50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8

JDP · Aug 25, 2006

So just how important is that extra half step aperature in the 1.4? Enough to warrant paying an additional $200 for it? ($140 for the 1.8 vs $340 for the 1.4). I like to do a lot of theater shots, and the 17-55mm 2.8 doesn't cut it because there's just a *tad* to much movement for it.
So I was thinking of getting the 50mm 1.8, since it's so much cheaper then the 1.4 - but will I regret it?
If it all works out well, I wanted to get the 85mm 1.8 as well (or the 105 or 135 f/2).
I just don't want to pickup a lens, then learn I should have actually gotten the other one, ya know?

So what I'm looking for is a lens that will work well for theater/dance/band shooting.

Big Mike · Aug 25, 2006

Try googling that...it's been discussed a million times over the Internet.

In the case of Canon lenses (other are probably similar) the F1.8 is a cheap lens both in price and quality of build (although the glass quality is pretty darn good). The F1.4, is only a little faster...which will help with low light...but not a whole lot. The build quality however, is significantly better...and people say that the Bokeh (out of focus area) is nicer with the F1.4

Orgnoi1 · Aug 25, 2006

Well your prices are a bit off... you can get 50/1.8II's for around $70-$80 and 50/1.8I's for around $125 if you can find one... the 50/1.4 changes from a regular motor to USM (quieter/faster) and adds 1/3 stop (I believe) on the fast end... so it really boils down to need vs. cash more then anything... I have had a 50/1.8I since I got into EOS cameras and its the one lens that has stuck with me from day 1...

Unimaxium · Aug 25, 2006

There's also the new f/1.2 version for $1600

I'd personally say save the money and go with the 1.8. The 1.4 has a more solid construction and a USM motor, but the optics aren't a whole lot better from what I've heard (I mean, they're better, but not a lot, unless you're really picky). I have the 1.8 and it's very sharp.

Here's a link to a good comparison between the two.

JDP · Aug 25, 2006

Well, these are Nikon prices. Local camera shop price for the 1.4, Froogle for the 1.8.

I was googling it, and found a lot of similar "Which one?" posts, so I thought I'd ask here. The camera store around here that rents lenses has the 1.4, but not the 1.8, otherwise I would rent both and see for myself.

I was sort of leaning with a 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8, but a lot of people were asking me "WTF go with 1.4? It won't help you that much more" - but if the build quality is better and the bokeh is better then I'm more then happy to spend the extra cash on the faster lens. I just wanted something that captured more light and wasn't as bulky as the 2.8 zooms

lomo · Aug 25, 2006

In my experience, the Nikon 50mm f1.4 is awesome, but you generally have to shoot at f2 to get rid of the distortion and make the image sharp. I would definatly go for the f1.8. It is an extremly sharp lens at f2-f8. Brilliant and nice and cheapish.

But if you go google this has been discussed since the dawn of time.

Orgnoi1 · Aug 25, 2006

ahhhh sorry I thought you were talking about Canon lenses... my bad...

Unimaxium · Aug 25, 2006

Orgnoi1 said:
ahhhh sorry I thought you were talking about Canon lenses... my bad...

ditto...

PNA · Aug 25, 2006

Check this web site for pricing on the f1.4......#8.

http://www.camerasandelectronics.com/subcat.asp

Sw1tchFX · Aug 28, 2006

You'll have to stop down at least one stop for clarity anyway, so you might as well go for the 1.8D over the 1.4 becuase with the 1.4D, you'll have paper-thin focus, and you'll be shooting at about f2 if you want any sort of sharpness anyway.

The f/1.4D is really aimed for portraits, not the theatre.