1.4 vs 1.8?

[mcoppadge]

I'm looking at getting a Nikon 50mm. I'm pretty set on the 1.8 over the 1.4, mainly because of the price difference (as I've mentioned in other threads asking about lenses, price is a huge factor). I'm just curious as to how much better the 1.4 actually is over the 1.8. I'm simply assuming it's much better because of the drastic price difference, but for what and how I shoot it probably doesn't make much of a difference.

 

[PhotoXopher]

It's pretty tough to justify the 1.4G in comparison to the 1.8D (not sure on the other versions).

 

[JerryPH]

No contest. Google reviews for each... however, my next lens looks to be the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 and it is sharper than the Nikon, and all the research shows that the bokeh is sweeter as well as being a larger lens.

I love shallow DOF, it adds so much to my shots and especially when I am shooting in dark locations it makes the difference between getting the shot and getting motion blur.

I wish all my lenses were F/1.4, I'd be in heaven... lol

Do you shoot a lot in dark locations? Do you shoot a lot using shallow DOF? If you answer yes to both, F/1.4 is your friend.

Comparing the 1.4D vs 1.4G... there are sharpness and bokeh quality improvements and less flare de to better glass on the newer models. Since I shoot a LOT in low light and love shallow DOF, and the newer Sigma researches as being a small step above the Nikkor, that is the one for me. Mind you, I use a D700 (full fame sensor), I did not research results for any other camera in mind.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I had the Sigma 1.4, couldn't get a sharp shot with it... chalk it up to a bad copy I suppose. Bokeh on it was awesome however.

 

[mcoppadge]

No contest. Google reviews for each... however, my next lens looks to be the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 and it is sharper than the Nikon, and all the research shows that the bokeh is sweeter as well as being a larger lens.

I love shallow DOF, it adds so much to my shots and especially when I am shooting in dark locations it makes the difference between getting the shot and getting motion blur.

I wish all my lenses were F/1.4, I'd be in heaven... lol

Do you shoot a lot in dark locations? Do you shoot a lot using shallow DOF? If you answer yes to both, F/1.4 is your friend.

Comparing the 1.4D vs 1.4G... there are sharpness and bokeh quality improvements and less flare de to better glass on the newer models. Since I shoot a LOT in low light and love shallow DOF, and the newer Sigma researches as being a small step above the Nikkor, that is the one for me. Mind you, I use a D700 (full fame sensor), I did not research results for any other camera in mind.

I've gone on Amazon and reviewed both but I just don't know if the difference is worth the price. I'll definitely check out the Sigma, too.

I shoot a lot with low light...concert shots, candid indoor shots, etc. And shallow DOF is also awesome, though I don't always need it.

 

[ANDS!]

I'm looking at getting a Nikon 50mm. I'm pretty set on the 1.8 over the 1.4, mainly because of the price difference (as I've mentioned in other threads asking about lenses, price is a huge factor). I'm just curious as to how much better the 1.4 actually is over the 1.8. I'm simply assuming it's much better because of the drastic price difference, but for what and how I shoot it probably doesn't make much of a difference.

You are getting 2/3rds more light on the 1.4 versus the 1.8. That isn't anything to sneeze at to be sure, however in practical purposes you have to ask "Will I need that extra 2/3rds stop?" I have both (because I found a great deal on a 1.4), but realistically, the 1.8 manages for pretty much every situation I have had the 1.4 in.

Now if the goal is bukkakeh - both will produce pleasing results.

 

[blash]

Its got a little better bokeh and a little bit better body construction. Totally worth the extra $200 in my opinion; but keep in mind that price increases exponentially next to features in photography in general. The f/1.4D is more of a... quadratic increase, so it's worth the money to me.

 

[musicaleCA]

I'd go with the f/1.4, for the sake of smoother bokeh.

 

[PhotoXopher]

Edit: Nevermind my comment, I was thinking the 50mm 1.4G ($480)

 

[kundalini]

I've gone on Amazon and reviewed both but I just don't know if the difference is worth the price. I'll definitely check out the Sigma, too.

Not to be a smartass, but reviews from Amazon, or for that matter the ones on B&H or Adorama, are anecdotal. Which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I like to know what field experiences people have with a particular product I'm interested in. However, I'm not so sure that my cousin's sister's uncle on her mother's side who used to be friends with this guy that took pictures at a wedding (oops, bad word) r-e-a-l-l-y knows how to evaluate a lens. I want lab results and an unbiased assesment.

For lens reviews, I usually check with most of the following:
photozone.de
dpreview.com
thomhogan.com
fredmiranda.com
... and a few others that are book marked but not in my head atm.

I think one thing that has been overlooked in this very good conversation is that of actual use vs the cost. The f/1.4 cost more for a reason. To be honest, EVERYONE will take whichever lens and shoot wide open to see how cool a shallow DoF is. This will be short lived and will only ocassionally become necessary in a hit-and-miss fashion. Typically, you will stop down the lens from f/2.8 to f/4 because you can then actually have a useful aperture for day-to-day shots. I think the important fact is that if you stop down both of those lenses to f/2.8, take side by side shots, then the cost difference will rise to the top.

I went with the 50mm f/1.8 because I couldn't justify the 4x cost for the /1.4. A good choice for me because NOW I am a much more conscientious consumer and I demand top shelf. That's the problem once you get really good glass. I am up for replacing my f/1.8, but I am inclined to go with the Sigma f/1.4, because I have researched.

Just my 2¢.

 

[mcoppadge]

Its got a little better bokeh and a little bit better body construction. Totally worth the extra $200 in my opinion; but keep in mind that price increases exponentially next to features in photography in general. The f/1.4D is more of a... quadratic increase, so it's worth the money to me.

A little better bokeh and a little bit better body construction is worth $200? Not for me, unfortunately, although I wish it was.
I don't get what you mean by quadratic increase...

Not to be a smartass, but reviews from Amazon, or for that matter the ones on B&H or Adorama, are anecdotal. Which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I like to know what field experiences people have with a particular product I'm interested in.

I understand this. I do much more research than simply reviewing Amazon customer reviews. I come here and ask questions (here I am!), visit other review sites, and ask photographer friends who have used one or the other or both.

 

[kundalini]

I don't get what you mean by quadratic increase....

Using B&H prices.... 50mm f/1.8 @ $135 vs f/1.4 @ 480 is close enough for government work to say that it's 4 times the cost.

I understand this. I do much more research than simply reviewing Amazon customer reviews. I come here and ask questions (here I am!), visit other review sites, and ask photographer friends who have used one or the other or both.

:thumbup: I had half a mind you'd do so, but some people......... :er:

 

[mcoppadge]

Gotcha.

 

[Defy]

either will be 10x better in low light then what you have(well not really 10 times but you catch my drift). But i also see you have a speed light, i have found that even though i have the 1.8 i end up using it at like 2.8 very rarely do i get less. But maybe thats because the 70-200mm 2.8 and my 35-70mm 2.8 fight for my attention (and tend to win). Really the only time i use the 50mm is when i don't want to carry a heavy lens to a dinner with friends or something, but then i normally go for the 35mm and stick the 50mm in my wife's purse.

Get the 1.8, you won't notice the difference if you never shoot with the 1.4 :mrgreen:

 

[Garbz]

Here's one thing to note. Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D @ f/1.8 is horridly soft. Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4D @ f/1.4 is also soft. However Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4D @ 1.8 is very sharp indeed.

I have a Nikkor AI-S 55mm f/1.2. I rarely use it at f/1.2, but at f/2 it's getting amongst the sharpest lenses I own, which is something I can't say for the 50mm f/1.8D.