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

[iShootYou]

I'm interested in portraits, group portraits (group of 4-8 people) I don't know if that's the correct term, some landscape and close ups.

I'm a scrapbooking designer and I need to take photos of my finished projects 12x12 layouts) to upload online. Like taking pictures of a paper to show the finished results in it's true colors. I don't know if its called close ups or macro?

Anyhow these are my photography interest. I want to invest in gear that will last me a great while and not needing to upgrade often or too soon. Do want to start slow acquiring my gear though. I currently have my Nikon D90 and the kit lens 18-105mm 5.6 which it sucks for what I want to do portraits and I want that blurry background. A carbon ? something tripod which wasn't cheap (it's not the manfrotto) a good mid range tripod I would say.

This is all my current gear so what next? My budget every month about $200 to throw in for my gear. So in other words I have 200 this month and another 200 the following etc.

??? Can you give me your opinion considering my interests, budget, and current gear?

Thanks!
Zoe

 

[Kerbouchard]

For this month, my recommendation would be an SB-600. Next month, I would recommend a Manfrotto tripod(an aluminum one) which can be had for under $100 and a 50mm 1.8D which can also be had for under $100. The next month, I would recommend a light stand and reflector set(under $80). From there, you should know what you are lacking. (months two and three could be interchanged if need be and somewhere in there, I would swing by a Half-Priced Books to pick up a book on Photography that you enjoy the pictures in and has a writing style that you like) For books not likely to be in Half-Priced Books, I would say something by Rick Sammon is always good and even a Photography for Dummies or some sort of book like that would be worth while. Just to get a bit of background knowledge and some of the terminology. Photoshop Elements is another $80 or so bucks and is something that is worthwhile in investing in, although you can download it from Adobe for a free 30 day trial. From there, you can download Lightroom for a 30 day trial. After that, you can download Photoshop CS5 for a 30 day trial. That gives you about 90 days of free editing with top notch software to experiment with.(don't download them all at once, wait for one to expire before you go to the next one). By the end of the trial's, you should have a good idea what you need in editing software.

For free in the meantime, I would spend a bit of time over at http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/ and read the links on the right.

Edited to add: I may have misunderstood your last post. If you already have a tripod that you are happy with, please disregard the Manfrotto recommendation. That would mean in about two months, you could have a pretty complete kit, as long as you are willing to read up on the info to use it, and as always, we can help you out with any questions you have.

For what it's worth, it's often a good idea to post up a photo that you are unhappy with. That way we can tell you what we may have done differently or where you might be limited by equipment.

 

[djacobox372]

The f1.8g is BETTER then the f1.4g, and it cost less. The f1.4g is an old optical design that is soft with poor contrast below f2. The 1.8g will take better photosat f1.8 and f2. The only thing your giving up is a couple aperture blades and some very soft photos at f1.4.

 

[ronjohn]

1.8 lens is good enough, especially if you're new.

1.4 is a great lens though, but for a beginner I don't think it's going to be worth it for you.

 

[9ballprodigy]

1.4g specs: Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G Review

1.8g specs: Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G

as for me, i think the best bang for your buck will be the 1.8g. ED element, faster focusing, and if i'm not mistaken, it's sharper in terms of image quality. but if you must have that extra-large aperture...

 

[iShootYou]

Thank you Kerbouchard for the awesome info. And yes, I already purchased a tripod last month for over $200 it's a 3 section carbon 8x tripod(80000 series) whatever that is. I also bought the 3 way quick release head, a reflector the one with the gold/silver, white/black sides. The tripod IMO its great it wasn't the cheapest or extremely expensive tripod. I got a mid range the other ones were cheaper made and cost and the other ones were around $600-800 which that to me its way too much to invested in a tripod.

In school they will show us how to use LR 3 for editing, right now our instructor suggested Picassa to get an editing feel then once I learn how to use LR I will purchase it from my local camera store (Calumet) as a student I can get a discount. NOw the light stand what's that? is this to help hold the round reflector disk?

I will look into some books. Our instructor mentioned Kelby's books for LR. Thank you so much for the info will look into Sammon book.

Zoe

 

[iShootYou]

Thanks for the info. Why do say it won't be worth for me is there something I should know about this lens that I'm totally missing?

 

[KmH]

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

Yes it will. But!

Using wide apertures and short subject to image sensor distances produces very shallow depth-of-field (DoF), which makes it difficult to control what is in focus and what is blurred.

You could have both of a person's eyes sharply focused if they are posed with both eyes exactly the same distance from the camera, but if the pose has one eye closer to the camera than the other the DoF can be so shallow that only one eye can be in focus.

To get those nice, sharp focused subject blurred background shots, many pros use much longer focal lengths to take advantage of background compression. If you look at some videos on YouTube you will see many of the pros using 70-200 mm zoom lenses for portraiture, not 50 mm priime lenses.

I mostly used a 200 mm prime lens for portraiture. A secondary benefit of using a focal length longer than 50 mm is the photographer doesn't have to invade the subjects personal space to make the image.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

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

Yes it will. But!

Using wide apertures and short subject to image sensor distances produces very shallow depth-of-field (DoF), which makes it difficult to control what is in focus and what is blurred.

You could have both of a person's eyes sharply focused if they are posed with both eyes exactly the same distance from the camera, but if the pose has one eye closer to the camera than the other the DoF can be so shallow that only one eye can be in focus.

To get those nice, sharp focused subject blurred background shots, many pros use much longer focal lengths to take advantage of background compression. If you look at some videos on YouTube you will see many of the pros using 70-200 mm zoom lenses for portraiture, not 50 mm priime lenses.

I mostly used a 200 mm prime lens for portraiture. A secondary benefit of using a focal length longer than 50 mm is the photographer doesn't have to invade the subjects personal space to make the image.

And us students too, more-so on the 200 side than the 70 for portraiture

 

[iShootYou]

Oh, great! Just what I needed another must have lens! Jeez, I thought Photography was a fun Art not so much a spending and constantly adding parts and pieces to this craft! Arg!

 

[thereyougo!]

Oh, great! Just what I needed another must have lens! Jeez, I thought Photography was a fun Art not so much a spending and constantly adding parts and pieces to this craft! Arg!

Photography is a bottomless pit financially as my wife constantly complains!

 

[KmH]

If you think photography is bad, don't ever consider doing any kind of auto racing.

The joke at the races is - If you want to make a small fortune from racing, start with a large fortune.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Oh, great! Just what I needed another must have lens! Jeez, I thought Photography was a fun Art not so much a spending and constantly adding parts and pieces to this craft! Arg!

And now, you are beginning to understand the recommendations of the 50mm 1.8 instead of the 50mm 1.4. Photography at the top end is very, very expensive, but all of the manufacturers make consumer grade gear as well and there is also the used market.

For instance, instead of the 70-200 2.8, which is an amazing lens(for more than $2000), you can go with the 80-200 2.8 for around $600. Also an amazing lens, just a few less bells and whistles. Or you could go with the 70-300 VR for around $400(a good, but not amazing lens). Or a 55-200 for less than $200(borderline decent).

See, if you start out with I need the 50mm 1.4 because it's better than the 50mm 1.8, you're not going to get very far especially when your budget is around $200 a month. Baby steps. Most people don't have the money to go out and buy the best of everything, it's just too cost prohibitive.

 

[Scarlet Siren]

For a first new lens I went with 1.4G. I don't regret it! It's been a joy to use with my D5100