DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 50 mm f/1.4 vs. f/1.8
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/23/2005 10:44:52 AM · #1
I would like a 50mm high speed lens and am wondering why such a cost difference between the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF($105)and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF($269)? As an amatuer photographer, why would I spend the extra money? Would the f/1.8 serve me fine? Thanks for your help.
--jb
 11/23/2005 10:49:17 AM · #2
I am no expert. But I am hoping to get the 1.8 for Christmas and if you look at DPCers with that lens, they have been able to do a lot with it. Supposed to be a very nice portrait lens...So from my research the cheaper lens should serve us both just fine...
 11/23/2005 10:52:03 AM · #3
Canon makes a 50mm F1.8 II lens for $79.95 and a 50mm F1.4 for $319.95 (B&H Prices)

Here is a page with the differences in the two. Quality build and more complex will make the difference. I have the 50mm F1.8 and love it!
Specs on the two 50MM's

Message edited by author 2005-11-23 10:53:01.
 11/23/2005 10:52:25 AM · #4
I am a Canon user. I was too facing the choice between 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 a while ago. I went with 50/1.8. I don't know about Nikon. but Canon 50/1.8 has been serving me very well, ever since I bought it. I have it on my camera all the time, whenever I shoot portraits. It is a very sharp lens! I love it. besides, with that low price, I would never worry about getting stolen, damaged etc.

I highly recommend the 50/1.8.
 11/23/2005 10:52:48 AM · #5
I got the 1.8 2 weeks ago. Great lens.
11/23/2005 10:59:13 AM · #6
Although it doesn't seem like a lot, there's almost twice as much light getting to the sensor with the 1.4 as opposed to the 1.8, and so the glass needs to be 40% larger. There is usually a difference in build quality bettween the entry level 50mm and the faster 50mm lenses, at least I know there is a siginifcant difference in the corresponding Canon lenses. The more expensive lens *may* also have better AF motor which could lead to faster or more accurate AF, and will also show a brighter image in the viewfinder (since you're looking through it wide open).
Finally, look at sample photos and examine the bokeh, you may find that the faster lens has smoother, more pleasing OOF areas than the 1.8 (I'm talking at same aperture, not because larger aperture is available).
All in all, the price difference is usually justified, BUT not all folks will feel this way. In particular, if you rarely shoot wide open, there's less reason to buy the faster version.

Edit:
FWIW, the price difference between the Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 is even larger, $75 street for the 1.8 and about $305 for the 1.4

Message edited by author 2005-11-23 11:00:46.
 11/23/2005 11:07:15 AM · #7
I'm no expert but the 50mm1.8 d (....note the "d" )is a great cheap lens and will do you justice. The more expensive version which is built stronger rates about the same in image quality from all that I've read. Comparing the 1.8 to the 1.4...what kirbic said...

At around $100 you simply can't go wrong and as an amateur, how much more do you need to spend, if the 50mm 1.8 will do a great job?

I know Manny Librodo used the more expensive version of the two for many of his early portraits.

Message edited by author 2005-11-23 11:24:28.
 11/23/2005 11:15:11 AM · #8
Not sure about this, but the 50/1.4 may be weather sealed whereas the 1.8 may not be.

Also, given the double the amount of light that you'll be getting in the 1.4 version may get you to lower ISO settings in low light photography.
 11/23/2005 11:25:52 AM · #9
Originally posted by kirbic:
Although it doesn't seem like a lot, there's almost twice as much light getting to the sensor with the 1.4 as opposed to the 1.8, and so the glass needs to be 40% larger. There is usually a difference in build quality bettween the entry level 50mm and the faster 50mm lenses, at least I know there is a siginifcant difference in the corresponding Canon lenses. The more expensive lens *may* also have better AF motor which could lead to faster or more accurate AF, and will also show a brighter image in the viewfinder (since you're looking through it wide open).
Finally, look at sample photos and examine the bokeh, you may find that the faster lens has smoother, more pleasing OOF areas than the 1.8 (I'm talking at same aperture, not because larger aperture is available).
All in all, the price difference is usually justified, BUT not all folks will feel this way. In particular, if you rarely shoot wide open, there's less reason to buy the faster version.

