Better Low Light Lens?

[docphysics]

I was wondering which type of lens would be better at capturing images in low light situations, a 50mm f/1.8 or a 50mm f/1.4? Thanks!

 

[Plato]

I was wondering which type of lens would be better at capturing images in low light situations, a 50mm f/1.8 or a 50mm f/1.4? Thanks!

Obviously the f/1.4 but whether the difference is worth the cost is up to the purchaser.

 

[docphysics]

ok, thanks! f/1.4 it is.

 

[Stormin]

There are also quality features to take into consideration as well. Just because the f1.4 is a "faster" lens, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the best lens.

Which 50mm f.18 and 50mm f1.4 are you comparing?

 

[docphysics]

I just don't know anything about lenses, so I was trying to figure out which lens lets in more light, and then figure out what a good lens would be. I am new to DSLR and trying to figure out a good setup to buy.

 

[thenikonguy]

if your new, and just a hobbist, the 1.8 will likely be enough for you..

 

[DScience]

the 1.8 is a very nice lens. But the 1.4 is an amazing piece of glass, that I personally wouldn't live without.

 

[Jaszek]

I say if you have the money go for the 1.4

 

[EleanorW]

if your new, and just a hobbist, the 1.8 will likely be enough for you..

Don't mean to start something here, just have a question about that comment. Even if you're new, and currently a hobbyist, shouldn't one get the better lense if they can? I think of it as buying a good quality lense now and not having to 'upgrade' later if/when the 'hobby' becomes more serious.

 

[Dao]

After you learn more about lenses, you may noticed that sometimes, it is hard to say one lens is better the other. There are a lot of factors and diffferent photographyers rate the factors differently. Especially when cost is one of the factor.

If just for low light alone, of course F/1.4 is better than F/1.8 being able to open the aperture wider.

But when you compare 50mm F/1.4 vs 50mm F/1.8, I do not think I can tell you which one is better for you. I know which one is better for me at this moment.

 

[thenikonguy]

Don't mean to start something here, just have a question about that comment. Even if you're new, and currently a hobbyist, shouldn't one get the better lense if they can? I think of it as buying a good quality lense now and not having to 'upgrade' later if/when the 'hobby' becomes more serious.

I knew someone would say that.. my thought is yes, and no.. the truth is, you wouldnt need to upgrade from the 1.8 to the 1.4 you may want to add the 1.4 to your bag, but, the 1.8 is an amazing lens, and is used by professionals and hobbyists alike..

 

[EleanorW]

Ok then.. that makes more sense Speaking of lenses I use a Sony, have the kit lense 18-70 and the zoom 75-300. I've been thinkg about getting a 50mm sometime this fall/winter. Would that be the next logical choice in lenses?

 

[JerryPH]

I have a few personal rules concerning lenses:

1. NEVER buy kit lenses. They are low priced for a reason... LOW quality.

2. Research and KNOW your needs before buying.

3. Buy once and buy the best, even if that means not buying immediately, becuase you have to save longer and be without. Lenses, more than a good body (within reason) will always give you better final results. Also, a good lens 20 years ago, is a good lens today, AND will be a good lens in the future. A crap lens bought today will ALWAYS be a crap lens... forever.

I buy the fastest glass I can. Even if I never needed anything faster than F/1.8, I would get the F/1.4 becuase at F/1.8, the F/1.4 lens is sharper than a F/1.8 lens at F/1.8. No lens is it's sharpest at it's widest. When you need wider apertures, the F/1.4 has the advantage.

I went out last night to do an engagement session. Before the session and a little bit afterwards, I did a little street photography. They were all done using the Sigma 50mm F/1.4. In night street photography, I was happy that I had that F/1.4 (and a camera that gave me clean ISO 1600... lol). You can see how that lens worked for me at THIS link.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Buy once and buy the best, even if that means not buying immediately, becuase you have to save longer and be without.

Agreed. The price is a consideration but only you know your finances. If you can afford the 1.4, go with it. I don't quite see the point of having both a 1.8 and 1.4. And if you can't afford the 1.4 right now but know that is the lens you want, just wait and keep saving.

If you go with a 1.8, you may want to look at used ones. They are all over the place.

The big question is what you need. Do you need the 1.4? Yes they tend to be better quality than the 1.8 but do you need that extra quality. I got the fastest lenses available for my film cameras because I worked as a photojournalist and the fast lens are a necessity. When I bought my DSLR, I only got the 1.8 because I don't need anything better for what I do now.

The best lens for you is not necessarily the best lens out there. If it was, why not go with the 1.2? It is only 10 times as expensive



Edit = You're asking for low-light best but you don't say what kind of low light situations you are thinking about. If your photos can be done with a tripod, save the difference in cost, go with 1.8 and put the rest towards a tripod.

 

[Derrel]

In Nikon, the 50mm f/1.8 AF or AF-D and the 50mm f/1.4 AF or AF-D lenses have been unchanged for years, so if you're considering the Nikkor f/1.8 versus the Nikkor 1.4 in the AF-D versions, there really is not a lot of quality difference between the two lens speeds. Unless you buy the newest 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G Nikkor, which has one problem that might make it less-suitable for low-light work, and that is its very slow autofocusing. There's not "that" much difference between the 1.8 and 1.4 Nikkor lenses in the screwdriver focusing designs.

In many low-light situations, capturing 'better images' depends more of focusing speed and focusing accuracy and focusing reliability, than on ultimate optical quality. Most image shot of 3-D objects in low light annot be rendered all that well at f/1.4 or at f/1.8,and you end up shooting at f/2.8 or so in order to have adequate depth of field to render subjects well, so the difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 Nikkor lenses is quite small. c cloudwalker's advice is good--look for a used 50mm lens....the last 50/1.8 I bought I payed $40 for at a pawn shop that sells a lot of camera goods.

In Canon, the difference in optics, design, build quality, and bokeh, as well as AF speed, AF loudness, and AF reliability between the 50 1.8 EF-II and the 50/1.4 EF lens is very substantial; the 50mm f/1.4 Canon EF is an order of magnitude better than the 1.8 EF-II model in almost all categories.