MTVision
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 3,008
- Reaction score
- 527
- Location
- Vermont, US
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
To follow up on this thread, I just got the 50mm f/1.8 for a gift with the thought that I could use it for indoor/outdoor portraits. I also own the Tokina 100m f/2.8 macro which also is good for outdoor portraits.
My question is this -- there does not seem to be a significant amount of difference between a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime. Why choose one over the other?
Also, why pay almost 2x as much for the 50mm f/1.4 versus the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor?
Thanks!
I own an 85mm f/1.4 and it is an outstanding lens for any kind of portraiture. It renders bokeh beautifully and provides excellent background control on a full frame camera. I also have a 50mm f/1.4, which I chose over the 50mm f/1.8 (Canon) for the extra stops, as well as the better build quality/manual focus override. The 50mm f/1.8 does not produce pleasing bokeh, but the 50mm f/1.4 does.
From Ken Rockwell's website on his review of the 50mm f/1.8:
"Bokeh, the character of out of focus backgrounds, not simply how far out of focus they are, is great. Out-of-focus backgrounds are always soft and never distract."
I've read, on a non-rockwell site, that the 1.8 and the 1.4, have pretty similar bokeh. The 1.4g is for fx/dx so if you ever want to go full frame you could still use the 50mm 1.4 on it!