Nikon 50mm 1.4 or 1.8
Dec 20, 2017 06:29:06 #
I agree with billnikon, digital has changed a lot of the way shooters think. 2/3 of a stop in glass is nothing when we can change ISO on-the-fly and get good images at higher ISOs. And the 50mm 1.8 design was always one of Nikon's best performing lenses. The 1.4 is probably tougher (will stand up better to less-then-gentle use). You tell us --- how hard are you on your gear?
Dec 20, 2017 07:57:43 #
SteveTog
Loc: Philly
Another option: You might consider a Nikkor 50mm 1.4D. It is less expensive, very light and compact, and quite an incredible lens which will autofocus on your D7500 camera. I see no advantage of upgrading to the G version, myself, but the 85mm lenses are another story.
Dec 20, 2017 08:01:08 #
Bill132 wrote:
Looking to purchase a fast Nikon 50mm prime for a 7500 DX camera. I see the 1.8 for $186 and the 1.4 for $450. Is the 1.4 worth the extra 260. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
For one stop?! IMHO, unless you do a LOT of shooting in very low light or for demanding scientific/technical applications, it is absolutely not worth it.
Dec 20, 2017 08:03:06 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
I own the Nikon 50mm f1.8. I purchased it new for around $246. I love it. It is not built sturdy as the f1.4. The faster 50mm f1.4 lens would likely be preferred by professionals. So, it can withstand constant use, and give a slight advantage in low light. For me, the inexpensive f1.8 suits me just fine.
Dec 20, 2017 08:03:43 #
'Better build quality'. '2/3 of a stop faster'. Are you going to a war zone? Do you have money to throw out of your window? If not, the 1.4 is a unicorn.
Dec 20, 2017 08:04:23 #
nytexano wrote:
'Better build quality'. '2/3 of a stop faster'. Are you going to a war zone? Do you have money to throw out of your window? If not, the 1.4 is a unicorn.
And if the OP spends that kind of cash for 2/3 stop, he will be in a financial war zone, for no reason whatsoever. >Alan
Dec 20, 2017 08:13:42 #
I had the same decision to make in the 70's when I bought my first Nikon 35mm. I saved a little longer and bought the 1.4, which I still have. Had the decision to make again several years ago and decided the 1.8 will do fine and it has. Like others have mention if you don't need the the extra 2/3 stop and don't subject it to heavy use I think you'll be happy with the 1.8. In the rare event you wear it out you can replace it and still have less money invested than a 1.4.
Dec 20, 2017 08:15:55 #
Pablo8
Loc: Nottingham UK.
Bill132 wrote:
Looking to purchase a fast Nikon 50mm prime for a 7500 DX camera. I see the 1.8 for $186 and the 1.4 for $450. Is the 1.4 worth the extra 260. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
************************************************************************
Whatever you do, don't get the 50mm f/1.2 I cannot remember using a picture commercially, that was taken at f/1.2. But I've had it for so long, not 100%sure. DOF is about the thickness of tissue paper at full bore. Good sharpness comes in around f/4 to f/5.6. And it is heavy , if that is any criterion to you.
Dec 20, 2017 08:30:30 #
It is very difficult to go wrong with a 50mm lens but I have found that this type of lens is more useful with a FX body than with a cropped sensor.
Is the f1.4 version worth $450? There is only slightly more than a 1/2 stop of light with the f1.4 version. If you shoot often in very low light and you are most of the time shooting at f1.4 I would say yes otherwise save some money and go for the f1.8 which is also excellent in low light and is better corrected.
Is the f1.4 version worth $450? There is only slightly more than a 1/2 stop of light with the f1.4 version. If you shoot often in very low light and you are most of the time shooting at f1.4 I would say yes otherwise save some money and go for the f1.8 which is also excellent in low light and is better corrected.
Dec 20, 2017 10:34:20 #
I bought a used D600 for $800 which is an FX and had the same decision to make and went with the 1.8. Saved about $300 vs the 1.4 and then put that towards a used (like new) Nikon 70-300mm. Love the 1.8 for it’s lightness and photo quality. I am retired and so watch my $ and FWIW I have been able to set up my D600 kit for about $2000. D600, Nikon 16-35mm, Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 70-300mm, Mephoto tripod, polarizing and ND lens and a few other gadgets. I am tempted sometimes to go for the more expensive pro lens but then cannot justify the extra $ for what I shoot.
Dec 20, 2017 10:57:20 #
Bill132 wrote:
Looking to purchase a fast Nikon 50mm prime for a 7500 DX camera. I see the 1.8 for $186 and the 1.4 for $450. Is the 1.4 worth the extra 260. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Only you can answer that question. No one can tell you whether something is worth more TO YOU.
Dec 20, 2017 12:20:02 #
I own one of each. I use them on a Df (full frame). I like the 1.4 a lot. it is an old AI lens I bought decades ago, and it got a lot of use on the film bodies I had through the ages. The 1.8 is an AF-s. It is on the camera or in my carry bag most of the time. It also is an awesome lens. If money is no object and you think you will "need" that extra 2/3 of a stop, go for the 1.4. If I was buying that lens today, I am pretty sure the 1.8 would be my choice.
Look at the reviews. The loss of sharpness which ghs been mentioned is often in the corners. If you buy a FF lens it will affect a crop frame camera much less.
Look at the reviews. The loss of sharpness which ghs been mentioned is often in the corners. If you buy a FF lens it will affect a crop frame camera much less.
Dec 20, 2017 13:24:30 #
I have the 50mm 1.4g, it is not any better. I would have been as happier with the 1.8 and saved a little money.
Dec 20, 2017 14:12:41 #
It is a better lens in terms of build quality but, IMO, not worth the extra $ unless you plan to do a lot of low light shooting.
Dec 20, 2017 18:21:02 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.