50mm f/1.4D vs. 50mm f/18D at f/1.8

[gabriel_s.]

Could you please tell me which is sharper at f=stop 1.4?

 

I want a fast lens for low-light photography (D50), and I can't decide between

these two.

Please note that the price difference is not a concern here as I have the

opportunity to buy the 50 f/1.4 at a very low cost (same as the 1.8).

 

From other reviews I gathered that the 1.8 would be sharper, but people rarely

specify what aperture they mean.

 

Whichever of these two i'll get, i'll surely be using it wide-open, so I'm

really concerned about sharpness over speed here: i know the speedy 1.4 would be

a big plus for me, but i wouldn't want to trade a bit of extra light for a very

big difference in sharpness compared to the 1.8.

 

So tell me: does the 50 1.4's sharpness improve when stopped down to f/1.8, so

it can be compared to the 50 1.8's sharpness at wide open (1.8)?

 

 

I really need your help with this, guys!

 

Thank you!

[gabriel_s.]

Of course, in the first line i meant: "Which is sharper at f/1.8", not "f=1.4".

[tom_burke3]

Have a look at the 50mm lens comparison that Ken Rockwell has posted in the last few days:

I think you might find it useful.

[ky2]

Tom, I don't care much for Ken Rockwell's tests (I highly suspect he's biasing/altering his tests, for bandwidth reasons alone)-- In fact, I think he should have is eyes checked... My ZF blows my 50/1.8 AFD out of the water, at any aperture, and at any f/stop.

[ky2]

Gabriel, to your question: get the f/1.8 AFD. The f/1.4 AFD is the worst 50mm f/1.4 lens I have ever used.

[bwcombs]

Yaron, what is a "ZF"?

[michaelschrag]

Try this link - http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html - both lenses are reviewed.

 

and here

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

Personally I prefer the 50mm 1.8 AIS early version, but the since you can get a good deal on the 1.4 that looks very interesting.

[michaelschrag]

<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

Gabriel,

 

One last post. Here is a test with the 50mm AIS that I mentioned (D200, tripod, mirror lockup etc...). Its still a little soft on the edges at f 1.8. I'd check out the Zeiss lens that Yaron mentioned. I recall that he , or someone else, posted a comparison and the results were very impressive.<div></div>

[gabriel_s.]

Thank you for your input, guys.

 

Indeed Ken Rockwell's comparison is interesting, haven't visited his site lately and wasn't aware of it.

 

Hey, maybe you'd like to share your opinions on Ken's test, I wonder if you agree to his methods and conclusions.

 

 

 

Cheers

[yoni_perlmutter]

I don't know how easy it would be to differentiate between

images from a 50/1.4 taken at 1.8 and and one from a 50/1.8 taken

at 1.8.

I'm thinking "not that easy".

 

I use an AIS50/1.4 and I think it's a pretty good lens. Using it on the

D200 nowadays, it is one of the better "portrait" lenses I have ever used.

My AIS85/1.4 sits on the shelf a lot these days.

 

While it may be true that great differences exist between and among

50mm lenses, I have never seen an "aha" or a "wow" or even a "gee"

difference. Some are undoutedly better that others, but I tend to think

that in practical photographic terms, the differences which

may exist are miniscule. Niggling is also a word that comes to mind.

 

In short, if you need the extra speed, get the faster lens. One buys a

faster lens because it's faster. And if speed is not the issue, get the

slower lens because it is less expensive, and at least equally as good

because it's made with (probably) fewer optical compromises.

 

That being said, I use my old trusty 50 at apertures from 1.4 to 11

with confidence and satisfaction. The really old 50/2 (non-AIS)

on my FTn might be a shade better though.

 

Good luck with your choice.

[yoni_perlmutter]

Yaron, I'm not a frequent visitor to Ken Rockwell's site though

I've seen it once or twice over the years.

