Relative value of Nikon 50mm F1.4 versus F1.8 as relates to low light & higher ISO with D1x

[geremy_franks]

A standard Nikon 50mm AF-D lens equates to about 75mm when used with

the D1x, to the best of my understanding. From the experience of this

group, is there a clear preference for the F1.4 version of this lens

versus the F1.8 version.

 

There is almost a tripling of the price for the 1.4 over the 1.8.

http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

gives the 1.8 a higher rating (4.4) over the 1.4 (4.2 rating).

 

But the real question, and this for a very experienced film shooter

but just starting with a D1x, is the factor of the ISO 1600 and 3200

for low light. If that 1 stop is all that valuable with DIGITAL, then

the extra funds and possibly slightly less quality lens in the 1.4

might be worth it, for extreme low light circumstances. Or even the

purchase of a 1.8 for $100 new and with the money saved, an AIS F1.2

for yet better low light, but I don�t want to include too many factors

into this post.

 

The newer F1.4 and 1.8 are plastic and Chinese made as per:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5014af.htm

 

He also references more potential barrel distortion in the 1.4 over

the 1.8

 

A feel a touch silly, having all the experience with film

characteristics that I do, and asking re D1x ISO 800, 1600 and 3200,

but perhaps I can engender some viewpoints as to the sensibility of

either the 50mm F1.8 or F1.4 as it relates to lens cost in alignment

with needfulness with possibly degraded image capturing capabilities

of the D1X at the higher ISO ratings.

 

With film the grain, particularly with B&W, at 3200 was sometimes

quite welcome. With D1X digital it may not be.

 

Thus the interest in the extra F stop with the 1.4 or the simple F1.8

in 50MM AF.

 

Thanks

[olivier_reichenbach]

All I know is that the 50 f/1.8 is an awesome lens, plastic and all. I don't see why you

would need 1.4 and 1600/3200 ISO (which are probably rather noisy) unless you

really want to shoot under candlelight. Shoot in Nef mode and adjust with Nikon

Capture.

 

Here is what I mean: the first picture is made at 800 ISO, 1/20, f/1.8, multi-pattern

metering, aperture priority. It is exactly as the original Nef file straight form the CCD,

only converted from Nef to JPG, no retouching at all. The lighting is a 100 watts bulb

in a frosted shade. The second picture is the same, but with + 1EV added to the

exposure in Nikon Capture. You could probably go higher.

 

You get my point?<div></div>

[olivier_reichenbach]

Now, the second picture.<div></div>

[jim schwaiger]

The f/1.4 is just over 2/3rds of a stop faster than the f/1.8, but that is about the only area where it is superior to the f/1.8 (well, it's price is superior too). Both are very good deals, but the consensus here seems to be to get the f/1.8 unless you really need that extra 2/3rds of a stop. Either way, your digital images are likely to be quite noisy over ISO 800 in low light.

[geremy_franks]

Thank you much, although I don�t wish to stifle further responses. This is very appreciated. The realm of need would be for candid available light �moment� shots on the day of a wedding and prior to the wedding, mostly. They could/would be converted to B & W, and would accept, in the film world concept, all the grain that would be needed for the omission of the use of a flash. A flash would disrupt the intimacy and invisibility of myself at those moments.

I could have included this in the original post, and perhaps should have, but it was lengthy to begin with.

 

The factor of the 1/20th of a second shutter speed is, then, the salient element in your examples, No way I could shoot at 1/20th, or below 1/60th or preferably 1/125th, to use traditional F series increments. I would not be able to carry around a monopod and drop it on each shot on an invisible shooter basis.

The thought was that the extra F stop could make or break the shot, as per the film world restraints, as exist there. Cannon has an F1.2 85mm L series lens. But, an extra 2/3rds of a stop is not really that much difference. I am familiar with the digital darkroom world and always have been scanning all film shot. I am expert at getting all that can be gotten out of a film frame through scanning. However I am new to the D1x and am averse to the extra expense and possibly a tiny bit poorer quality of the Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF-D in comparison to the 1.8. And I am quite insufficiently knowlegeble re any problems at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 with the D1X. It is entirely possible that shots which would be acceptable to be quite grainy in film terms, would not be any worse in high D1X ISO terms. And this relates to the 1.4 versus the 1.8

 

This is very helpful (above) and I welcome further observations and perspectives.

[geremy_franks]

Omitted data re the above. The anticipated light source for the candids would be - through the window - room daylight, at unpredictable times of the day. The subjects most likely standing somewhere in the vicinity of the window. Obviously in outdoor daylight the shutter speed would be high and camera shake factor would be moot. Thanks.

[steve_chan5]

This is a question that nobody can really answer for you. I just tested my D100 and 50/1.4 in my dimly lit living room. At ISO800, focusing at an item on the table it was either F1.4 1/40sec or F1.8 1/25sec. Assume that for ISO1600, you have F1.4 1/80sec and F1.8 1/50sec.

 

Which would you prefer? How important are the available light shots to you? The 1/80sec is just about what you need to meet the conventional standard for a 75mm equivalent lens, the 1/50th is below it.

