nikon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8

McQueen278 · Jun 28, 2008

1.8 stats.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...kor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report?start=1

1.4 stats.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...af-50mm-f14-d-review--lab-test-report?start=1

To sum it up, the 1.8 is sharper, but has more CA to worry about.

30mm 1.4 just for fun.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...0mm-f14-ex-hsm-dc-test-report--review?start=1

Ejazzle · Jun 29, 2008

Mcqueen, what is CA?

so its really easy to over expose images with the 1.4? and 1.8?

Mike E, justify your statement please.

taracor · Jun 29, 2008

Personally I would go with the 1.8 It is still a great lens, and if you buy it you will still have like 100$ to put towards something else.

If you can EASILY afford the 1.4, then sure, but since you are having hesitations, I would go with the 1.8, you won't regret it.

Tinstafl · Jun 29, 2008

I used to have a 1.4 and well it was lost along with other stuff in the move. Where and why I do not know but someone has a nice lens. I replaced it with a 1.8 it works ok too. Not a nice as the 1.4 imho but not really much of a difference in most situations and it was cheaper.

Garbz · Jun 29, 2008

CA = Chromatic Aberration. Often present in cyan / red or green / purple colour shift around a high contrast subject. Can also be used to describe purple fringing seen on photos when you photograph the sun reflecting in water for instance.

McQueen's links show what I was saying. At f/1.8 the f/1.8 lens is quite poor indeed at the borders, and sharp in the centre. This is clearly visible if you photo has details. But the f/1.4 at f/2 (within 1/3rd of a stop of f/1.8) has twice the border sharpness and nearly identical centre sharpness. At f/2.8 the f/1.4 outperforms the f/1.8. Wow there are numbers everywhere!

Over exposure has nothing to do with the lens. You get 1/3rd of a stop more light out of a 1.4 than a 1.8, so if depth of field isn't a concern but shutter speed is it may allow you to shoot at 1/80th instead of 1/60th which could make all the difference for handheld shooting at the very limits.

I will say what Mike_E is probably referring to is that a 50mm lens on an APS body like most digital SLRs does not approximate the perspective distortion of human vision like it used to on film. A 28-35mm lens better approximates this, and I know quite a few people are much happier with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens linked above than their 50mm lenses, despite it's astonishingly crap performance at f/1.4.

Ejazzle · Jul 1, 2008

this is so tuff.......

Garbz · Jul 1, 2008

Simplification:

f/1.4 advantage: Higher quality, better build, potential to use at f/1.4 giving you better depth of field, and a potential 1/3rd stop increase in shutter speed.

disadvantage: double the price.

Food for thought: If you have the money you will hate yourself less later when your hobby kicks off and you want to start testing the limits. If you have the money you will hate yourself now for a few weeks because you spent $200 more than you can justifiably figure out you needed to. If you don't have the money you have no option anyway.

Bifurcator · Jul 1, 2008

Exactly right.

You know U rite!

That the way it is.

That how it be.

For sure man.

Copy that.

And, ahem, other expressions of agreement.

Mav · Jul 1, 2008

If you have to ask, just get the 1.8. If you realize you want or need the 1.4 later, just sell your 1.8 for the same price you paid for it if you bought used (or $10-20 less if buying new) and then put that towards the 1.4. You'll be out very little money.

Edit: BTW 1.8 vs 1.4 is two-thirds of a stop, not one-third.

Samriel · Jul 2, 2008

I'm in a similar dilemma, so I'm going to (kinda) hijack the thread and put in another competitor:
Lets say I was stuck between the 50mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 and I was going to get the 50mm 1.4 for about USD260. But than I see the 85mm 1.8 for about USD290. The 85mm is 2/3 stops slower, and because of the 35mm (on my D80 ~50mm) difference, I'll need more working distance. On the other hand, the 85mm is better build, and has better lab performance then the 50mm 1.4.
Now lets say I shoot mostly portraits and nudes, outdoors as well as in environments where I can control the light (quasi-studio), and lets say I have enough working space to use both lenses - which one would you recommend?
If I get the 85mm 1.8, I was thinking of getting the 35mm f/2 one day instead of getting the 50mm ones. I have a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and a Tokina 100 Macro 2.8 (and an 80s Nikkon kit tele-zoom 70-200mm) at the moment.

Mav · Jul 2, 2008

I don't care what lab tests say. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 has much creamier and smoother bokeh than the 85mm f/1.8 does, which is actually on the harsh and ugly side with respect to bokeh. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85/1.8 was a little sharper, but there's far more to lenses than sharpness and lab tets. I sold my Nikkor 85/1.8 mainly because of the ugly bokeh rendering. In a studio or if you can control your background this won't matter as much, but I had one too many outdoor portraits ruined with the ugly bokeh of the 85/1.8, which is why I'm just sticking with the 50/1.4 for now. If you really want a nice lens for portrait work, the 85mm f/1.4 is outstanding, has the same creamy background rendering, and does great with skin tones. You have to really love the working distance that the 85mm FL gives you though. I didn't. Eventually I'm going to pickup either a 105 or 135mm f/2 DC lens.

Samriel · Jul 2, 2008

I agree that lab test are not everything, but I'd appreciate some samples of the bad bokeh of the 85mm 1.8, and maybe some more of the good bokeh of the 50mm 1.4. I'm really new to bokeh, and some general guidelines would be helpful.The reason why I ask this is that at the moment, your opinion contradicts photozone's:
"Besides the lab results the lens shows a beautiful bokeh (out-of-focus blur)."
Looking at his sample shots I'm not sure if that is good or bad, creamy or not bokeh.

EDIT: One more thing - when you mentioned you have to love the FL, you meant on a APS-C camera, right?

Mav · Jul 2, 2008

100% crop of ugly and distracting Nikon 85mm f/1.8 bokeh. This is what can happen if you're not careful enough with your backgrounds with this lens.

Because of harshness like this, I sold this lens and just shoot portraits with my 18-135 kit lens now, which is actually extremely sharp in the 105-135mm range which I prefer more, and the bokeh is much more neutral and pleasing believe it or not. And yes this is on an APS-C DSLR. Both the 50 and 85mm Nikon f/1.4 lenses have much creamier and smooth looking bokeh. I don't have any samples handy of the 50mm f/1.4, but it's definitely a lot smoother than the 50mm f/1.8.