 

Your negative comments about his testing bias perked my interest

in what he had to say about the 50mm lenses

and also about what you thought the basis of his (alleged) bias might be.

 

Without commenting on the result or accuracy of the tests

or test methodology in his testing the 50mm lenses, why would you

question his intentions?

 

Whether or not his tests yield valid results there must exist a wide chasm

between his published results and his persona.

 

One would like to think this at any event.

 

What would you say his bias stems from, if bias it is?

[ky2]

Yoni, Ken was arguing for months now against Zeiss's offerings. He was downtalking the products even before they were shipping-- and how he would never purchase them. A few months later, he does.

 

His comments are rediculious. I'm a Nikonian myself-- I have dozens of lenses, and only three are non-Nikons... He's even falsifies his "build" review, where he claims the ZF equals any other 3rd party lens from 30 years ago. The ZF is very nicely built! much nicer than any other Nikon built today (Except the lens cap, btw); certainly nicer than the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 AIS of 20 years ago, which I also own.

 

Now, to his tests-- I've had the ZF for 3 months now, and I can assure you Yoni-- there are no CA artifacts on mine. NONE. Not at f/1.4, not at f/5.6, and beyond-- Nothing. It's true-- at f/8, it's very hard to tell the ZF from the venerable 50/1.8 AFD, but I bought the Zeiss for one reason only: to shoot wide open-- and it excels at f/1.4 -- FAR BETTER than any Nikon offering to date (including the 50 f/1.2).

 

The Zeiss is a pain to focus on a DSLR. I had installed a special screen in mine, because I didnt want to focus-bracket every shot. Since I had done that, the lens has been my favorite. It's been awesome on my Fm3a as well.

 

Maybe Ken has a lemon, I don't know. But I did my share of testing-- and posted these on this site some 2.5 months ago, along with very complicated sharpness/ca samples, and the Zeiss speaks for itself, on every shot.

[ky2]

<i>"What would you say his bias stems from, if bias it is?"</i><br><Br>Ken's site is all about traffic, just like Michael Reichmann (eg, "my D30 beats my Pentax 6x7-- oh wow!, my D60 beats my 4x5!"), he would often post outrageous comments just to lure in the believers...<br><BR>

It's funny, sometimes I find what he writes entertaining... but its always the non-technical stuff.

[photojim]

To answer Gabriel's original question, the /1.8 is better than the /1.4 (a little) from about f/2.8 to minimum aperture. (The /1.8 has f/22 and the /1.4 does not, but f/22 isn't that useful due to diffraction reducing sharpness.)

 

Wider than f/2.8, the /1.4 is better than the /1.8.

 

The /1.4 may not be the best f/1.4 lens ever made, but it's decent. I own one and I am not unhappy with it.

[elliot1]

Chances are you can find many people who will stand by the 1.4, and others by the 1.8.

 

If you really want the best images, get both lenses, test them yourself side-by-side and return the one you like the least. What you consider a good lens and what others consider a good lens may differ based on your own eyes.

 

If you want a great review on just about every camera product, visit Steve's Digicams. I have not seen a bad review yet.

 

If you want an education in photography and unbiased opinions from someone who really uses the equipment 'hands on' as opposed to lab tests, Ken Rockewell's site is the place to go. He tells it like it is and has given poor recommendations to many Nikon products. Of course, everything on his site is a reflection of his own opinions. I often wonder how the pictures of people who put him down compare to the pictures he has posted on his site.

[jack_johnston]

--- The ZF is very nicely built! much nicer than any other Nikon built today (Except the lens cap, btw); certainly nicer than the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 AIS of 20 years ago, which I also own. ---

 

How do you know this? Have you dissasembled your sample? Or is this once again simply a matter of you judging build quality simply on the basis of something like the weight?

 

--- Maybe Ken has a lemon, I don't know. But I did my share of testing-- and posted these on this site some 2.5 months ago, along with very complicated sharpness/ca samples, and the Zeiss speaks for itself, on every shot. ---

 

You make a good point - he only has one sample and you only have one sample.

