50mm 1.8 -> 1.4
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- desmo
Do you think its worth the upgrade from a 1.8 to 1.4? Im aware that allowing more light is always better, but at its sharpest, both lenses can shoot at 2.8 (or around that area).
Is there really that much of a difference between the two to dish out the extra cash? I ask because I love shooting low light. Maybe im missing out on something with 1.4
Cheers!
- moniker0
- Better glass
- Better housing
- USMAnd obviously faster. That .4 may not seem like a big difference but there's some crazy multiplier for how many stops you gain by just going to 1.4. I'll see if I can find the actual number.
- honestIy0
if you have the 1.8 and you're upgrading to the 1.4, I hope you already have other lenses because in all honesty, you'll feel like you just paid $300-$400 to take pretty much the same pictures
- I hear ya. My only other lens is a 20mm 2.8 for wide shotsdesmo
- you may like the 85 then...
http://www.bhphotovi…honestIy
- jaylarson0
Canon? If so, get Sigma's 1.4 instead.
- I roll w/Nikon and have their previous generation of 50 1.4.jaylarson
- I shoot Nikondesmo
- those sigma lenses are the beenees. expensive too.ARTsamurai
- I have the sigma 1.4, its almost as nice as Canons 1.2 but not quite. Bookeh is awesome though.slappy
- JSK0
1.2
- http://www.bhphotovi…honestIy
- too pricey for what it is i thinkdesmo
- honestIy0
1.0
- Pixter0
bokeh is the new hdr
- fucking nokton 0.95's all up in yo grill dawg.Hombre_Lobo_2
- Tungsten0
0.95
- http://noktor.com/pr…Tungsten
- was looking for that, thought it was a .9honestIy
- garbageJSK
- jaylarson0
- re: G
http://www.cameralab…honestIy - interesting link...vaxorcist
- the linked article seems to say that the G lens flares less when pointed into the sun...vaxorcist
- but sun flare can be a creative tool.. I know a photographer who uses 70's lenses for the flare....vaxorcist
- im leaning towards the 1.4D as well.desmo
- re: G
- vaxorcist0
Enjoy.... but i have different needs.... The Nikon 50mm 1.4 G supposedly has better bokeh than the 50mm 1.4 AF-D, and the G lens works with all nikons, the AF-D requires AF motor in body, so no D5000/D3100/D3000 etc...
I'd rather have an 85mm 1.8 and a 50mm 1.8 than just a 50mm 1.4 G
a used nikon 180 F2.8 is a very nice, but slow to focus lens.... and a used 80-200 F2.8 is divine, but takes time to get used to....
- NonEntity0
If you're talking Canon — I've had both & first of all buy 2nd hand, absolutely no advantage to paying price of a new lens if you find a well-cared-for used (tho that probly goes for most lenses!).
The 1.4 has better colour rendition, less distortion, the USM is always handy. For the price it's a no-brainer, it's a bargain, even though the 1.8 is plenty good just by itself.
And there is a difference in bokeh etc between 1.8 & 1.4, not a crucial one, but it's a v nice look. Plus you get to stop down to 1.8 for better perf from the lens, depending on what you want you're always better off stopping down for extra IQ etc.
Just my 2 cents there :)
- zod0
What model of Nikon do you shoot with? IMHO I would pick up a Sigma 30 1.4 if you shoot on a DX sensor camera to get a shallower depth of field and a wider perspective.
If you just want to replace the lens, I think the Sigma 50 1.4 has much nicer rendering for portraits than the Nikon 50's do, though Nikon's 50 is a bit sharper edge to edge.
- nb0
You might want to read this before buying:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php…Interesting.
- jaylarson0
filter lens brand: nikon, and camera: aps-c, and you can see dxo's ratings of lenses for (in this case) nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php…
- pr20
besides of what NB said, there is a whole lot to lens technology then just how light sensitive it is. For instance most peps don't know that lens manufactures have to struggle with a variety of issues that most don't expect... The sharpest lens would not allow any color rendition (ever wondered why true colors of NASA images were B&W?) thus they all have to compromises: how much color do we let in v. how sharp should the lens be.
- source on the nasa info? 'cause that sure doesn't sound right...Mr_Fantastic
- nasa's from the moon being b&w had to do with limitations of the film tech during the moon landing missions.Mr_Fantastic
- all other b&w images have to do with the fact hey're trying to capture select wavelengths of light....Mr_Fantastic
- yes, as other wavelengths would make the stuff less sharp. Look up Panavision's videos about lens technology.pr2
- "yes, as other wavelengths would make the stuff less sharp"
true, but that's not why they do itMr_Fantastic - itMr_Fantastic
- nthkl0
Yes.