michael_b6 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I'd debated for a while about whether to get the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8, and had borrowed a friend's 1.8 for a while to test it out. I ended up getting the 1.4 about a week ago, even though I'd never used one. Despite being a tried and true cheapskate, I have to say that it is worth the extra money. After using the 1.8 for about two months, it's already clear to me that everything the 1.8 does well at apertures wider than f4, the 1.4 does better - from sharpness to color rendition to bokeh, and I've already been in low light when the extra 2/3 of a stop made a difference. So, not trying to prove anything here - just wanted to give some input to anyone who might be grappling with the same dilemma and hoping to save the extra cash -- my advice, spend it and you'll be happier with the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giggles Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I second that verdict. I have both and prefer the 1.4 hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I second that verdict. I have both and prefer the 1.4 hands down. I have used both and prefer the 1.8 hands down. In the real world,there is very little difference,other than the extra stop.But of course,the 1.4 cost a lot more,so it must be better. Not sure which one has the most pixels;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 @ michael: how would you rate the 1.4's resistance to flare compared to the 1.8? i've heard it's notso hotso. also, if you posted some test shots, maybe we could see the difference for ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcraton Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Ah yes, the once again 1.4 / 1.8 arguement. I do just fine with my 1.8. I use it often and find it more than acceptable and on my D200 often. If you are curious, you might want to read the MTF graphs at Nikon: http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/normal/index.htm. It's a long series of threads here and other Nikon forum sites. It really boils down to preference as both are fine lenses and really the final outcome depends more on the shooter than the gear. And what Allen said, "it costs more, so it must be better." Good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bradtke Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I have the F/1.2,F/1.4,F/1.8 and I use them all. The one I use the least? The F/1.8. I don't like the way the F/1.8 built. The F/1.4 is a little better but they are cheep feeling compared to the F/1.2. Since I don't use AF with them the way the lens feels and focuses manually has a lot to do with it for me. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanjo_viagran Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I have the 1.8 AI,AF,AFD and the 1.4 AID, AI,AIS,AFD and 1.2 AI, if I have to pick one the 1.2 AI it the one. from the 1.4 and 1.8, I'd spend $100 in the 1.8 and go out for some pizza and beer with the extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcraton Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I have used and seen results from all of the lenses Juanjo mentioned. All of them are good and all of them have limitations. Anytime you add glass to an equation, well it's simple optics. It's a compromise. There is no conclusive evidence to buy any of these lenses but for personal reasons. Nikon rules in my book with their past and present 50mm lenses. And Juanjo makes the most valid point of all. . .pizza and beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b6 Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 I agree with everything positive said about the 1.8; just that I found that at wider apertures, the 1.4 has an all-around edge that was worth paying the extra $150 for -- and I'm not the kind of person who goes in for the 'more expensive = better' logic -- if I felt the 1.4 wasn't worth it, I'd say it, or try to return it. And sure, I agree it come down to user preference. I'd think about figuring out how to post pictures to compare, but inevitably any comparisons would be negated by differences in the subject/lighting/etc. since I don't have the 1.8 anymore and can't make a direct comparison of the two. It's hard to quantify, exactly, and looking at scientific charts doesn't quite capture what a lens produces. All I know is that I got plenty of excellent pictures with the 1.8, but some of the shots I've taken with the 1.4 are making me look at my D70 with newfound awe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanjo_viagran Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 nothing like photozone .. 50mm 1.4D http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_50_14/index.htm 50mm 1.8D http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_50_18/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanjo_viagran Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 PS. after trying pretty much every Nikon 50mm every made, I went for the 45mm 2.8 GN Arriving tomorrow.. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well, now that we've got all of THAT out on the table, maybe we can stir things up a bit. The 50mm has the inertia it has because of its role as a "normal" focal length lens on a 35mm - and now, "FX" - body. Stellar lenses (I have a 1.8 'D', and use it regularly). <br><br> But, I'm shooting with a DX sensor. The <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FSigma-30mm-Nikon-Digital-Cameras%2Fdp%2FB0007U0H06%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1191381842%26sr%3D8-2&tag=uplandlife-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_blank"><b>Sigma 30/1.4 HSM</b></a> is starting to look attractive. I'm curious how it will feel, relative to my good ol' 50/1.8, and how the IQ relates. <br><Br> One of the reasons this matters to me: an upcoming trip to Italy, including lots of time indoors in dark, you're-dead-if-you-use-a-strobe sorts of places. I'm expecting social settings, and the "new normal" (for me) focal length with the option for all that speed seems likely to be very helpful. Anyone actually USE one of these, especially on a D200, that can talk about it in the context of being familiar with the 50/1.8? