegwan wrote:
I think you are better off with the 1.4. I have both the 1.4 and 1.8 and use the 1.4 more because it is a smoother operating lens. I tried the 1.2 and regardless of the price I didn't like it as well as the 1.4. At 1.2 the one I was experimenting with was not very sharp even after adjusting it to my camera. It got sharper as I went up to 1.4 but if I have to shoot at 1.4 to get a sharp image I may well just use the 1.4.
He already made his purchase. See his post a few above yours.
Jul 25, 2020 15:10:18 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JD750 wrote:
He already made his purchase. See his post a few above yours.
That shouldn’t stop a further conversation.
Someone else will have same question.
How many times have we heard some complain that someone didn’t use the search function?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.