View Full Version : Nikon 50mm F/1.4
A.meiring
11-07-2006, 01:57 PM
hey guys and girls. I am looking to buy the 50mm prime and wos wondering if you could help me out. Ive noticed that there are 2 types of 50mm primes from nikon. one has a f/1.8 and F1.4. I know that the 1.4 should be better but i dont see that lens on nikons website. Is there much difference between the 2???
wh0128
11-07-2006, 02:11 PM
really not that much different between a 1.8 and a 1.4. The 1.4 will allow you to shoot in ultra low lighting conditions, meaning faster shutterspeeds and capable of being hand held. Though if you search through these forums, or maybe the Nikonians forums, you will find alot of great opinions on both of these lenses. To say the least, I have heard that the 1.4 really isnt that much better than the 1.8 in quality. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5014af.htm. Read some more on the 1.4 before you buy the 1.8 and see if it is worth the extra 200$. I'd think the 1.8 would be just fine for you unless you absolutely NEED that extra f/stop.
murrays
11-07-2006, 02:13 PM
hey guys and girls. I am looking to buy the 50mm prime and wos wondering if you could help me out. Ive noticed that there are 2 types of 50mm primes from nikon. one has a f/1.8 and F1.4. I know that the 1.4 should be better but i dont see that lens on nikons website. Is there much difference between the 2???
This article might help you out: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm
-murray
I chose the 1.8 over the 1.4 because the images I looked at there wasnt a difference, and if there was, to me, the 1.8 was better. My suggestion would be take the extra $200(US) and put it elsehwere and get the 1.8!
After having the 1.8 for awhile, I am not dissapointed, Ive cut my fingers on a few images 'cause they were so sharp;)
Jason25
11-07-2006, 04:00 PM
I've had the 1.8 for a year or so now and love it. I do sometimes think I could use the 1.4 though, especially for indoor shots of my fast-moving 2 year old.
wh0128
11-07-2006, 05:29 PM
yeah don't spend your money on the 1.4. It is pretty much the same cheap build as the 1.8. Save up to get a telephoto zoom or something, or for that extra 200$ you'd save on the 1.8 get maybe a circular polarizer filter, memory cards, teleconverter, or some other camera accessory you don't have alreayd.
I've had the 1.8 for a year or so now and love it. I do sometimes think I could use the 1.4 though, especially for indoor shots of my fast-moving 2 year old.
Are you serious?
If you can't get a decent shot at f1.8 and 800 or 1600 ISO your house must be very dark or your 2 year old wears a cape and flies. :D
I would suspect that the depth of field at 1.4 would be so narrow that the only thing in focus would be some eyes and a nose anyway.
wh0128
11-07-2006, 08:04 PM
Are you serious?
If you can't get a decent shot at f1.8 and 800 or 1600 ISO your house must be very dark or your 2 year old wears a cape and flies. :D
I would suspect that the depth of field at 1.4 would be so narrow that the only thing in focus would be some eyes and a nose anyway.
Yeah, K1W1 is right, unless you don't know how to increase the ISO on your camera, taking shots of you'r 2yr. old should be very simple, like unless he can run super duper fast. I have looked at the 1.4 on the 50mm and the depth of field just as what K1W1 said, with very little in focus, and the eyes and nose very sharp.
tcadwall
11-08-2006, 06:14 AM
Reading through the thread, I was ready to mention DOF... Others already have, but I will add my vote... DOF at 1.4 would really make it harder to get a good shot IMO. You probably need to either go shutter priority, or bump up the ISO a bit.
Sometimes you want to get the shot perfect the first time. Otherwise, I find that I make a best guess on the conditions, and take a test shot. Normally after you snap a few, the subject is less affected by the presence of a camera. Besides, an SB600 or SB800 bounced off the ceiling or diffused, can do wonders for indoor shots if you HAVE to have a faster shutterspeed without higher ISO.
I think the determining factor of 1.4 or 1.8 might be whether you are really looking for a DOF shot that will throw everything out of focus except a very shallow area of the subject. Even then I am not so sure that there would be a whole lot of situations where you would really need that difference... But heck I admit, that isn't my specialty.... Someone else might find it crucial.
Jason25
11-08-2006, 05:44 PM
Are you serious?
