Help - Nikkor 50mm F1.4 or F1.8?

[beagle]

Grateful for some advice here.

Looking at buying a Nikkor prime 50mm for low-light indoor photography (of my kids). Intending to use it on a D70.

There seems to be a rather substantial price difference between the 50mm F1.4 (about $400+) and the F1.8 (less than $180).

Are there substantial performance differences between these 2 lenses that warrant paying the extra dough for the F1.4 (besides the .4 stop slight advantage)? Which is the newer lense?

Appreciate any thoughts...

Many thanks,
CK

[gadrian]

I would presonally recomment the f1.8

I find the DOF for the f1.4 too shallow.. and you may end up more frustrated then please..

[y0gi0h]

I've found that under backlighting condition, 50/1.8 has shown strong PF (CA)- from f1.8 to f2.8, not noticeable above f4. Otherwise, a very sharp lens. dunno abt 50/1.4

[kongg]

The 1.4 is the lens for unobtrusive shooting (due to its compact size) and fast low light photography. Its my fav lens!!

[mpenza]

just wondering... would a 35mm be more suitable than a 50mm on a DSLR for general low-light shooting? 50mm on a DSLR (75mm equivalent field of view) would be quite a good range for portraits.

[beagle]

Everyone - grateful for the feedback.

Adrian - if I set the aperature at F1.8 on the 50mm F1.4, wouldnt I get the same DOF as the 50mm at max aperature of F1.8? If so, do you find the extra 0.4 stop advantageous in low lighting? Any other reason why you dont like the F1.4? Many thanks for your thoughts.

Originally Posted by gadrian I would presonally recomment the f1.8 I find the DOF for the f1.4 too shallow.. and you may end up more frustrated then please..

[coke21]

Originally Posted by beagle Everyone - grateful for the feedback. Adrian - if I set the aperature at F1.8 on the 50mm F1.4, wouldnt I get the same DOF as the 50mm at max aperature of F1.8? If so, do you find the extra 0.4 stop advantageous in low lighting? Any other reason why you dont like the F1.4? Many thanks for your thoughts.

It is not f1.8-f1.4=f0.4. It is not o.4 stops.

[Kho King]

If I can find a mint 2nd hand f1.4 at around S$250~300, then I will go for it for its much better built and slightly faster aperture. Else I will just settle for a new f1.8 to save money and get another lens (use the extra for a 35mm f2).

[2100]

Up to one to believe it or not...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5014af.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50f14ai.htm

Gadrian is right, 1.4 DOF is paper thin. In fact, 1.8 is pretty thin already, good for macro stuff though. Say for portraits, you aim carelessly and the eyes may very well be not in focus if it lands lower down on the nose.

You might wanna test this lens first by getting a 2nd hand. On a 1.5X FLM Nikon, its 75mm is ok for portraits. Else not much use other than play-play kinda low-light photography.

[gadrian]

Originally Posted by beagle Everyone - grateful for the feedback. Adrian - if I set the aperature at F1.8 on the 50mm F1.4, wouldnt I get the same DOF as the 50mm at max aperature of F1.8? If so, do you find the extra 0.4 stop advantageous in low lighting? Any other reason why you dont like the F1.4? Many thanks for your thoughts.

The DOF of the 50 1.4 wide open when shooting portraits you have to be very careful.. the depth is about from the tip of the nose to about 1-1.5cm behind it.. it is very shallow..

If you are shooting children that are active.. you will focus say on the eyes.. but they will move.. you depth will change.. at 1.4 that minor change can render a sharp image to a soft image..

Now at 1.8 this DOF will increas to say just in front of the eyes.. not too bad.. there is more margin for error..

I only use the 1.4 if and only if there is an absolute need to do so..

Let me illustrate the DOF of a 2.8.. and you can see how the DOF of a 1.4 will be..



Now image the DOF divided by 8.. very very narrow margin for error..

[gadrian]

I do agree with mpenza.. the 35mm f2 is a gorgeous lens for portraiture.. there is on at Alex Photo in PP.. second hand.. was about 399..

[Zerstorer]

The key problem with the 50mm f1.4 is that is soft wide open. It gets better at around f2.

Depth of field is a function of distance and focal length, if you are shooting at a distance of <3m, f1.4 may be a problem, but if you are shooting further away, its not so much of an issue.

[khinmarn]

Originally Posted by coke21 It is not f1.8-f1.4=f0.4. It is not o.4 stops.

Actually it is .7 stop

The next stop from 1.4 is 2.0, so 1.8 is 2/3 of a stop away

GAdrian has pointed out the practicality of the 1.8 but should you need the speed, you could increase the ISO to 1600 to get additional 3 stops and reduce the noise later when doing post processing.

[gadrian]

Originally Posted by Zerstorer The key problem with the 50mm f1.4 is that is soft wide open. It gets better at around f2. Depth of field is a function of distance and focal length, if you are shooting at a distance of <3m, f1.4 may be a problem, but if you are shooting further away, its not so much of an issue.

In most cases you will be shooting kids at distances that will matter..

