50mm/1.4 or 50mm/1.8?

[john_terry5]

<p>It confuses me that to make a choice between 50mm/1.4 and 50mm/1.8. I prefer 50mm/1.8 becauses of the low price. I mean does 50mm/1.4 worths the price gap?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Which camera body are you using? What sort of subject matter are you shooting? And, I presume you're talking about one of the newer generation 50/1.4's, like Nikon's new 50/1.4 AF-S - not the older models?</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>You get what you pay for.</p>

[john_terry5]

<p>Thanks for your concern. I'm using D90 and the major subject is portrait. Actually I'm talking about the old ones, AF50mm 1.4D and AF50 1.8D, but I'll appreciate that if you can talk something about the newer generation.</p>

[roypanos]

<p>Hi. I'm no expert on this subject but recently bought a tidy second hand 1.4 D at a reasonable price (£130) It's very soft at 1.4 - dof issues notwithstanding. I compared it quickly with one of my old AIS 50s - one of the E series models (not noted for being exceptional) at 1.8 - 4 and the 1.4D came off worse in most respects - sharpness, contrast etc. Of course mine is a second-hand lens of unknown provenance (prior to the shop where I bought it).<br>

What I've often read is that, for the price, the 1.8D is a better deal.</p>

<p>Roy</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"You get what you pay for."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So true. But in this case the difference in cost between a 50/1.4D and 50/1.8D has little to do with markedly better build quality (they are both now built in China) or significantly better image quality, than it does with the increased input costs (larger glass, more glass, economies of scale) incurred to make a well performing 50mm that is only 2/3's of a stop faster. A 50/1.4D is 2.4 times the cost of a 50/1.8D, but you don't necessarily get 2.4 times better image quality.</p>

<p>Having said that, the 50/1.8D does not do very well at f/1.4. ;-) :-)</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>i am a D90 user and had the 50/1.8 then traded up to the 50/1.4G only cos i had a $$$ gift to spend on something i really wanted. in all honesty, if i didnt get that $$$ gift i would have still had my 50/1.8 today and been completely happy with it. but then i would have also bough the 35/1.8 to go with it and been even more happy.<br>

conclusion, 50/1.8 + 35/1.8</p>

[john_terry5]

<p>Dose a wider aperture that useful? I don't I'm gonna use f1.4 in most conditions.</p>

[peter_k4]

<p>If you don't think you need 1.4 then you probably don't. Just get the 50 1.8 and if you find you don't like it (you probably will like it) sell it on the used market for a net loss of about $30. It would be by far the cheapest camera related purchase mistake you're ever going to make in your life!</p>

<p> </p>

[john_terry5]

<p>Could someone talk about the comparison of image quality in other f-numbers that they both have?</p>

[peter_koralis]

<p>"choosing between the two 50’s, the AF 50mm f/1.4D is clearly the better choice when shopping for a “fast” lens since its peak performance is between wide open and f/4. Beyond f/4 and the performance is acceptable but not exciting like its slower counterpart. I say this because when compared, the slower lens performs better from f/4 onwards producing excellent results. On the other hand, from wide open to about f/4 the slower fifty does not provide the same exciting results as the faster prime. So there’s definitely a difference of character between the two lenses. One is for shooting dramatic stand-out shots close to wide open and the other excels at shooting everyday stuff utilising most of the available apertures from f/4 to f/16."</p>

<p>Takrn from the 50mm f/1.4 review at http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2008/04/af-50mm-f14d.html</p>

<p>PK</p>

[luis_g]

<p> [ Both lenses are excellent by any measure, but here goes.]</p>

<p> I prefer the 50/1.8 (AF & AI-S) in every respect, except when I'm desperate for that 2/3 stop. The Bokeh of the 1.8 is better IMO, does not have the dark edge that the 1.4 G has.</p>

<p> Bjorn Rorslett gave the 50/1.4 G a 5. He also gave the earlier D version a 5, and the much earlier primitive, old SC non A/I 1.4 a 4 (and said that from f/4 it was excellent. He liked the /1.4 G better than the Zeiss 50/1.4 for Nikon (the horror!).</p>

<p> He gave the 50/1.8 AI-S a 5, and the AF version also a 5.</p>

<p> Any of these lenses will make you look good. A wider aperture isn't that useful until you're running out of light, then it's <em>priceless.</em></p>

<p>Here, read it for yourself:</p>

<p>http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</p>

<p>and you might enjoy this, too:</p>

<p>http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html#normal</p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p>I never need f1.4 so the f1.8 version is better for me.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>" I mean does 50mm/1.4 worths the price gap?" If you will be shooting in very poor light, absolutely.</p>

[john_terry5]

