Are the 50mm 1.4 & the 50mm 1.8 the same?

[iShootYou]

In terms of aperture let's say if I have the 1.4 can't I go to 1.8 with it? Instead of buying or having both lenses... I hope my question makes sense.

If yes or no why?


Thanks!
Zoe

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

 

[pharmakon]

If you can afford the 1.4 then get it. It is a higher quality lens. You would have no need to get both as 1.4 reflects the Maximum aperture and you could always stop down to 1.8.

 

[Kerbouchard]

If you aren't sure of the differences between the 1.4 and the 1.8, I would recommend the 1.8.

 

[pharmakon]

If you aren't sure of the differences between the 1.4 and the 1.8, I would recommend the 1.8.

haha I wasn't going to go there, but hey if money is no object why not go all out?

 

[Dao]

In terms of aperture let's say if I have the 1.4 can't I go to 1.8 with it? Instead of buying or having both lenses... I hope my question makes sense.

If yes or no why?


Thanks!
Zoe

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum

Do you mean if you have a 50mm f/1.4 lens, can you use it and set the aperture to f/1.8? If that is what you mean, the answer is yes.

 

[casegrl]

My first attempt with the 50mm 1.4

 

[Josh66]

If you aren't sure of the differences between the 1.4 and the 1.8, I would recommend the 1.8.

haha I wasn't going to go there, but hey if money is no object why not go all out?

I tend to agree with pharmakon.

If you can afford the better lens (the 1.4), get the better lens.

Getting the cheaper lens only because you do not really understand why it is cheaper could (in this case) do more harm than good.


I don't really understand why you would recommend an inferior product (and the is no doubt that the 1.8 is inferior to the 1.4) to someone simply because they don't know why it is inferior. If budget is a concern, yes - the 1.8 is a good lens. If the cost of the 1.4 won't break the bank, I would get that. You'll be glad you did in the long run.

 

[Kerbouchard]

If you aren't sure of the differences between the 1.4 and the 1.8, I would recommend the 1.8.

haha I wasn't going to go there, but hey if money is no object why not go all out?

I tend to agree with pharmakon.

If you can afford the better lens (the 1.4), get the better lens.

Getting the cheaper lens only because you do not really understand why it is cheaper could (in this case) do more harm than good.


I don't really understand why you would recommend an inferior product (and the is no doubt that the 1.8 is inferior to the 1.4) to someone simply because they don't know why it is inferior. If budget is a concern, yes - the 1.8 is a good lens. If the cost of the 1.4 won't break the bank, I would get that. You'll be glad you did in the long run.

If somebody doesn't understand that a prime lens has an adjustable aperture or the difference between those apertures, I would say that a specialty lens(yes, I would consider any 1.4 prime to be a specialty lens), is probably not appropriate or cost effective at this point in the photographers progression.

Yes, the 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the 1.8. Is it a few hundred dollars better to a beginning photographer who doesn't understand aperture? IMO, no. That's why I gave the advice that I did.

Also, FWIW, I will always recommend a first flash before a first prime. Always.

Again, those are just my personal opinions. That's the beauty of an online forum. The OP gets to ask a question and get all manner of different answers. On another note, I really didn't intend to be rude or condescending in my post. I worked hard to reword it a couple of times to come off less so. Just by the few sentences the OP typed, I gather they have an entry level DSLR(no idea which type, although it makes a difference in this case because of autofocus limitations with certain camera bodies/lenses), and they have a kit lens. I take it they probably aren't getting as good of indoor pictures as they had anticipated, so now they are looking for a fast prime because they read online that it would help. They know the 1.4 is more expensive, so think it will probably be best for their purposes, but aren't exactly sure. Again, these are just my guesses. Guessing all that, I recommend the cheaper option, leaving the OP room for their budget for a flash, which will actually make a difference. Again, just my personal opinions.

 

[Derrel]

Not sure if you're talking in general,theoretical terms, or actual lenses. NIKON's newest 50mm 1.8 AF-S G series lens focuses faster than their 1.4 G series lens does....and the 1.8 model has aspherical lens elements and a VERY good optical design...a recent 50mm vs 50mm test I saw comparing 7 different 50's semed to indicate that the "best, all-around" 50mm for Nikon mount is the NEW 1.8 AF-S G model...

