Jump to content

Why get a 50mm prime if a 17-55 AFS F/2.8 is almost as sharp?


lulu_l

Recommended Posts

<p>Well . . . about 18 months ago, I sprung for a 50f1.4 Nikkor. I feel in love with the lens shooting wide open at weddings. The shots that I was getting of little details and shooting available light at the reception were fantastic! In August the lens and my D80 were stolen. The used D200 that I bought to replace it included the 50f1.8. I figured that I could get along with the f1.8 lens. This spring, I bought another 50f1.4.<br>

The two lenses are just not the same. The f1.4 is sharper, wide open and everywhere, has better color and much better look. I can't really explain it.<br>

The end of the story here is that you don't NEED a 50 prime. The 17-55 is a great lens. It can't do with the 50 can though. It's up to you to decide if you WANT to do the things that the 50 can and the 15-55 can't.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 50 f/1.4 is much lighter, more compact, cheaper, and faster (by a lot). In many situations f/2.8 is really not fast enough. The small prime is also much more portable than the pro-grade zoom. </p>

<p>>> "Would it be a bad idea to get the 50mm 1.4 (for portraits)?"</p>

<p>The lens behaves more or less like a shorter classic portrait lens on DX. On FX, this lens should be good for candid/environmental portraits, but too short for formal portraits. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My experience is the 50 1.4 is as sharp at 2.0 as the 17mm zoom on the long end at 2.8. 1 stop is important. So if sharpness and 1 stop is important... <br>

However, in my experience the 17mm zoom is more saturated/contrasty and has more pop at 2.8 to 5.6.<br>

When it comes to the 24 to 70, in my opinion, the zoom blows away the prime as to sharpness, image saturation pop etc...<br>

In terms of weight, I prefer the FOV of a 35mm prime- so as a light weight walk around lens I do not use the 50 1.4. On a full frame some people like the 50 mm as a light alternative to the monster zooms, but since you have a dx rig you may want to look at the 35 mm primes.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I love my 17-55mm but do not intend getting rid of my 50mm f1.4. The latter is nice because of its size, light weight and convenience if for no other reason. But in addition its bokeh is nice wide open too and the extra stop or so isolates the image even more. I do not know that I could totally justify buying one if I did not already have it but as I do own one I certainly intend keeping it. To be honest, if you have the "readies" and cash is not a problem I would instead suggest springing for an 85mm f1.8. It has not dissimilar attributes to the 50 - plus the extra reach and is well acknowledged to be a top class lens. it costs only a bit more than the 50mm f1.4. Seriously - think about it!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 on my D300. It's not "almost as sharp" as my 50mm f1.8, it's actually sharper. I very rarely ever use the 50mm any more. The only reason I'd see for getting the 50mm f1.4G is if you shoot in very low light and need the speed. I use a Sigma 30mm f1.4 for that reason. I often do shoot at night. If I wanted a 50mm f1.4, I would definitely buy the Sigma 50mm f1.4. I see these sorts of lenses as special purpose though.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>17-55 is ridiculously big, 50mm is two stops faster, you won't draw as much attention with the 50mm, 50mm has better optics, 50mm is smaller and lighter, you won't be tempted to compose by standing in one stop and zooming with a 50mm prime.<br>

Most Nikon cameras come with a kit lens that covers the 50mm range so why did you spend so much money on the 17-55mm. i suspect for the some of the same reasons that i listed above.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just a footnote for those interested: with older lenses, the 50/1.8 is a better lens all around than the 50/1.4. You give up about half a stop but the rest is profit. The newest 50/1.4 is apparently very good.</p>

<p>Even with big cameras, smaller lenses make sense (less intimidating, you can fit more in the bag etc.). One of the reasons why some people love rangefinder cameras is that the lenses are very compact. Compare an SLR's 50/1.8 to a rangefinder's equivalent. Then compare their respective 35/1.4s. Big difference.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...