nikon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8

[andrew99]

This thread is perfect timing for me, I just ordered the 1.8 version. The store didn't have either, so they had to order it (I guess from their warehouse)... I haven't paid yet, so I could cancel the order and go with the 1.4. I went with the 1.8 since it is cheap enough to buy just for fun.. I have a D40 so I don't know if the manual focus is going to be too much hassle for me. I'm hoping the image quality will make it worth while. I didn't want to spring for the 1.4, since I would rather pay a bit more and get the Sigma version with the internal focus motor, or wait to see if Nikon will come out with an AS-F version of their 50 mm prime. Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of this rambling post is, but I am curious to know how sharp the 1.8 is when stopped down a few stops? Some of the comments above about softness when shooting wide open have scared me a bit!

 

[Mav]

but I am curious to know how sharp the 1.8 is when stopped down a few stops? Some of the comments above about softness when shooting wide open have scared me a bit!

Stopped down they're both NUTTY sharp. Any softness wide open is more likely due to focusing errors or razor thin depth of field issues than actual lens softness. So technique is probably the biggest limiting factor to sharpness especially at f/2 or larger apertures. My particular f/1.8 sample was probably a bit sharper than my f/1.4 sample, but both are still sharp. Another issue on my f/1.4 besides focusing or depth of field issues is contrast loss from shooting into bright light sources or having stray light leak into the lens. That brings about a "perceived" softness, but it's really contrast loss. I got a hood for it now and am getting better results. This is a common characteristic of f/1.4 lenses. For general photography the f/1.8 is the better lens, and also a ton cheaper.

 

[andrew99]

Cool, thanks Mav. I've read that the 1.8 has slightly better image quality than the 1.4, which makes sense since the 1.8 would use less glass and be easier to manufacture. Also you're probably right about the DOF -- even shooting 2.8 on my zoom lens is tricky, you can get a person's nose in focus but the eyes out of focus, so 1.8 doesn't leave much room for error! Anyway, my 1.8 should be in on Friday, can't wait!

 

[Ejazzle]

i used the 1.4 on my d300 today in the store, and i liked it alot. the quality in the low light was nutssss!! i still dont know if its worth the 200 dollar difference though. its a sweet lens! and which ever one i decide to get i know i will love.

 

[andrew99]

Well my 50 f1.8 arrived a day early! Here is a sample, there is a slight curves adjustment, slight sharpening and crop done in post. From my Nikon D40.

(1/60sec, f3.2, ISO 200, 50mm)

I haven't much time to take many test shots, but so far I'm loving this lens! The manual focus was tricky with the dog (he thinks it's play time when you get down on the floor to take a photo), but focusing on still objects is fairly easy.

 

[sabbath999]

Cute mutt.

Manual focusing gets a lot easier with time, hang in there.

 

[K_Pugh]

nice shot, would be great without the chair leg.

yup it's a good lens but i haven't tried using manual focus with it too much yet. I have to use manual focus with my tamron 20-40mm as it back focuses on auto but i do find that manual focus is great with fast moving subjects.. so yeah manual focus ain't so bad.

 

[Ejazzle]

you focused that picture very well!

 

[zandman]

i got the 1.8 but can't get a REALLY good macro shots, it can but it doesn't meet what i want.

 

[McQueen278]

Get the 100mm macro then. It is a pretty nice lens.

 

[zandman]

Get the 100mm macro then. It is a pretty nice lens.

is it better than the 60mm macro?

 

[McQueen278]

Here is a nice review of the 105mm(sorry I typed 100 before, I had Canon on the mind)
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...nikkor-af-105mm-f28-d-review--lab-test-report

and the same review of the 60mm
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...icro-nikkor-af-60mm-f28-d-review--test-report

It appears that the 60mm is the superior lens, I haven't used it myself. I had an opportunity to play with the 105mm that a friend of mine had and I liked it. I think they can be had pretty cheaply now used because they have been replaced with a VR version. The VR review is here.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...-af-s-105mm-f28g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report

According to the numbers, the 105mm VR is the end all. If money is no object, this is the way to go.

 

[Garbz]

According to the numbers, the 105mm VR is the end all. If money is no object, this is the way to go.

You'd think so but the guy who sold me his 105mm MicroNikkor when he upgraded to the VR is constantly complaining that he shouldn't have. Apparently some of them have real focus hunting issues. This is second hand info though I haven't used the VR enough to give a real opinion.

The old 105mm is great though

 

[YoMoe]

I am considering a 50 mm lens for indoor sports (basketball and wrestling). The gyms are usually poorly lit. I was thinking of the 1.4 because it will allow for faster shutter? Is that right? I really want to stop the action.

I have the Nikon D90 and a used Sigma 2.8 70-210 lens (paid $250). It is huge and I really can't get a good angle because I have to stand pretty far away. Do you think a 50mm would be best for these sports. Does the 1.4 v 1.8 matter more for sports?

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

[YoMoe]

This thread has been so helpful. I was considering a zoom lens but I think maybe a prime would be better for my needs. If you are shooting indoor sports (basketball and wrestling) in poorly lit gyms would it be worth it to get the 50mm 1.4? The 1.8 is about $200 cheaper. I don't want to spend more than I need to but I want to be able to stop a ball in midair - any thoughts? I have the nikon d90.