Best choice for a fast prime to use on a Nikon D850? (Page 2): I'm looking for an explanation as to why. The poster following you indicates that it's for low light photography, but...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Kmgw9v wrote:

I own a 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 58mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, and 105mm 1.4.
It is quite a hullabaloo--for sure.

I'm looking for an explanation as to why. The poster following you indicates that it's for low light photography, but with some of today's cameras that have such terrific low light capabilities, is the difference from 1.8 to 1.4 worth the difference in price? This brings up another question, if it's just for low light....if an individual does not generally shoot in low light, is a 1.4 really needed at all? Your experience in clarifying this for me, and perhaps, others would be appreciated. Thanks

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

SteveR wrote:

I'm looking for an explanation as to why. The pos... (show quote)

There is more than low light to consider. The wider the lens opens, the more shallow the Depth of Field.
Is the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 worth the cost? That has to be decided by each individual photographer based on what each photographer wants to accomplish. For me it's not, but that's me. Others feel it is. It's a personal choice.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Mac wrote:

There is more than low light to consider. The wider the lens opens, the more shallow the Depth of Field.
Is the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 worth the cost? That has to be decided by each individual photographer based on what each photographer wants to accomplish. For me it's not, but that's me. Others feel it is. It's a personal choice.

However, the d.o.f. can be so shallow that eyes could be n focus but ears out of focus.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

SteveR wrote:

However, the d.o.f. can be so shallow that eyes could be n focus but ears out of focus.

And they use those lenses because they desire those very shallow depth-of-fields effects.

The high ISO performance is better than say 10 years ago, but isn't remotely good enough to pretend large apertures aren't needed or at least desired. There are just too many situations where the light levels are very low and noise levels too high.

The downside though is that auto-focus systems often, if not usually, struggle to get an accurate focus with max apertures of f/1.4 or larger.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Trustforce wrote:

The question is how much to spend and how fast a l... (show quote)

I use a Sigma 35mm 1.4.

CO

MT Shooter wrote:

Do NOT cheap out on glass for the D850. Why spend the money on the most innovative high resolution sensor on the market and then not use comparable quality lenses on it? That makes no sense at all.
That said, the best lens out there at your budget would be the Tamron SP 45mm F1.8 VC. Yes I use it regularly for low light indoor shots as slow as 1/6 sec shutter and it does a wonderful job on my D850. And its only $399 at the moment.

I also have the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens for my Nikons. I attended this studio photo shoot not long ago. Continuous lighting was used that was not very powerful. I was hand holding the camera. My settings were f/3.2, ISO640, and 1/30 second. It gave me very steady shots. It looks like MT Shooter shoots at even slower shutter speeds with the lens.

I like that it has a metal lens barrel and is fully weather sealed. Its AF nails the focus very reliably. I read that Tamron traded off a little focusing speed in favor of focusing accuracy.

1/30 second
1/30 second...

(Download)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

aflundi wrote:

The high ISO performance is better than say 10 years ago, but isn't remotely good enough to pretend large apertures aren't needed or at least desired. There are just too many situations where the light levels are very low and noise levels too high.

You may be behind on high ISO performance. Two years ago I saw pictures online taken at the NCAA 'Final Four' that seemed to have too much DOF
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-380030-1.html

It turned out that the photographer had used ISO 8000 so he could get f/6.3 and still have 1/1000 shutter speed. Today Pentax has two bodies under $1000 with excellent high-ISO performance; I predict the days of needing f/2 lenses for indoor sports are near their end.

sxrich

Regarding the 1.4 vrs. 1.8 debate if there really is one. I remember buying my Nikkor 85 1.8 because I didn't want to drop the bucks for the Nikkor 85 1.4. To my eyes, the images on the 85 1.4 were better, regardless of sharpness (way overrated in many cases-imho). What I saw wasn't just a difference in DOF, but the 3-d look of the images and the micro-contrast. They were stunning and if I had my choice, the 1.4 all the way. But, we are photographers. The average client of mine wouldn't notice the difference. They only know they like the shot.

sxrich

Lovely shot! Any reason you just didn't increase your ISO and increase your ss? Not a criticism, just wondering?

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

rehess wrote:

You may be behind on high ISO performance. Two years ago I saw pictures online taken at the NCAA 'Final Four' that seemed to have too much DOF
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-380030-1.html

It turned out that the photographer had used ISO 8000 so he could get f/6.3 and still have 1/1000 shutter speed. Today Pentax has two bodies under $1000 with excellent high-ISO performance; I predict the days of needing f/2 lenses for indoor sports are near their end.

I don't find those picture particularly interesting as I've had camera's with more-or-less the same ISO8000 performance since 2013.

Even though the resolution was only 760x550 in that case, the small amount of light due to the small aperture left it still quite soft.

Every additional ISO stop, lowers the number of 'effective' pixels by 1/2. Rest assured there are many that would not find them acceptable. I think it is pretty certain that those pictures would have looked much better at f/1.4, 1/1000, ISO 400.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

rehess wrote:

You may be behind on high ISO performance. Two years ago I saw pictures online taken at the NCAA 'Final Four' that seemed to have too much DOF
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-380030-1.html

It turned out that the photographer had used ISO 8000 so he could get f/6.3 and still have 1/1000 shutter speed. Today Pentax has two bodies under $1000 with excellent high-ISO performance; I predict the days of needing f/2 lenses for indoor sports are near their end.

rehess, did you see the recent thread on the D5? Amazing shots at ISO of 20,000, court side.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

aflundi wrote:

I don't find those picture particularly interestin... (show quote)

In the case I'm talking about, I wouldn't have wanted an f/1.4 picture, because thin DOF would have made it impossible to tell the same story - putting fan and court action in the same image, everything in focus. I used this example, not because of the expensive camera used, but because it shows professionals finding new ways to use these new tools as they emerge. 2013 was five years ago. Don't judge today's cameras by what you get with technology five years old.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Kmgw9v wrote:

The 35mm 1.4 is my walk around prime.

👍👍👍

therwol Loc: USA

Trustforce wrote:

The question is how much to spend and how fast a l... (show quote)

In my opinion, my lenses are the limiting factor in sharpness with my D810. I can clearly see differences when I start pixel peeping, which tells me that the sensor is capable of outresolving my lenses. I also have the 24-120 f/4 VR. My 24mm f/2.8 D is sharper. Even my 28-105 D is sharper at the shorter end, up to about 85mm. My 35mm f/2 D notches it up a bit. My 50mm f/1.4 D is even sharper. I would say very sharp. My 80-200 F/4 VR is even sharper than the 50. My old 55mm f/3.5 Micro is probably the sharpest lens I own, and it's ancient. I didn't buy the D850 because I don't think that my lenses are good enough to make a difference, which isn't to say I'm not satisfied with my pictures. I don't see the point unless I want to notch it up in lens cost, and I'm not willing to do that. Just the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art is close to a thousand bucks.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Trustforce wrote:

The question is how much to spend and how fast a l... (show quote)

You have a camera that costs $33-3500.00 and you want to buy "cheap as possible glass". ?????????