f1.4 or f1.8 as a first fast lens?

[sven_felsby]

<p>probably cheaper than golf, scuba diving or yacht sailing.<br>

If I were to buy you christmas presents, there´d be a Nikon 35/1.8 DX under the tree.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Personaly if I did not have the Nikon 50 1.8 I would find a way to buy the Sigma HSM 50mm 1.4. The out of focus areas with the 50mm 1.8 can be quite distracting and you have to really pay attention to what is in the background. Matt's example shows this very well.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The difference is impressive (very good pic, Matt!) . Out of curiosity I ran to check my lenses, thinking that it cannot be possible (althought I have been using different 50s for years)... yes it is.</p>

<p>There are very slight bokeh differences between the Nikkors.</p>

<p>The sample pics I`m posting are not as descriptive as Matt ones, but help to have an idea. First, 50/1.8AFD vs AFS 50, both at f1.8. Both are very close, the difference is that the out of focus lines on the AFS are not as marked as in the f1.8 version, the overall blur is a bit softer. It doesn`t have that "double line" blur.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>For whatever the reason it doesn`t appear on the thread:</p>

[Two23]

<p>Buying photo gear just because someone else tells you that you "need" it is a poor way to go. You often end up with stuff someone else likes to use but not you. Think this through very carefully. I never buy anything without having carefully determined a need for first.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Now, the 50AFS vs 50/1.4AiS... so funny! Both images look like taken with the same lens... At first I thought that I was wrong, I checked it several times, I didn`t find where was the mistake. Finally I found a little difference; the AiS version shows the highlight rings with a very very slight polygonal shape, while the AFS rings are almost perfectly round... otherwise looks to be the very same lens on the two images, even looking at 100%... I`m so surprised!</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>The only difference I have found, 100% crop:</p><div></div>

[steve_renwick]

<p>>>I think perhaps I need to get a bit more familiar with my camera and it's current lens before I think about getting another lens.<<<br>

That's a smart plan.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>That <em>is</em> a good plan!<br /><br />Jose: Nikon really hasn't significantly changed the optical formula on their 50's in a long, long time. True whether it's the 1.8s or the 1.4s. The Sigma is a completely different design. It's a big piece of glass, in a different configuration. Its size contributes to its low distortion, sharpness in the corners wide open, CA behavior, and that nice bokeh. But ... did I mention size?</p><div></div>

[steven_rasmussen]

<p>One thing I've found with photography is that as you make use of your equipment, you become aware of its strengths and its limitations. As you become aware of the limitations, you can begin to make informed decisions about what you need. For me, the most limiting factor in my photography was the lack of a tripod. When I was able to afford it, I carefully chose, and purchased a tripod that fit my needs/budget. After that, I got a wide-angle lens for more landscape/street shooting options. I seldom have any need for lenses longer than 50mm on a full-frame body (35mm film equivalent), due to the general subject matter i enjoy shooting. As you shoot, you will develop a better idea of what you <em>want</em> to shoot, and what equipment you need to do the job. Then the decision becomes easy. I've known many people who used a single non-zoom (prime) lens for years, myself included, before ever purchasing another. That being said, I was also a broke college student, surrounded by other broke college students. Enjoy your great new camera!</p>

[Paul Lewis1664881697]

<p>WOW... that is the biggest 50mm lens I've ever seen. The front element looks to be similar in size to the 85mm F1.4 AFS Nikkor. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It takes 77mm filters, Paul (which I like, because I can share those filters with my other big lenses). Yes, it's chubby. Part of that, like the AF-S Nikkors, is that it has a built in hypersonic motor assembly, which adds to the size of the barrel. Like the AF-S lenses, you can use AF, but still grab the focus ring and fine-tune, to override the AF. It's not nearly as heavy as it looks, promise. I find it very pleasnt to carry and use.<br /><br />But as usual, choosing subjects, light, and circumstances - and having the time to do it right - have <em>way</em> more to do with whether I'm happy with the results. I'm just pleased that when it <em>can</em> make a difference, this lens does. I shot with a nice small 50/1.8 for over 25 years, and don't feel like I did myself any disservice!</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>I just got my Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4G two days ago. I bought it so that I could shoot f/1.4 to achieve blurred backgrounds. <br>

Would the Sigma 50 mm handle the background better with this type of shot, which is spot metered using Aperture Priority f/1.4, ISO 125 and 1/801 sec hand held with Nikon supplied hood fitted using D200 body?<br>

 

<p> </p>

</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Well, Greg - you're up against a very bright background, there. Those super-hot whites would cause some of that CA-related blue fringing in almost any lens, but sure - the Sigma would probably soften all of that a bit more. I think your real tactic there would be to get the background under control, exposure-wise, and then to use a reflector or a touch of fill flash to balance your foreground (and cute!) subject. That would help to preserve more detail in the white fur areas, too. This is one of those cases where technique changes might trump any changes in the lens.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>A 50mm with a 77mm filter thread? Wow.<br>

