nikon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8

[Ejazzle]

is it worth it to buy the f/1.4 instead onf the f/1.8

its a pretty large price difference. this is why i am asking.

thanks everyone


ej

 

[K_Pugh]

i think this has been discussed before. I, myself just bought the 1.8 as i can't justify buying the 1.4 at the moment with the hike in price over the 1.8. I'd rather spend the cash saved on buying things i needed, cokin filters, reflectors etc..

As far as i know the 1.4 is a better built lens, metal i think over the plastic 1.8, probably feels a lot nicer to use etc.. that and being faster i'm not entirely sure if the optics are any better?

 

[JerryPH]

Well, there are other alternatives too... like a Sigma 30mm F/1.4 lens.

Gives me what I want at a reasonable proce.

 

[Peter_pan91]

Correct me if i'm wrong but, as opposed to canon, i think (and i have read a number of reviews that confirm this) there is a minimal difference in the build quality of the nikon 1.4 and 1.8, and both have a metal mount and similar build materials.

Pete

 

[RMThompson]

From a technical standpoint, I can say that the extra .4 in F-stops is handy, but far from worth it.

When I first got my 50mm 1.8 I thought it was ONLY to be used at 1.8, and left it wide open all the time - If my pictures were too bright, oh well.

I later learned that the beauty of this lens is NOT the 1.8, but just option of going that low when needed.

I do keep it at 1.8 sometimes, but I change it just as often. Not once have I ever said "Dang I wish I could push this to 1.4". If it was a zoom or had macro, maybe to capture some tiny movement, but as it is the 1.8 can do enough.

That being said, I've HEARD the build quality of the 1.4 is better, but I think the 1.8 is mighty fine.

Put that money towards a nice flash, you'll be thankful!

 

[tirediron]

Unless you need it probably not. I bought the 1.4 only because I was able to get a bit of a deal on it.

 

[Ejazzle]

thanks guys! i already have a flash (sb-800)

i think i'll go for the 1.8

i want to get a good macro lens too.....

 

[Early]

I don't know which is better used wide open, but I'd be willing to bet a six pack the 1.4 is sharper at f2, plus it's so much brighter when you have manual focus.

I had both in the AIs manual version, and although I never tested them side by side, I was of the opinion the 1.4 had it all over the 1.8.

Personally, I would go the extra $200 and get the 1.4.

 

[Ejazzle]

good point early.

anyone else?

 

[JerryPH]

Correct me if i'm wrong but, as opposed to canon, i think (and i have read a number of reviews that confirm this) there is a minimal difference in the build quality of the nikon 1.4 and 1.8, and both have a metal mount and similar build materials.

Unless there are several 50mm F/1.8's out there, I don't think so. I have the 50mm F/1.8 and its all plastic in terms of casing. The price also reflects this at under $110 (I found mine NIB for $105 shipped to Canada last year).


HERE is the F/1.4 at $300

HERE is the F/1.8 at under $110

There is a lot more to this than just the aperture differences.

I kinda also disagree with Early... manual focus has nothing to do with it being brighter. Assuming you can focus as accurately as automatic (which I highly doubt, especially when you are trying to catch something quick), the exposure will be identical with either picture. In real life, manual focus is a PITA to get right... especially at F/1.4, and this I know from experience using my 30mm F/1.4 Sigma. We're talking razor thin DOFs! A hair off on the manual adjustment could easily mean blurred eyes... and this is not something you can tell using most modern digital camera viewfinders. You'll see it when it's too late... after you bring the picture on your computer screen.

As far as the F/1.4 being sharper at F/2 than the F/1.8... I cannot say for sure. To be fair about this, you would need to have the 2 lenses side by side and do your own tests... however, based on build quality, I would think that the chances are pretty good that the F/1.4 is sharper. It is, after all, near 3 times the price.

 

[Mike_E]

Get the f/1.8 and a 28mm f/2.8 AFD (if you don't already have one that is).

(you'll thank me later)

 

[JerryPH]

I think I would base my decision off of:

A - How experienced are you?
B- What kind of camera do you have?
c - How do you shoot? Can you REALLY justify the cost of the F/1.4 to yourself?
d - what's your budget, can you easily afford the F/1.4?

In the end, the only person that can answer that... is you.

 

[theadamsociety]

Correct me if i'm wrong but, as opposed to canon, i think (and i have read a number of reviews that confirm this) there is a minimal difference in the build quality of the nikon 1.4 and 1.8, and both have a metal mount and similar build materials.

Pete

Nikon 50mm 1.4 is a way better build than the 1.8.
1.4 weighs twice as much.

 

[Joves]

Yes but the 1.8 is a more than adequate lense. It has a metal mount and, mine has taken some fairly good abuse. And it still keeps working.

 

[Garbz]

Build quality wise the f/1.8 is pretty good. Much better than the canon equivalent.

However the real selling point of the f/1.4 is just as early mentioned. Unlike the canon the Nikon f/1.8 is just plain shocking at f/1.8. Soft doesn't being to describe this effect which makes it almost useless at that aperture. All of Nikon's 50mm are like that even my old Nikkor 50mm f/1.2.

The key is if you're going to get an f/1.8 expect to shoot at f/2.8 if you want a decent picture out of it. Although you can get away with f/1.8 in low contrast or portrait situations where a bit of softness may actually be preferred.

The f/1.4 on the other hand is well controlled and matches the build quality of other Nikkor pro lenses. As said before the f/1.8 is not bad, but the f/1.4 definitely is nicer to handle. Also as early said at f/2 it's quite sharp. Wide open again it suffers all the same extreme problems that the f/1.8 does wide open.

The choice is ultimately yours. I have used the f/1.4 and wished that I spent the extra money over the f/1.8.