Nikon 50mm 1.8g or 1.4g
Dec 8, 2015 07:22:29 #
1.8! Unless you desparately need the other 2/3 stop...lighter, cheaper and just as sharp.
Dec 8, 2015 07:46:24 #
Want some amazing portraits and excellent bokeh? Go with the 1.4. Personally I never carry a 50mm, I'd go with the 85mm 1.4.
Dec 8, 2015 07:56:10 #
I have the 1.4 and I am very satisfied with it. I appreciate having the extra bit of light and shallower DOF. Can't speak to the 1.8 but the sharpness of my 50mm is very satisfying. I say say spend the extra $. You will be happy with it.
Dec 8, 2015 08:05:04 #
Dec 8, 2015 08:07:30 #
Maybe so. Saw a great deal on a new one with a flash, filters, cleaning kit. $165.00 including freight. From CAMETA .
Kmgw9v wrote:
Buy the 58mm 1.4.
Dec 8, 2015 08:11:46 #
Dec 8, 2015 08:13:19 #
There are lots of evaluations of the two lenses out there. Read them and then use an old but simple method to reach your decision. Make a list of the assets and the liabilities of each lens based upon all of your personal criteria (more video or more stills, price, weight, most used aperture, etc).
I faced the same dilemma and I got the 1.8 and haven't ever looked back.
Bob
I faced the same dilemma and I got the 1.8 and haven't ever looked back.
Bob
Dec 8, 2015 08:21:11 #
Sdubois wrote:
Want some amazing portraits and excellent bokeh? Go with the 1.4. Personally I never carry a 50mm, I'd go with the 85mm 1.4.
For me, it doesn't make any difference. I bought the 1.8 and it sits on the shelf. I've never felt the need for it and can't remember why I bought it.
Dec 8, 2015 08:53:50 #
The choice is very simple. Do you need the extra speed? Honestly, it is not that big a difference considering that you can work with the ISO setting to compensate for the loss of light.
You should be fine with the 50mm f1.8 which is considered a fast lens with excellent image quality. The price, especially second hand, is just a bargain.
You should be fine with the 50mm f1.8 which is considered a fast lens with excellent image quality. The price, especially second hand, is just a bargain.
Dec 8, 2015 09:39:47 #
balticvid
Loc: Queens now NJ
BebuLamar wrote:
I always bought the f/1.4 or f/2 and not the f/1.2 or f/1.8 because I dislike the in between stop of f/1.8 and f/1.2. Yeah I am nuts.
But besides that if you want thin DOF then the f/1.4 gives you less DOF. For low light f/1.8 and f/1.4 are not that much of a difference.
But besides that if you want thin DOF then the f/1.4 gives you less DOF. For low light f/1.8 and f/1.4 are not that much of a difference.
No you are not nuts.
I agree with you 100%
Dec 8, 2015 09:45:18 #
Tom47
Loc: Gettysburg, PA
I have the 1.4 it is a great lens. I use it for flowers, milk weed pods, etc. for the shallower DOF. I have always had a 1.4 from back in the film days.
Dec 8, 2015 10:07:13 #
I have the 1.8 and am happy with it. Why spend the extra money unless you can afford to. Personally, I use the 35mm 1.8 more often as I like to shoot a little wider. There is also a 20mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. Nikon covered the ground with these 1.8 lenses!
Dec 8, 2015 10:14:46 #
avemal wrote:
Sorry it was 249.00 from CAMETA
not for the 58mm f/1.4. Add $1,000 and it's still a low price.
Dec 8, 2015 10:19:08 #
FWIW:
The DOF argument between an f/1.2, f/1.4, & f/1.8 is a shallow argument ( :lol: :lol: ).
At five feet on a cropped Nikon the DOF compared is 1.44", 1.68", & 2.04", respectively. So as far as bokeh, I doubt the difference is observable.
The DOF argument between an f/1.2, f/1.4, & f/1.8 is a shallow argument ( :lol: :lol: ).
At five feet on a cropped Nikon the DOF compared is 1.44", 1.68", & 2.04", respectively. So as far as bokeh, I doubt the difference is observable.
Dec 8, 2015 11:17:47 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
FWIW:
The DOF argument between an f/1.2, f/1.4, & f/1.8 is a shallow argument ( :lol: :lol: ).
At five feet on a cropped Nikon the DOF compared is 1.44", 1.68", & 2.04", respectively. So as far as bokeh, I doubt the difference is observable.
The DOF argument between an f/1.2, f/1.4, & f/1.8 is a shallow argument ( :lol: :lol: ).
At five feet on a cropped Nikon the DOF compared is 1.44", 1.68", & 2.04", respectively. So as far as bokeh, I doubt the difference is observable.
Thanks for saving me the number crunching, LR. I did consider that when I bought the 1.8 and the difference in DOF is not significant.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.