If you can't get a decent shot at f1.8 and 800 or 1600 ISO your house must be very dark or your 2 year old wears a cape and flies. :D
I would suspect that the depth of field at 1.4 would be so narrow that the only thing in focus would be some eyes and a nose anyway.
It is a fairly dark house :D Yeah, I'll just save the $200 and use my SB-600, screw it. I wasn't seriously considering a 1.4 anyway, just a fleeting thought I had the other day :)
foulmouthedleon
11-09-2006, 07:21 PM
I've read nothing but good things about the 1.8 lens and though I suffer from the "upgrade bug" it's one of the two lenses I own. From what I gathered, the 1.8 is one of the lenses that should be in everyone's bag...
wh0128
11-10-2006, 01:39 PM
I still haven't gotten the 50 1.8, but I think that will be one thing I HAVE to ask for Christmas this year.
Twism
11-12-2006, 01:01 AM
Well last night myself and loc went and bought a couple of 50mm's after work, I bought the 1.8 and he bought the 1.4. Hopefully we get out the house tonight so we can get some comarison shots.
The prices were 89.99 pounds for the 1.8 and 189.99 for the 1.4.
Anyways, Just a couple of quick questions. I bought a hoya uv filter for both my kit lens and the 50mm. Is hoya a good make? Will shooting with a uv filter ever effect the pictures I take? i.e. Can I leave the filters on all the time?
Anyways, Just a couple of quick questions. I bought a hoya uv filter for both my kit lens and the 50mm. Is hoya a good make? Will shooting with a uv filter ever effect the pictures I take? i.e. Can I leave the filters on all the time?
That is opening a real can of worms.
My opinion and my opinion only is that UV filters should NOT be used except when they are specifically required. To leave one on all the time just does two things. It reduces the amount of light entering a fast lens therefore it turns a fast lens into a not so fast lens and in the case of the 50mm it introduces the possibility of flare by having a glass element right at the front of the lens.
I have seen others describe it as "why put a $10 piece of glass in front of a precision optical device and expect an improvement in the results?"
Twism
11-12-2006, 04:09 AM
Interesting.... are there any "plain filters" available, to use just for protection purposes? Cos thats what I asked for last night and the guy behind the counter sold me a UV filter :(
rawpaw18
11-12-2006, 04:48 AM
Interesting.... are there any "plain filters" available, to use just for protection purposes? Cos thats what I asked for last night and the guy behind the counter sold me a UV filter :(
Your fifty glass is recessed quite a ways, it would be hard to damage it unless someone was poking at you with a stick. I shoot mine naked, the lens is naked, not me, ugh sorry about the mental image.:rolleyes:
UVs are not needed and just like the 2 previous posts, its not needed on the 50 because its already protected by the barrel of the lens. Sorry to say, you wasted money on a useless filter. Hoya is a good build, for what its worth.
Unless you are shooting in a sand storm, you dont need to "protect" your glass. Unless youre extremely clumsy.
Twism
11-12-2006, 10:56 AM
Oh well... guess it was a wast then :(
Will the uv filter ever dramatically effect a picture I take?
Oh well... guess it was a wast then :(
Will the uv filter ever dramatically effect a picture I take?
Nothing is a waste.
Use the filter to experiment with.
UV Filters are supposed to reduce the affect of haze in landscape type photos particularly at higher altitudes. Personally I have never been able to tell the difference in my photos but treat the filter as a learning exercise and see what results you get.
As mentioned if you are ever shooting in a dusty or sandy area with the wind blowing the UV filter will stop the front element of your lens getting sand blasted so one use there may pay for the filter.
FWIW I also have a Hoya UV filter for my 50mm f1.8. I was given it "free" by the dealer I purchased the lens from. I would of rather had a small discount and not the "free" filter but that option was not available so effectively I paid for one as well as far as I am concerned.
eduardofrances
11-14-2006, 12:14 PM
the difference lies in the Bokeh wich is better in the f/1.4 (the f/1.8's bokeh is great, but the f/1.4 is woah!).
Needles to say, the f/1.4 will be better in low light photo, and in portrait produces wonderful results
If you think you don't need the extra stop of light go with the f/1.8, but the f/1.4 is superb.
http://borissov.deviantart.com here you can see a fashion photographer that uses this neat lens
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.