Edit:
FWIW, the price difference between the Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 is even larger, $75 street for the 1.8 and about $305 for the 1.4

I agree with everything you said, except that if the size of the glass is proportional to the aperature, then there's about 65% more glass in the 1.4 than the 1.8. If the lens let in twice as much light, it would be 40% larger in diameter, or about 1.4 times as wide. The area of the lens would be given by (pi)*(diameter squared), so the lens would have twice the area. The lens would also be thicker, and I suspect it would be exponentially thicker.

There are other issues with wider lenses, its harder to precisely form a larger item, different focusing lengths for different colors of light, larger glass is heavier and needs a bigger motor, etc.

So it seems that the price difference between the cheap, mid-range and "L" series may have some justification. I'm not saying that its not all overpriced, just that the price difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 probably isn't all profit.
 11/23/2005 11:27:20 AM · #10
I went around ground zero in the middle of the night with the 50mm f1.8 and shot mainly at 800-1600ISO and at about f2. Here are some samples....the building shots were all tripod and not with the 50MM, 50mm shots are the ones with people in them. All Exif info should still be on the photos if you want to see the camera settings.

Some 50mm F1.8 handheld night shots

I understand there is noise but I shot night handheld....double the light for the 1.4 would be nice but I can not justify it at this time.

Message edited by author 2005-11-23 11:31:30.
 11/23/2005 12:25:43 PM · #11
less of a difference in price than in the canon world

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Price : $79.95

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Price : $319.95
 11/23/2005 12:58:22 PM · #12
Jeff, I am a Canon user in the film world, and own the 50mm 1.4 lens. I suspect the Nikon lenses that you are looking at are quite similar. When I was comparing the two lenses and trying to justify spending an extra $250 on the 1.4, I read in a lot of places that the Canon 1.8 had poor build quality and wasn't as sharp as the 1.4. So I was leaning towards the 1.4 when I walked into B&H. I did hold both of them in my hands there, and the 1.4 was so much more solid, and the focusing ring was a lot smoother. It may also have been the case that the 1.4 has manual focus override (can't remember the proper term right now) while the 1.8 may not, and that's become an important feature to me. In any case, I have been very happy with my purchase.

HOWEVER, if I had read what DPC users had to say about the 1.8 and seen their pictures, I very well might have saved myself some money and gone with the 1.8. The photos that I've seen here produced by that lens make me wonder the truthfulness of the comments about the 1.8 not being very sharp. Here, they look quite beautiful.

Now, remember, all of this rambling has been about the Canon lens. But my advice to you is the same. If you can, try to hold both lenses in your hand before deciding. If build quality is very important to you, then the 1.4 is probably going to be the answer. But if it's not as important, then you may want to consider saving your money.

I wish you the best of luck, and happy shooting! I look forward to seeing your work no matter which lens you choose.

-Liz
 11/23/2005 01:49:28 PM · #13
Originally posted by jbreedlove:
I would like a 50mm high speed lens and am wondering why such a cost difference between the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF($105)and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF($269)? As an amatuer photographer, why would I spend the extra money? Would the f/1.8 serve me fine? Thanks for your help.
--jb


I have both a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. I have had the 1.8 for many years and acquired the 1.4 only a couple of years ago when it was part of a package purchase off ebay. I had always wanted a 1.4 and expected a significant difference in sharpness, etc. Not so in my case. Both lenses are "soft" wide open, meaning tack sharp is NOT there. Even tripod mounted. At f/4-f/11 both will be very good. In hindsight, I would not pay the extra for a 1.4.


