rusty johnston Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Nikons 50mm 1.4 AF lens seems to get more than it's share of grief and I'm curious as to whether it is completely warranted or not. Do any of you have examples shot with this lens wide open? I tend to shoot the 50mm focal length alot and would like to add this to my camera bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofey_kalakar Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 It is an excellent lens. I use it as a fast street lens and for available light (dark) shots. If you enjoy shooting low light scenes, then the 50 f1.4 is a good choice as the 35 mm f1.4 is twice the cost. The reason it may get flak from a lot of Nikon camera users is that it costs 2x as much as the f1.8 lens (new), is a bit heavier and stops down to f16 and not f22 as the f1.8 50 mm Nikon lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_chan5 Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 It is a good lens, the only caveats being that the contrast can be a little lower than the F1.8 lens, and the out of focus areas are relatively ugly (if that matters to you). It feels more solid than the 50/1.8 and being able to go to F1.4 does make a difference when shooting available light. Sorry, I don't have any shots handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgarrett Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I have some shots from a pre-AI 50mm f1.4, but I doubt the lens is still the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin_mendoza Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Rusty, I posted 2 shots today with a 50mm wide open. Check them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin_mendoza Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Here are the pics, not too good but shot 2 days ago in low light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwin_mendoza Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 The other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goemon Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I love my 50/1.4; use it all the time. For some examples of it, <a href="http://www.sigwinch.org/gallery/casper/Casper_looking_up">this cat</a> and <a href="http://www.sigwinch.org/gallery/portraits/0000094_14">this one</a> were both wide open if I recall correctly. <a href="http://www.sigwinch.org/gallery/portraits/0000093_11">This portrait</a> was the 50, but I don't remember whether or not it was wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapas_maiti5 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Rusty Sharp, reasonably well made lens (for an AF) - pig ugly out of focus areas. Tapas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 The 50/1.4 is a good lens but not quite as brilliant as the f/1.8 version. I wouldn't say there's anything to grieve about it though - just that you pay a penalty in image quality when stopped down to get that faster max aperture. On film, the f/1.4 aperture can be used with good results. On a D70, you have to stop down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jae_myung_shim Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I beg to differ from the above comment. Based on my experience, 50/1.4 is better than 50/1.8 image quality wise. I think the latter is spoken highly mostly due to its cost-benefit ratio. I have never used them on digital body and my experience is limited to film, though. I agree that they have harsh unfocused areas, and think that's a major weakness of Nikkor 50mm's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I have shot many thousand pictures with both, and the 50/1.8 is sharper and more contrasty, especially when focused up close and in mid apertures. It also requires no additional hood which is needed on the 1.4. The 1.4 is sharper at f/2 and maybe f/2.8, but by mid apertures if I had a choice, I would always pick the 1.8. Near infinity I think the 1.4 produces a cleaner image but it's difficult to quantify. Maybe there is sample variation? I have used three 1.8s and one 1.4 and the 1.8s were all superior for general photography. Many magazine and online tests confirm this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cofran Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I stumble on this page yesterday http://www.physics.montana.edu/students/meng/50mmTest.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rod_melotte Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 The only problem with the 1.4 is it's made out of cheap plastic. The filter threads will wear out - unlike the 1.8 which has metel threads on the filter ring. You would think something this expensive would not be cheaply made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cofran Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 bigger profits i guess. Plastic threads are not a big deal to me because i slap on a uv filter and leave it there for the life of the lens. if u spend the money u should get quality. 1.4 is no consumer lens. nikon should know better greedy bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 <center><img src="http://nordilux.com/photo/parksign.jpg"><center> </p> <center><i>50/1.4 wide open on a D70</i></center> </p> the 50/1.8 if a very nice lens, but if you are looking for that extra stop(ish) and want to shoot a lot wide open, the 50/1.4 is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebogaerts Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 "The only problem with the 1.4 is it's made out of cheap plastic. The filter threads will wear out - unlike the 1.8 which has metel threads on the filter ring." I think that there's a mis-perception in regard to the "build quality" between the f/1.4 and f/1.8 AF lenses. The 50mm f/1.4 feels heavier, so I think a lot of people automatically assume that it's built better. There is a lot more glass inside the f/1.4 than the f/1.8, and I think that accounts for how people percieve the build quality. What I *do* think is done a little nicer between the two lenses is that the focusing ring and aperture ring are far, far smoother in operation in the f/1.4. But I don't think that there's really much of any difference in terms of the construction materials. Neither lens would survive a equal fall any better than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardoyamamoto Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I like it very much but I'd really consider also the 50/1.8. This shot was made with the AF 50/1.4 at f2 (I guess).<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapas_maiti5 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Hi Most shots show the awful out of focus areas of the Nikon 50 1.4; I also get this on the Nikon 85mm 1.8 (Testing a 105 mico-nikkor at the moment. I am really interested in getting decent background blur - anyone suggest 35 & 50mm lenses for Nikon that can do this? Tapas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 <I>I am really interested in getting decent background blur - anyone suggest 35 & 50mm lenses for Nikon that can do this?</I><P> I have used most every 50mm lens from every era of Nikon SLRs, and the best blur effect in my opinion (you can't really nemerically rate it, it is just a preference) was from the old pre-AI 50mm f/2.0 Nikkor. I must have had a dozen of these since they always seemed to come on used F and F2 cameras of which I bought a group of. This was a basic design that had a nice out of focus rendition.<P> I currently use the 35mm f/1.4 AIS lens in that focal length, but the blur effect is distance driven from my experience. As CRC kicks in, the blur gets more jagged looking. My old f/2.0 AIS lens had a better blur effect, being less corrected, but I like the in-focus part from the f/1.4 lens more, so I tolerate the less that nice blur from the faster lens.<P> I don't want to start a Nikon vs. the other guys war, but those that have never seen the bokeh effects from Lieca M lenses in these focal lengths will never know why people pay those high prices. My Nikkors are sharp, but the Leica lenses with that creamy transition from in to out of focus are really nice. I like to use my Summicrons wide-open so that I'll have a lot of blur, because it looks so good. Having seen the Leica bokeh, it is hard to feel totally satisfied from what I see from the Nikkors as far as this single attribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapas_maiti5 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Albert Thanks for the tips; I have a kodak pro slr/n and thus I would have to handheld meter to use the older lenses (maybe the way to go I suppose). I hate the new AF stuff (digital is what is keeping me in)and would rather have good background blur than ultimate sharpness. I think your point about the Leica M series is well made, struggle with the idea of film though as I have put away my darkroom but I like the way the camera works. Tapas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goemon Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Not that it's particularly fast, but apparently the 45/2.8 has nice bokeh; you might look at that. I haven't shot with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now