nikon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8

Garbz · Jul 4, 2008

Given that this is something that is hard to get right it may also be something that varies during manufacture. Not unheard of.

I actually have only borrowed that lens and then only shot at f/2 so I am relying on the hope that the original site was right, they could be at fault for the discrepancy too

Ejazzle · Jul 7, 2008

can the f/1.4 do some semi macro shots? i love shooting macro!!

i was going to buy the lense at adorama and one was " grey market" and it was 20 bucks cheaper. whats the difference. quality? or is it the same exact lense with no warranty?

Mav · Jul 7, 2008

No. None of the Nikon 50mm lenses focus very closely. They're in the 1:7.2 or 1:7.4 range which is a loooong ways away from even the 18-55 kit lens, which does 1:3.2 (which is actually quite good). You can use these for macro photography if you get something like the Kenko extenstion tubes. I hear the 12mm tube works pretty well with the 50mm although I've never tried it myself. Close-up filters will also work. Nikon discontinued theirs, but a Canon 250D will work in 52mm size, although I'm not sure how close it would get you. For really cheap, (like $10) you can get the BR-2A reversing ring and actually reverse mount the lens to your body and get insanely close. But you have no focusing ability, no metering, no aperture control besides manual, and any photo you get is gonna require a lot of skill! :lol:

The reversing ring is pretty much a tripod only poor man's macro setup. Forget about it handheld.

I'd stick with USA versions of lenses, or if you want to save a few bucks just buy a used USA version from somewhere. Used 50mm prime lenses are easy to find. I commonly see them on another (nikon specific) forum for $225 for the f/1.4 version or $90-100 for the f/1.8. You'll have no warranty with a grey market version, and apparently Nikon won't even work on them if they need servicing either.

I'm not into Macro, so for my own macro setup I have the following:

My 18-55VR kit lens gets down to 1:3.2 which is pretty darned close.
My 28-105 lens has a handy macro mode that gets down to 1:2
My 70-300VR + Canon 500D filter gets down to 1:1.1 which is practically 1:1.

I'm pleased enough with the 1:2 on my 28-105, so I might sell my Canon 500D close-up filter (77mm size). I think that thing cost me more than the whole 28-105 lens did!

manaheim · Jul 7, 2008

We should setup a frequently asked questions thread or something.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121100&highlight=1.4+1.8

^^ that's the link to a previous post.

EDIT: Here is a more extensive discussion:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111381&highlight=50mm

Ejazzle · Jul 7, 2008

thanks everyone! i think most likely gonna go with the f/ 1.4 and get the 60 mm macro later on!

AndrewG · Jul 7, 2008

I can't believe we've got to the point where we're discussing the quality of an out of focus background! If the subject is interesting and arresting then surely that must be the focus of attention and not the background which has been shot out of focus so as not to be a distraction?
I really, really hate the word 'bokeh'!

McQueen278 · Jul 7, 2008

AndrewG said:
I can't believe we've got to the point where we're discussing the quality of an out of focus background! If the subject is interesting and arresting then surely that must be the focus of attention and not the background which has been shot out of focus so as not to be a distraction?
I really, really hate the word 'bokeh'!

But that is what bokeh is about, not being distracting. If your background is blurred in an unattractive way it is distracting.

Ejazzle · Jul 8, 2008

one last quick question i can buy the f/1.4 in kint condidtion but its from the late 80's (1988) is it the same exact lens as the brand new ones that are out now?

Mav · Jul 8, 2008

AndrewG said:
I can't believe we've got to the point where we're discussing the quality of an out of focus background! If the subject is interesting and arresting then surely that must be the focus of attention and not the background which has been shot out of focus so as not to be a distraction?
I really, really hate the word 'bokeh'!

Well like I mentioned above, I've had potentially great portrait shots totally ruined by poor bokeh and a resultant distracting background. All of the ugliness and harshness draws your attention away from the beautiful subject and towards the ugly background. I've also seen (on the 50mm f/1.8) the bokeh get so distracting near a model's hair that you almost couldn't tell where her hair ended and the background began. That's not what you want. If the lens had smooth bokeh characteristics that wouldn't have been a problem.

Mav · Jul 8, 2008

Ejazzle said:
one last quick question i can buy the f/1.4 in kint condidtion but its from the late 80's (1988) is it the same exact lens as the brand new ones that are out now?

If it's 1988 it's probably just regular AF instead of AF-D. The only difference is that the D version will relay distance data back to the camera for more accurate flash exposure. Most think it's more a gimmick than anything else, because nobody has ever been able to tell any difference.

Ejazzle · Jul 8, 2008

well i can get it for pretty cheap so i might just get it. but i guess i'll have to figure out the flash exposure stuff if i do purchase it....

Easy_Target · Jul 8, 2008

I've used both the 1.4 and 1.8 and to be honest, I just absolutely LOVE the f1.4 because I frequently shoot in low light/night settings, so it helps reduce exposure time a good deal. I frequently shoot in less than comfortable weather so the less time I need to get all my shots, the better.

Optically, I didn't really notice much difference between the two.

Garbz · Jul 9, 2008

Mav said:
If it's 1988 it's probably just regular AF instead of AF-D. The only difference is that the D version will relay distance data back to the camera for more accurate flash exposure. Most think it's more a gimmick than anything else, because nobody has ever been able to tell any difference.

The on board algorithms can be troublesome if you don't have distance information. It's the difference between the older style matrix metering system, and the "3D Matrix Metering". This causes problems when using teleconverters which don't relay an updated aperture as well. In theory it still has distance and light, but these fancy new algorithms need all the info or their results are sometimes unexpected, which is to say unexpected for the finely trained eye of someone who spends their life knowing exactly how matrix metering works.

Mounting the AF lens will cause the camera either to default to the older Matrix Metering, or default to centre weighted average. Neither of these are a problem if you realise that the camera is just guessing at what your picture looks like anyway, and know where the exposure compensation / manual control buttons lie on the camera. Heck I use old AI-S lenses quite a lot, they don't even have electronics let alone a microchip telling the camera the subject distance.

Mav · Jul 9, 2008

I've not seen one person ever admit to ever being able to see or tell the difference between D and non-D though.

Ejazzle · Jul 9, 2008

i use manual everything usually all the time (ont focus) manual always seem to give me my most desireable shot. so the light meter might just use spot metering or something? i dont even look at the meter that much anymore.... but your saying i could have the aperture all they way open to 1.4 and the signal may be interrupted and the camera could say i am still at 2.8?