[conrad_hoffman]

Remember, the speed difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is pretty small. IMHO, if you can't make the shot at f/1.8, popping on the f/1.4 probably isn't going to save you. I've seen enough sample variation between all of 'em, that I might say the f/1.8s are a tad sharper than the f/1.4s, but would never count on it in any specific case. I've had a real loser of an f/1.4, but also one that's the equal of any f/1.8 I've seen. The idea of stopping an f/1.4 down to f/1.8 is more theoretical than practical.

[ebogaerts]

"If you want an education in photography and unbiased opinions from someone who really uses the equipment 'hands on' as opposed to lab tests, Ken Rockewell's site is the place to go."

 

But see, Ken Rockwell also doesn't have a problem letting you know his opinion about a lens that he has never even used.

 

Plus, if you ever email him and make a polite criticism about something on his webpage, his immediate disclosure is something along the lines of "Don't take my website so seriously." Which I feel he thinks automatically disqualifies him from any sort of crticism.

 

There are better places to go for information on photographic equipment. Like here, for example. Or Bjorn's site.

[mawz]

Rockwell's a joke, with the exception of his actually decent wide digital zoom article. Her repeatedly reviews equipment he's never even seen, let alone used, has no idea what he's talking about on many subjects (His definition of Good Bokeh is when there is nothing in front of the subject which is visible and out of focus) and has some very odd ideas on others(He preferred Velvia 50 for its 'natural skin tones').

 

I halfway suspect his site is actually a long-running joke by him.

[ky2]

<i>"--- The ZF is very nicely built! much nicer than any other Nikon built today (Except the lens cap, btw); certainly nicer than the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 AIS of 20 years ago, which I also own. ---

 

How do you know this? Have you dissasembled your sample? Or is this once again simply a matter of you judging build quality simply on the basis of something like the weight?

 

--- Maybe Ken has a lemon, I don't know. But I did my share of testing-- and posted these on this site some 2.5 months ago, along with very complicated sharpness/ca samples, and the Zeiss speaks for itself, on every shot. ---

 

You make a good point - he only has one sample and you only have one sample."</i>

<br><Br>

I haven't taken my ZF apart (Although Shun tried to, but couldnt)-- but I suspect I've seen more the insides of lenses than Ken ever had-- I probably seen and used more real lenses than him, but that's another point. By good build I mean-- tightness of design, smooth, well dampened focusing, locking and mounting, and a good matching hood. In the build department, the ZF beats all 50's I ever held, with the 50/1.2 AIS being the only one coming very close. If had it for awhile now, and since I don't massage my lenses or put them in a velvet box, I know for a fact that this lens is so far proving as dependable.<br><br>

It's true, sample variation always serves a point. But so far I have never seen a single ZF user claiming his lens has noticable CA. Look on this site too. I'm still trying to cause my ZF to show such artifacts, in tests much more regorious than shooting an MTF chart or the backyard.<br><br>

Ken is right about one thing. Getting the better lens does not make you the better photographer.

[Uhooru]

I have an auto focus f1.4 and an old ais 1.8. I may have not had the best sample of the

1.8,, but I like the 1.4 better. I tend to like to shoot a 50 not much more than f4 anyways

(habit I picked up shooting summicrons). I'm very interested in the Zeiss lens. Its just that

I now have two Nikon 50s and a 55 macro and I can't justify another. I like the AF 50 its

nice. Maybe the Zeiss 85 will be interesting too. Anyone tried it? I'd love to see some pics

with the zf 50 though.

 

Oh, I think Rockwell's reviews are entertaining, and they will make you feel good about

buying stuff, but he's too sold on his own viewpoints and to greagariously postive for me.

It sounds too good to be true and I can't trust it at face value. I don't believe him when he

says he's not biased, he says it too loudly.