which lens is better

hello to all

 

i am currently trying to get a new lens for my camera but don't know which one

to go for. i will like to do urban, landscape and architectural photography. but

i am having trouble deciding which lens to get. I want to get a prime lens but i

am between two options. Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 or Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. I know one is

way cheaper then the other, but i don't know what is the advantage of the f/1.4

to the f/1.8. i know its one more stop but what else is there that will help me

decide to which one to incline. I thank you for your time and the wisdom.

 

Herman Jr

The aperture difference is actually a little less than 1 stop (2/3 s).

 

Before answering, please mention what camera body it is for and if you are seeking a manual focus or auto focus model. Adding what other lenses you already have or plan to get would also help us focuss on your needs.

there is also a difference on the smaller aperture, the 1.4 go up to 16 when the 1.8 to 22.

 

Both are great.

If you have a digital camera (and even with a film camera) you might find the 50 mm to have too narrow of an angle of view for architectural and landscape photography. You might also want to look at a 28 mm or 35 mm. I would suggest going to a shop and physically looking through the lens on your camera (or a similar demo camera) to get a real-world feel for the lens and its angle of view.

Heck on a digital, you might even want to go wider than 28 mm, like a 14 mm or 18 mm

well i have a nikon d80 and i will be trying to buy a bogen/manfrotto

190xprob and auto focus will be good.

Assuming you will be working primarily with a tripod, the faster lens is of no advantage to you. The 50mm (equivalent 75nn with 35mm format) is on the long side for full building shots. It is a nice length for detail shots. With the ISO changing options built into today's digital cameras, the f1.8 lens should serve you well. For the difference in price, you can get the 50mm and most of the price of a 24mm lens. They would make a nice combination for you. (It is the combination I use.) I would not worry about f16 versus f22. F22 is mostly for marketing purposes; f11 is much sharper.

All things being equal (and they often are not), the same given technology for different lenses with different maximum apertures, the slower ones will generally have better performance wide open and overall. There have been a number of Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 and 1.8s (and f/1.2s and f/2.0s, but that's a different story..). If you're going to take pix of things which generally don't move, like architecture and landscapes, the 1.8 is the better bet. Of course, when you say "urban" photography, I'm assuming stuff that includes shooting lifestyle/poeple stuff under lowlight conditions...then the 1.4 would be better....slightly. Given the over double price difference of the 1.4 over the 1.8 but less then a full stop's worth of difference, I'd go with the 1.8 still. Put it in apeture priority and practice handholding really steady at low shutter speeds. Control your breathing and hand tremors. Don't drink caffeine or excess sugar before shooting. Use a tripod or monopod a lot. This takes away any need for a fast maximum aperture.

 

Of course, if you're gonna need wider stuff for your landscape/architecture stuff, you're gonna have a couple of new questions...maybe somethng like 24mm f/2.8 or f/2.0? Or something like that. Good luck.

Herman,

 

50 is nice for urban photography, but often totally wrong for landscape and architecture. You

need wider for those. What's your budget? Can you do something like the 17-35 or 17-55

zooms?

Herman

 

I also considered this choice recently and learned that, although they are not identical lenses, the only true difference is the 2/3 of a stop, the 1.4 is not a better lens, just brighter. Buy 1.4 if you need 1.4.

 

Phil

If you peruse the available books on landscape photography, you will often find that the author has used the whole gamut of focal lengths depending on what he wants to image. Several books that I like are John Shaw's "Landscape Photography" (IBSN:0-8174-3710-X); Tim Fitzharris's "National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography" (ISBN-13:978-1-55407-195-1) and "The Sierra Club Guide to 35mm Landscape Photograohy" (ISBN:0-87156-404-1). The lenses mentioned range from 18mm to 500mm, in addition to tilt-shift lenses.

If you are just getting started I would recommend a 24-85 zoom and get some experience before deciding what to acquire next.

If I were you I would buy the 50/1.8 and save the money for another lens (or a bunch of beers!). I have the 50/1.8 and I am really happy with this lens. Is true that it feels a bit cheaply and, may be, It couldn't resist a professional use. However, to me, an amateur photographer, is an amazing lens.

well i bought a 50mm f/1.4 used for 150 bucks. Not a bad deal and i am happy with it. Just waiting for tomorrow to start shooting and proving how good this lens is.

I will bet you will be very happy with it - I had both the 1.4 and 1.8 in the 85 mm lens - the 1.4 is much more robust, and is sharper in the mid apertures. Better out of focus rendering, too. The small aperture difference actually translated to better shots without flash in indoor gyms, where you are right on the edge of enough light anyway.

Although you don't list it you can do very nice indoor basketball shots with the 50 1.4.