OK, if you have a D300, it should meter with the Manual Focus 50mm 1.4 AIS Nikkor, correct? You know that with apertures like 1.4 the Depth of field is tiny, so autofocus is of very limited value....with AF you'll be hoping the camera guesses the proper plane of focus. So you'll find yourself switching to manual focus at least half the time. My advice is get the cheaper, older MF Nikon 50 1.4 AiS which has better manual focus control.<br>

When you get bored with a 1.4 lens, (which will take a <em>LONG </em> time!) you can look around for the Nikon f1.2 ....see the attached pic for some extremely shallow DOF!</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Russ: I have exactly the opposite experience. Especially when dealing with dynamic (read: living) subjects. The D300's AF system is very accurate. It's more accurate than I am, especially since I don't have a speciality focus screen installed in the body. Yes, DoF is paper thin if you're shooting wide open. But I've been very comfortable letting the AF do the work most of the time, and just grabbing the focus ring if I know I need to take over.<br /><br />Another important consideration, looking at these newer lenses vs. the older AIS flavor: modern coatings and materials. With more recent designs, you've got less to worry about with flare, ghosting, sensor reflection, etc. I'm quite happy at f/1.4, thank you. You're a brave man, walking out onto that thin f/1.2 ice!</p>

[Paul Lewis1664881697]

<p>In my opinion, it's very hard to shoot a quality portrait at f1.4 or f1.2 unless using a tripod and a stable subject. Can it be done without? Sure, but with the 85mm f1.4 AF-S Nikkor, I found that the DOF was so shallow at f1.4 that a subject (or my camera) moving an inch could send the subject's eyes completely out of focus. Maybe at 50mm the DOF is a little bigger and it's not as much of a concern.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Paul: Just because you <em>can</em> use it at f/1.4 doesn't mean you have to! Many of the qualitative differences between those lenses are still very noticeable at, say, f/2.8, and choosing one you like still matters. A good fast prime, stopped down <em>to</em> f/2.8, is usually going to do you a better job than a a good f/2.8 lens wide open - and you get a brighter viewfinder, better AF performance, etc.</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>Point well made Matt. There is a lot for me to learn about shooting in the range f/1.4 to f/2.8 with any 50 mm lens, let alone starting to pick one over the other. So long as it’s got autofocus I am happy. This is another shot taken with less than optimal technique. I am in course drive mode at the moment just trying to appreciate what this lens will do, and how close I need to be to get some of these head shots (definitely pets only). The CA-related blue fringing is there again (my fault) for the reasons you have already outlined.</p><div></div>

[ae_ingveld]

<p>buy good - buy once</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>megan, why don't you play with your kit lens first, if it came with one. it is a better learning tool than a super fast 50mm that will not meter or autofocus on your camera. for now you can get the 35mm f/1.8 af-s for your low light situations. now that, is a learning tool that will complement well with whatever lens you have right now.</p>

<p>if you want to jump on it --- portrait, low light, versatility, etc., i would rercommend a tamron 17-50mm or a sigma 18-50mm. they are both f/2.8 and the long end will give you excellent results doing portraits to start with. maybe later you can get a specialized lens for portrait.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Matt, that first shot pretty much says it all for me. Matt sold me on the Sigma 6 months ago. What size issue?, using a 3 lb 70-200 most of the time the sigma is tiny. And yes, the Sigma is about $50 more expensive. Take a look at Matts excellent examples, I shoot primarily portraiture, so its not a difficult choice for me. Do you want butter smooth or 4 shots of expresso jangled bokeh? Of course, from the 1.8 there is a $400 difference that may not be worth it to some for a normal lens. For me, its where I fall back to for full length when I run out of room with the 70-200. Nikons 50 1.4 or 1.8 is targeted at the person who is more interested in over all sharpness probably at smaller apertures, then the bokeh isnt critical. I understand it exceeds the sigma in that regard, so know what you will use the tool for and choose the appropriate tool for you. I personally cant see any difference in sharpness between the 1.8 and sigma, but I believe folks out there with test charts say there is a minor edge for the Nikon. Again, for portraiture, I am usually softening skin for most shots, so I dont worry about a sharpness difference I cant see. For me, its the right tool for the job. And dont forget the brighter viewfinder is a side benefit.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Is see Mr P Lewis has one of the new 85mm f1.4 AF-S lenses! I'm suprised no-one picked it up more quickly. Must be a pre-production tester....and indeed wide open, the DOF has gotta be a thin slice through space!</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Didnt have much dof here- about half inch. 180mm at 2.8</p><div></div>

[john_morris4]

<p>The 180mm f/2.8 might not be a best first fast lens, but it's certainly nice to have. Small enough to bother to carry it, and great imagery even wide open.</p>