<p>Instead of the light condition while using, I concern more about the Bokeh and blur(mainly for portrait), so far it seems that 50/1.8 is a better choice.<br>

Thank you!</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>The bokeh on both of them is nothing to write home about. I like my Nikkor 50/1.8 for its size, weight, and nice sharpness when stopped down ... but it can produce harsh, ring-shaped out of focus elements, double lines, and other things that - especially in a portrait situation - can be distracting. There are other options that produce more pleasing results, to be sure.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm using D90 and the major subject is portrait.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you shoot indoors with available light a lot, get the 1.4. However not all 50/1.4 lenses are designed the same way. For portrait, the quality of the bokeh is very important, and in this respect, you should take a look at the Sigma 50/1.4, which has very smooth bokeh. The lens is sharp but it does not reveal all the imperfections on people's face. It reminds me of the old Nikon AIS 105/2.5 that I once own. The new Nikon 50/1.4 will do better than the old 50/1.4 in the bokeh, but it is more designed for general photography so its emphasis is to give corner to corner even sharpness throughout the aperture range. The Nikon is also lighter; thus making it a better all around lens that can easily travel.</p>

<p>Here is a picture of my son taken with the Sigma:<br>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>If possible see if someone will let you try some photos with both lenses. If you live near a camera shop they might let you mount the lenses on your camera and try some photos.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>If you're shooting in Jazz clubs or other dimly lit settings, the f1.4 may be worth the cost difference because it can acquire accurate focus more easily.</p>

<p>If you generally shoot in better lighting, or with a strobe, the 1.8 will do just fine. Spend the extra money on other things.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>John, just because I have them handy, here are two quick examples. These are completely qualitative, not lab tests. They're meant to get you thinking about what you want to see, or not, in the way bokeh is rendered.<br /><br />This is from a Sigma EX prime, wide open:<br /><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QpvA-70785684.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br />Note the way the reflected highlights on the out-of-focus background are handled. Now, here's a similar shot taken with the Nikon 50/1.8:<br /><br /><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00Qpvt-70785984.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br />You can see the ring-shaped, hard-edged handling of those same highlights. Some people <em>like</em> a busier background, and some people don't. But that's the sort of thing to watch out for when you're comparing lenses ... <em>if</em> that bokeh thing is important to you, portrait-wise. If you have a chance to take test shots with more than one lens, make a point of including background scenery that will challenge the lens a bit, and note how it handles higher-contrast objects, specular reflections, etc. Sometimes it's just splitting hairs. Other times (in certain environments or lighting conditions), the difference in background blur quality is huge.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>I have both the Nikon 50/1.8 and the Sigma 50/1.4. While the Nikon 50/1.8 has served me well for a long time, once I have the Sigma, I will never go back. The example from Matt is a very good illustration of the bokeh of the Nikon when the background is "busy" and contrasy. However if you select the background carefully, the Nikon 50/1.8 is a fine choice considering its price and size. The Sigma will make something happens for you even though you did not plan it. It should be considered as a specialized lens for portait because of its emphasis on center sharpness/smooth bokeh and the relatively large size and heavy weight. I was never into portrait until my son was born, and every good picture of him is worth the investment in a modern 50/1.4 lens be it Nikon or Sigma, both of which are around $450. </p>

[josephbraun]

<p>how important is 2/3 of a stop to you? </p>

[papa_john]

<p>I would use a manual AIS 50/1.4... no examples but this is my opinion after many years of use. </p>

[peter]

<p>I have both- Dont ask! :^)<br>

As many will tell you the build quality of the f1.4 is better as befits its much higher price. But results-wise both produce excellent images. If I could only keep one it would be the 1.4 as I like shooting portraits wide open and the extra lens speed equates with narrower depth of field. Which I value. I have also often read that the bokeh of the 1.4 is better and this is my impression too although I have not done a side by side test. So another "tick" for the 1.4.<br>

I would put it this way. If price is an issue - get the 1.8 as it produces very sharp images that in practicla terms you will not be able to fault and is very inexpensive to buy. If you are like me and like to have the best you can afford, cough up the extra for the 1.4 - or do what I did, buy it second hand to minimise the cost difference.<br>

Now that I have the 1.4, I may eventually sell the 1.8 lens but to date the thing that has put me off doing this, quite frankly is that its a very good lens and if I sell it I just will not get paid what it is worth to me in image quality terms. So for now at least I keep it.</p>

[raymond_petty1]

<p>I have the 50/1.4 and really did use the extra 2/3 of a stop around the house for available light shots of my kids as they were growing up. It seems that lens and some Delta 400 would just barely make it many times.<br>

In this day and age of high end digital consumer and prosumer cameras handling 800, 1600 or higher ISO well, I probably wouldn't bother.</p>