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcraton Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 "looking at scientific charts doesn't quite capture what a lens produces" Well. . .maybe. Maybe not. It does help in understanding why a lens performs the way it does or doesn't. Many have complained about the 1.4 being "unusable" below 2.0. Read the threads. I am glad you are happy with your lens and that is the point. Confidence inspires better shots, or should. The truth is--IMHO, the 1.4 is no better than the 1.2 or 1.8. All of these lenses have their strong points and all of them weakness. I do like Matt's point. I bought the Nikon 35mm/2 and love it, but that may not be fast enough for your application. I did try the Sigma you are referring to on my D200 and found it to be lacking as compared to Nikon lenses. It was not sharp, a bit of above my acceptable level of distortion, vignetting under 2.0, problems at the borders. I passed on it. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm if you want a qualifed test. Sacrilege here: I just up the ISO on my cam. Sue me. With proper PP, it works. More stirring for the pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b6 Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'd love to just up my ISO, but on the D70 I find that problematic over 800. The noise becomes too intrusive, so my better option is a faster lens. I can't speak for others, but the results I get even at 1.4 are quite useable - and they're even better at 1.8 and 2. I only wish I'd gotten this lens a long time ago. I'd have saved more than a few shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiro Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 David C. wrote... "It was not sharp, a bit of above my acceptable level of distortion, vignetting under 2.0, problems at the borders. I passed on it." I'll agree with everything but the sharp and the passed on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 David Craton: You forgot to mention the fine print from the photozone test (on a Canon DSLR)of a 30/1.4 Sigma lens: <p> <i>Note: The results are NOT cross-system comparable due to the differences between the image systems (low-pass filter + sensor + A/D + in-camera post-processing + RAW converter profile).</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I find that the image quality from the 1.8 is excellent from f/2.8 onwards and better than the 1.4 when any of these conditions are met: 1) you're stopped down to f/5.6-f/11, 2) you're shooting into the light, or 3) you are shooting a subject at close range. The 1.8 also has a recessed front element which means that if you don't use a filter you don't need to screw the hood on either. It also makes less noise autofocusing. The 1.4 is better between f/1.4 and f/2.8 if you focus very carefully. But when you're not shooting at those apertures it doesn't make sense to use it IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayak203 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Matt, The 30mm is really good for low light and can't think of a better lens to use for normal perspective indoors. Sharp in the middle at f/2 and quite acceptable wide open. Compared to the 50mm, though, it's a bit bulbous or just larger than I want it to be. I haven't tried the 35mm but that lens might feel more like your 50. Of course you will want something wider too. Have a great trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Matt, consider also the 28mm f/2 Nikkor. It is optically excellent and mechanically really well made also. Available sporadically on the 2nd hand market. I wish I had bought mine 10 years ago ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6489611-lg.jpg" title="Sigma 30/1.4"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6489611-lg.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="" /></a> <br> <i>Sigma 30/1.4, Click for larger</i><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Thanks, folks. I'm definitely getting weary of covering that 30-ish range with a pokey zoom. Lot to think about! Vivek: great sample, thank you for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcraton Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Vivek, you are correct on the Photozone tests per the Sigma 30mm. I knew that, just forgot to mention it. My bad, thank you for correcting that. Still, the lens I tested was as described. I have found Illka's statements concerning the two 50mm lenses to be true as well. It boils down to the fact that glass is always a compromise in someway or another. But, those compromises often make for fine shots. Good luck to Matt and now can we compare and differ on the 85/1.8 vs. the 85/1.4? Heh, just kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskar_ojala Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'm thinking of getting a 50/1.8 AIS to complement my 50/1.4 AF-D since I'm tired of the construction quality of the AF-D, want things like infinity being infinity and at the end of the focus helical and I want a smaller alternative. However, when shooting with a 50, I do prefer to use the faster version since it performs better at large apertures and you have the extra light for when you need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squiggs77 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I have both the 50mm 1.8 and the Sigma 30mm 1.4. I don't use the 50mm 1.8 any more. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_monahan Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I use my 45 2.8 whenever possible, over my 50 1.4. The 45 is as sharp or sharper than my 50 1.4, and better, in that the bokeh rivals my 85 1.4. 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