[lightchaser]

I own both Nikon 50 f1.4 and f1.8 manual. Both are very good lens.
The f1.4 lens helps to focus easier since I use manual focusing. It is also of better build. I hardly use the aperture f1.4 due to the very shallow DOF. However, it is alway good to have it when you need it. But beware that the 50 f1.4 can only stop down to f16 but a f1.8 can go down to f22.

[quekky]

the dof is very very shallow, this is shot at around 20cm away from the dog. i focus at the eyes, and even if the nose is 1cm away, it's already blurred

also, when i tried landscape, i need to put F2 to get resonable sharpness

[nemesis32]

Just out of curiousity... Isn't most lens at its sharpest at a couple of stops smaller than its widest aperture? i.e. f2.8 lens sharpest at abt f5.6 or f8.

Personally, i don;t see a need to buy a 50mm f1.4 as it only offers one stop more and unlikely that anyone will really use f1.4. Also, since it is likely to be used on D70, can always compensate by pushing the ISO to 400.

I am very satisfied with the results of the 18-70mm kit lens which is think the max aperture at 50mm is abt f4? After taking into account the AFS, it is probably f2.8, which is more than sufficient.

Also, 50mm (digital 75mm) is not the best lens for portraits as most people will agree that the best range is actually between 90-135 which will produce the best perspective unless you prefer to DISTORT the face! hence, the kit lens of 18-70mm (digital 35-105mm) is actually ideal!

Of course, i do agree 50mm may be useful for extreme low light situation, but how often? I also agree that image quality is definitely better given it's a prime lens but is it worth the trade off? i don't think so.

The old 50mm on conventional camera is good as it gives you the same perspective of your eye thus immediately you feel the image is REAL. with digital, you probably better off getting a 35mm prime lens and another 90mm macro/protrait lens (heard Tamron's 90mm is a cracker!).

just my 2 cents worth!

[espn]

Originally Posted by nemesis32 Just out of curiousity... Isn't most lens at its sharpest at a couple of stops smaller than its widest aperture? i.e. f2.8 lens sharpest at abt f5.6 or f8.

Actually I think the next stop would do, f/2.8 -> f/3.5, f/1.8 -> f/2, etc.

Originally Posted by nemesis32 Personally, i don;t see a need to buy a 50mm f1.4 as it only offers one stop more and unlikely that anyone will really use f1.4. Also, since it is likely to be used on D70, can always compensate by pushing the ISO to 400.

Actually it's 2/3 stops more. What has ISO gotta do with the f/1.4?

Originally Posted by nemesis32 I am very satisfied with the results of the 18-70mm kit lens which is think the max aperture at 50mm is abt f4? After taking into account the AFS, it is probably f2.8, which is more than sufficient.

Urm.. how can a f/3.5-f/4.5 be f/2.8? At 50mm, I believe it's f/4.5.

Originally Posted by nemesis32 Also, 50mm (digital 75mm) is not the best lens for portraits as most people will agree that the best range is actually between 90-135 which will produce the best perspective unless you prefer to DISTORT the face! hence, the kit lens of 18-70mm (digital 35-105mm) is actually ideal!

Not really the best in the lenses that exists, but nonetheless one of the ideal lenses to use for the bokeh & DOF. A few to name, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.4, 105/2.8, 180/2. Your perspective distortion comes only when you're shooting at an angle. The 18-70 can be used for portraits, but it's not the best. Have you seen a 70-200VR in use for portraits? Can be done. Any lens can do portraits, it's how you choose to portray the images across.

Originally Posted by nemesis32 Of course, i do agree 50mm may be useful for extreme low light situation, but how often? I also agree that image quality is definitely better given it's a prime lens but is it worth the trade off? i don't think so.

VERY often. I don't see how this is in relation to the thread topic

Originally Posted by nemesis32 The old 50mm on conventional camera is good as it gives you the same perspective of your eye thus immediately you feel the image is REAL. with digital, you probably better off getting a 35mm prime lens and another 90mm macro/protrait lens (heard Tamron's 90mm is a cracker!). just my 2 cents worth!

HUH?? So you saying that 35mm is the only portrait lens you should get if using DSLR? Thot you just mentioned the best range is 90-135? Contradictory.

[gadrian]

Originally Posted by nemesis32 Just out of curiousity... Isn't most lens at its sharpest at a couple of stops smaller than its widest aperture? i.e. f2.8 lens sharpest at abt f5.6 or f8.

Nope.. the 17-35 is sharp at 2.8, the 28-70 is sharp at 2.8, the 18mm f2.8 is sharp.. the 14 f2.8 is sharp.. the 180 f2.8 is also very sharp..

Just to name some of the lenses.. admittedly they are very expensive lenses.. but its to disprove that lenses are only sharp about f5.6 or f8

[gadrian]

Originally Posted by nemesis32 I am very satisfied with the results of the 18-70mm kit lens which is think the max aperture at 50mm is abt f4? After taking into account the AFS, it is probably f2.8, which is more than sufficient.

How does an AFS lens make an f/4 lens a f/2.8?

I think you are confusing AFS with VR..

AFS is merely for focusing.. to have a lens allow you to expose at a lower shutter speed and produce reasonable sharper pictures then you were expect.. then it is VR.