 

Here's a cheap hack: buy the 50/1.8 and an external 50mm viewfinder you can put on the flash shoe. Use MLU and frame via the viewfinder - Viola! No more mirror vibration! Should be able to get an extra stop of exposure.

 

Convert your D1X in a a big, expensive, digital Bessa T...

[geremy_franks]

Steve,

You may have posted the reference to the MLU and 50mm viewfinder with a twinkle in your eye, but d*** that is a good idea. I would not be surprised if there was more than one stop advantage from the MLU.

I would still have to be stable when shooting, but it is fascinating.

I am humbled, sometimes, when encountering suggestions and ideas such as this on this forum. Thanks.

I have started a research binge and lo there are finders from many manufacturers, They are not cheap, but I may be able to find a decent one for not that much.

It would also be quieter � no ?

And get this, I acquired this camera from a pro who shoots on TV and film sets. He had to abandon the D1x, or so he says, even with a dedicated sound baffle �blimp�, because D1x made too much noise for the sound technicians. So he switched to a Cannon 10D as it is apparently quite quiet, and left a zillion Nikon lenses behind.

 

If you or another has more bolts from the blue, please, let the ideas come forth !

 

And I like the lighting on your Grace Kelly-esque probable dancer.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Here are two examples of noise (grain) at 3200 ISO, although it might not show much

with such small pics.

 

Photo number one: ISO 3200 - 50 mm f/1.8 - 1/80 sec. at f/3 - color converted to

B&W in PS - Nef format.

 

Photo number two: Same specs, but shot in B&W, Tiff format.

 

Lighting is earlly morning light (8 AM) through the three windows of my study.<div></div>

[olivier_reichenbach]

The second picture.

 

BTW, I forgot, the cropping corresponds to a print equivalent in size to my computer

monitor, ie 16 in. or roughly a third bigger than letter size.

 

I feel that digital noise is not as pleasant as real film grain, even though it is

acceptable if you shoot in B&W. If you do, you won't have the Nef format option,

though. Only Tiff or JPG.

 

Of course, 1/80 is okay with the 50 mm, but f/3 won't give you much DOF. What will

you gain with the f/1.4? Up to f/4.5 maybe. Not worth it.

 

Go for the f/1.8.<div></div>

[todd peach seattle, washi]

I don't have a lot of digital experience, but I would go with the 1.4 for what you describe. You intend to explore the wide open / low light extremes. The 1.4 simply gives you more options. Conventional wisdom is that if you don't intend to often shoot wide open, you buy the more conservative lens.

 

Nobody has pointed out that the brighter view will enable your camera to AF better, as well as giving you a clearer view of precisely where your point of focus is.

 

Just to muddle your thinking further, I have used the 85/1.8 AFD on a D100 to do available light portrait type work. Nice combo. There again, the 85/1.4 AFD probably works better, but that's some serious financial hurt.

[wind.dk]

I agree with Todd. If you were out to photograph buildings equipped with a tripod, the 1.8 might be better, but the barrel/pincushion (don't remember which it is in this case) distortion of the 1.4 is small, and you'll feel the increased noise or camera shake under extreme conditions with the 1.8 more than the marginal reduction in sharpness with the 1.4. The 1.4 is made for the purposes you describe.

[steve_chan5]

Geremy,

 

I came up with the external VF idea a few weeks ago as I was thinking through the advantages/disadvantages of rangefinder cameras. The big problem with external viewfinders is compensating for parallax - framing accuracy takes more work. The brightest, affordable external VF are probably the new ones put out by Voigtlander/Cosina, or else the old Voigtlander Turn-It finder.

 

I suppose that if you wanted a general solution, you could snag one of those Linhof Universal finders, but you'd have to do the focal length conversions. And it would cost a lot of money.

 

Also remember that even if you get a 50/1.4, you can still benefit from the external VF. I should say that we're very happy with the 50/1.4 - we traded up from the 50/1.8 and didn't regret it.

 

On the D100, the 50/1.4 makes a good portrait length, and the decreased DOF of the 1.4 is an additional benefit for portraiture. If only it had the creamier bokeh of slower lens designs...

[geremy_franks]

These are excellent and appreciated perspectives. I view more and more that despite my decades of shooting, others having had often such a different sequence of events, and can open my eyes unexpectedly.

The 1.4 has a different glass configuration (7 Groups/ 6 Elements versus 5 Groups/ 6 Elements for the 1.8) and weighs twice as much, and there may be other less or non measurable differences.

I would shoot color and convert, for the NEF values and advantages.

 

The bokeh of other lenses, such as the 180ED is magnificent, and neither of these 50mm will provide that � effective 75mm in the D1X or not. But the 180 turns into, presumably a 270mm, with the D1x, and that is just too long for practicality. I could maneuver with it on a film camera, but 270 is too long.

 

This bokeh factor is among the most valuable elements, to me, of a lens. I have never found one to out do the 180 ED, but should establish a separate thread, I guess. The bokeh ratings of various Nikon lenses would be worthy enough for an entire website.

 

I guess the leaning is towards the 1.4. Thank you to all. Next on with bokeh ! ;-)