Nikon 50mm f/1.8 V.S. 50mm f/1.4

[wudabao]

50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4
both price are acceptable.
what is the difference between them?
50mm f/1.4 is much better than then f/1.8?

any suggestion?

[Clown]

sometimes u just need that extra bit of light...

[shutterfly]

I think you can get better "bokeh" with 50mm 1.4.

[justarius]

Originally Posted by wudabao 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 both price are acceptable. what is the difference between them? 50mm f/1.4 is much better than then f/1.8? any suggestion?

get the 1.4 if you need the extra half stop. The built quality of the 1.4 is slightly better than the 1.8. The 1.8 is supposed to be sharper than the 1.4 at some apertures, but lacking a 1.4, I can't verify this. I have a 1.8 and is my standard lens.

[shineshy]

sorry..but allow newbie me to ask something....D70 already comes witha 18-70mm..so is this 50mm necessary ? ..hmmm

[justarius]

Originally Posted by shineshy sorry..but allow newbie me to ask something....D70 already comes witha 18-70mm..so is this 50mm necessary ? ..hmmm

necessary? maybe not. nice to have? definitely

[2100]

The 50mm will eat the 18-70 for breakfast in the sharpness, bokeh and low-light departments. Or for that matter, even the Nikkor 28-70/2.8. Same as L lenses over in Canon. Use primes whenever possible, if the situation allows it.

[Nikoniste]

Originally Posted by shineshy sorry..but allow newbie me to ask something....D70 already comes witha 18-70mm..so is this 50mm necessary ? ..hmmm

Don't see the interest of a 50 mm with a crop factor of 1.5, besides of a (short) portaiture lens (equal to 75, but with depth-of-field of a 50 mm). If you want that, go for the 1.4. For myself, I'd rather buy a 2/35 or, if I had lots of money, an 1.4/28 (corresponds to about 42 on a D70). Faster lenses = lower sensibilities = less noise with those tiny sensors. If you're looking for a fast tele lens, go for the 1.8/85 (still quite affordable). Or buy a 60mm Micro-Nikkor. 1.8/50 on a DX-sensor camera?

[Nikoniste]

Originally Posted by wudabao 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 both price are acceptable. what is the difference between them? 50mm f/1.4 is much better than then f/1.8? any suggestion?

For those who don't need CPU or AF, there is an interesting alternative from Ukrainia: the ARSAT 1.4/50. Suitable for an FM3A, fully usable (without AF, of course) on an F4, still usable (with restrictions) on an F90x/N90s or F5 and even on D1/D2 series, where it will, with the crop factor, become a slight tele, ideal for portaiture (thanks to 1.4 and small depth-of-field wide open). Costs less than the 1.8/50 Nikkor and is made of solid metal and fine glass. Of course, to avoid for all those who own a low-end recent AF body without even an AI coupling ring (N50, 60, 65, 75, 80, Pronea, F-401 or the low-end consumer dslrs), if you don't want to get back to the feeling of an F without a metering prism . But I find 50 mm a bit too long as a "standard" lens, even on full-format 24x36. So I'd rather go for a 45/2.8 P on film or a 2/35 AF-D, suitable for almost any body and any crop factor (even on a "DX" sensor, it'll still correspond to a 55mm lens, and on real H APS to about 43).

[2100]

Originally Posted by Nikoniste Don't see the interest of a 50 mm with a crop factor of 1.5, besides of a (short) portaiture lens (equal to 75, but with depth-of-field of a 50 mm). If you want that, go for the 1.4. 1.8/50 on a DX-sensor camera?

Hmm....i don't get you. Are you saying that there is more DOF on a Nikon dSLR when you shoot with a 50mm at f1.8 compared to a film camera with a 50mm at f1.8? You are implying that the ability to have more bokeh is good as you have more control....or am i mistaken?

Coz if i am not wrong, there is a narrower DOF on a 1.5 dSLR with a 50/1.8 compared to a film SLR with a 50/1.8.

[ckiang]

Originally Posted by 2100 Hmm....i don't get you. Are you saying that there is more DOF on a Nikon dSLR when you shoot with a 50mm at f1.8 compared to a film camera with a 50mm at f1.8? You are implying that the ability to have more bokeh is good as you have more control....or am i mistaken? Coz if i am not wrong, there is a narrower DOF on a 1.5 dSLR with a 50/1.8 compared to a film SLR with a 50/1.8.

According to calculations (you can do it here: http://www.silverlight.co.uk/resources/dof_calc.html )

At a subject distance of 2m:
A 50mm at f/5.6 on a DSLR (APS-sized sensor body) has a DoF of 44cm
On a film slr, at same aperture and distance, the DoF is 53cm

So, at the same distance and aperture, you're right. The DSLR has less DoF. If you actually move backwards using the SLR to achieve the same FoV, then the DSLR has more DoF.

This is a very confusing issue that has been battled to death and I still find no conclusions. I've shot 50/1.4 and 1.8 on both film and DSLR bodies for quite some time, and I find that the output from both actually looks different. i.e. apart from the narrower FoV, the 50 on the DSLR and 50 on full frame actually looks different in terms of bokeh, DoF, etc.

Regards
CK

[ckiang]

Back to topic, if you need that extra 2/3 stops the 50/1.4 gives, then go for it. Under low light conditions, this 2/3 stop is very significant (and useful). The 50/1.8 is actually sharper though. Not sure about this, but the particular 50/1.4 I am using flares more readily than the 50/1.8 (non-D)

Regards
CK

[shineshy]

heard 50mm f/1.8 is selling at $175

wat abt 50mm f/1.4?

[Gymrat76]

Originally Posted by shineshy heard 50mm f/1.8 is selling at $175 wat abt 50mm f/1.4?

Should be $450+

[espn]

I agree with Ckiang, the 50/1.8 is definitely sharper than the 50/1.4, and frankly, as advised already unless you need that 2/3 stops of light... else frankly, don't bother, the weight alone doesn't really justify it and there's not much difference between the two... unless you're talking 85/1.8 vs 85/1.4

BUY BUY BUY!!!