//www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

The above link can provide more information. I use this site for all my Nikkor lense reviews. Very dependable in my opinion.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 11:13:17.
 11/23/2005 02:07:59 PM · #14
I own the AF Nikkor 1.8 and just love it. It is great for taking pictures in low light situations, the colouring is more natural than if you use the flash. Often I do not use the tripod as I sometimes have to be quick to grab the camera to get a shot and don't have time to get the tripod. (When taking pictures of my daughter). I usually leave that lens on the camera all the time. The only problem I have is that I have to step back to fit the picture into the camera but that is a small price to pay. It makes the camera much lighter to carry than with the kit lens that came with the camera. If you want a lens hood, you need to get another to fit it. There is some noise at times but not enough to complain about, as that can be fixed with some computer processing. I would recommend it. As cheap as it is, if you don't like it, I'm sure someone else would be happy to take it off your hands.
 11/23/2005 04:17:49 PM · #15
The 1.4 can also give you a smaller DOF.

If you need the speed, you have no choice. But sometimes you may want to use the extra speed to go to a lower ISO to get better quality.
 11/23/2005 04:28:46 PM · #16
I bought the 1.8D last week and love it. I added an extension ring today and it has added much more to the lens.
11/27/2005 11:51:09 PM · #17
Pix, excuse the ignorance but what does the extension ring do?
 11/27/2005 11:56:56 PM · #18
Originally posted by jbreedlove:
Pix, excuse the ignorance but what does the extension ring do?


He probably means an extension tube, to allow macro focusing.

R.
 11/28/2005 12:34:17 AM · #19
actually, the aperture only opens up 22.4% wider on the 1.4 than the 1.8 if you want to get technical.

anyway, if you want it for portraits, I'd HIGHLY recommend saving your money and just getting the 85 1.8 -- there's a really nice rebate Nikon is offering on it right now.
 11/28/2005 12:42:21 AM · #20
I say go for the 1.4 I know in my own photography it has saved me quite a few times (more light) then my other lens. Anyway, I am sure the 1.8 is great aswell so get both.
 11/28/2005 01:16:39 AM · #21
I was faced with the same decision and have opted for the 1.8 which I will be getting next month. From my research, it appears the 1.8 is actually sharper than the 1.4 - many people will attest to this and the photos show it. In fact, according to this //www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html the 1.8 is Nikon's sharpest lens - not to be missed. Of course the 1.4 will give superior low light performance but 1.8 is already quite fast, so unless you have some very specialised needs, you are unlikely to miss the extra half-an-f/stop.
 11/28/2005 11:56:41 AM · #22
Originally posted by deapee:
actually, the aperture only opens up 22.4% wider on the 1.4 than the 1.8 if you want to get technical.

anyway, if you want it for portraits, I'd HIGHLY recommend saving your money and just getting the 85 1.8 -- there's a really nice rebate Nikon is offering on it right now.

I get 28.57% wider, but this is a linear dimension. You have to square it to get the ratio of light, in which case the difference is 1.65 times as much light with the 1.4 than the 1.8. Thus, you should be able to get a shutter speed that is that much faster at each len's widest aperature.

11/28/2005 01:29:45 PM · #23
Originally posted by hankk:
Originally posted by deapee:
actually, the aperture only opens up 22.4% wider on the 1.4 than the 1.8 if you want to get technical.

anyway, if you want it for portraits, I'd HIGHLY recommend saving your money and just getting the 85 1.8 -- there's a really nice rebate Nikon is offering on it right now.

I get 28.57% wider, but this is a linear dimension. You have to square it to get the ratio of light, in which case the difference is 1.65 times as much light with the 1.4 than the 1.8. Thus, you should be able to get a shutter speed that is that much faster at each len's widest aperature.


Well, since you need twice the area to get one stop, 1.4 vs 1.8 represents about 2/3 of a stop.
 11/30/2005 02:27:46 AM · #24
Well, I went ahead and got the f/1.8. Here's a pic from my first outing:


For comparison, here is a pic taken with my 70-300 lens:


Your thoughts? I kind of think the zoom lens brought out some lighting colors better in this particular shot. Only editing done in either shot was rotate and slight crop.

Jeff
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 09:28:10 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 09:28:10 AM EDT.