In Canon's EF line, I think very poorly of their 1.8 EF-II model, but think their 1.4 model is optically much better, with prettier bokeh and MUCH better flare resistance when shot toward bright lights. No offense to Canon 50/1.8 owners, but that lens is rwally a disgrace...it is inferior to multiple 40-year old 50mm f/2 manual focus designs, and even Nikon's old cheap Series E 50/1.8,which was nothing special...I gave my 50 1.8 EF-II away to my wife's nephew when he went off to the Art Institute to study photography and have never,ever once wanted it back...

 

[Josh66]

Also, FWIW, I will always recommend a first flash before a first prime. Always.

I would also highly recommend a flash, but "before a prime", I don't get that. You could be a perfectly capable photographer with nothing but primes. The cost wouldn't even be drastically different than a photographer who used zooms (of the same quality).

A flash is important - yes.

But - say someone buys the 50mm 1.8 because it is cheaper. They soon discover how awesome a fast prime can be, and learn about the differences between the 1.8 and the 1.4... Now they want the 1.4 version... So now they have to buy two lenses of the same focal length and either be stuck with a lens they never use, or sell it for a loss. I would rather just buy the one you're going to keep the first time.


Although - yes, if budget is a major concern and you just can't wait the months that it would take to save the extra money for the better lens, the 1.8 is good too. Just know that you will end up paying more in the long run because eventually you will want to replace that lens.

 

[iShootYou]

Thank you all. Great tips for a photography student in need of all the info I can get.

Money is not an issue I can afford the 50mm 1.4 D so I will get it for Xmas from my hubby.

I'm really looking to get those sharp subject and blurry background images. Have read this lens will do.

And about flash? I'm not there yet now- I'm still trying to figure out the technical part of photography which has been a !$&@ if you ask me.

Thanks!
Zoe

 

[Josh66]

And about flash? I'm not there yet now- I'm still trying to figure out the technical part of photography which has been a !$&@ if you ask me.

A flash is one of those things that everyone thinks they don't need starting out, but eventually you'll get one. Once you get one, you'll wish you had gotten it sooner.

It's the kind of thing you have to experience to know what you've been missing. Or you could just take our word for it.

 

[iShootYou]

So which flash do you recommend for my Nikon D90 and why?

And also is flash used only for dark indoor situations? How many flashes to start out with and how much are they approximately?

Will the flash come with the wireless trigger?

Thanks!

 

[Josh66]

I don't know the Nikon flashes well...

No! Flash is not only for dark indoor situations (though it is good for that). You can use it outside in the sun for fill light to get rid of harsh shadows.

To start out, one should be fine. Expect to spend between $300 (?) and $500.

Unless you get some sort of package deal, it will not come with wireless triggers - but depending on your camera you may not even need them. Nikon has the advantage there. Not sure about the D90 specifically...

 

[Kerbouchard]

So which flash do you recommend for my Nikon D90 and why?

And also is flash used only for dark indoor situations? How many flashes to start out with and how much are they approximately?

Will the flash come with the wireless trigger?

Thanks!

Ahh, a D90. See, that adds a whole new dimension. Your D90 actually does not need a wireless trigger to control the SB600, 700, 800, or 900. It can do it with it's built in flash. In any case, I wasn't even really referring to an off-camera flash. More a flash that you can mount on your hot shoe, and then point it in the direction that you want the light to bounce off of. In any case, an SB-600 is around $200, I think the 700 is around 3 something, and the SB-800 can usually be found in the $320 range. The SB900 is a bit higher.

My recommendations, if your budget is around the price of the 50mm 1.4, would be the 50mm 1.8 and an SB600. I've actually assisted in a few weddings with the D90, 50mm 1.8 and SB600.

My gear has advanced significantly since then, but it's a very capable combo in just about any circumstance. It allows you off camera flash, a fast prime, on camera flash with bounce capabilities, and is a great bang for the buck.

As Derrel pointed out, the new 50mm 1.8 at around $220 actually focuses faster than the 50mm 1.4, which may be a consideration for you.

If budget was no concern, the 50mm 1.4 and SB900 are better choices. You really have a lot of options. Honestly, none of them are bad choices.

What is your total budget? From there, I could tell you what I would spend it on, knowing what I know now. FWIW, I advanced along the exact same upgrade path you are on now.

If you let us know the type of photography you primarily do, that would help, also. Indoors, outdoors? Moving subjects? Landscapes? People?