Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikkor 50 1.4 or Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and why?

Go to last post
J

Joe Lacy

Veteran Member
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
 
Presume you are using an S2 - 50mm equates to 75mm and is just OK - I personally think theat the 60 micro is easier to use at an equivalent of 90mm. Presuming you go the 50mm route - the 50mm 1.8 AF-D is just fabulous. The only advantage in the 1.4 is that it is slightly faster - I have not done a head to head with both, but if you're buying it as a portrait lens, you'll probably be shooting both at about 5.6 to 8, so having the ability to open it up to 1.4 is meaningless. You'll see that the 1.8 generally gets better reviews - I can't say I have ever noticed that the 1.4 was not sharp... it always looked plenty sharp to me! I have just bought a new 1.8 D - you cannot beat this lens for value (and I think this is one case where the D may be useful...). It is very sharp and contrasty, especially where you are likely to use it for portraits. However, if money is no object, I would say that the 60 micro is a slightly better bet (you just have a whole lot more flexibility in the depth of field - this is key with the S2 because of the low sync speed).
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
 
Agree with last comments. I'm not sure the 60mm is easier thu. I would add that the F1.8 version is a real bargin and gives stuning results. The 1.4 version is twice the price and does not give much more.

The viewfinder is very bright with boths lens making is very easy to get sharpe focus.Can't go wrong for a $120.
 
Hi Joe

I also have the 50mm 1.8D best lens for the money and good all a round lenses. The f1.4 is twice the price and I have not had the need for it yet. For a portrait lens shoulders up I have the Tamron SP 90 f2.8 I bought from a recommend by a member on this board it is a outstanding lenses, it is SHARP I injoy this lenses alot. You would not go wrong with it.
Allen
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
 
Allen - do you not find the 90mm a bit long? Of course it depends on your studio set-up, but I must say that 90mm (scaled up to 135mm) is really pushing the limits for me personally.
Allen Bock said:
I also have the 50mm 1.8D best lens for the money and good all a
round lenses. The f1.4 is twice the price and I have not had the
need for it yet. For a portrait lens shoulders up I have the Tamron
SP 90 f2.8 I bought from a recommend by a member on this board it
is a outstanding lenses, it is SHARP I injoy this lenses alot. You
would not go wrong with it.
Allen
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have the 50 1.4 and really love it.......however I haven't used it since discovering my 35-70 2.8D which I picked up used for $475.00. I am shocked that people do not speak about this lens more often. I understand that the range is not great but for a studio portrait lens, this thing rocks! Between the 35-70 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO/USM I have the perfect equipment for portraits and the rest is up to me.
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
--
http://www.bmac-photo.com
 
Hi Donsta

I don't have a studio and my back yard is big. Isn't Nikon's 85mm a studio lens ? Not mush different there 5mm. The Tammon SP 90mm just really stands out one of my best lenses, and for the price WOW if you never use one try it, you will like it.

Allen
Donsta said:
Allen Bock said:
I also have the 50mm 1.8D best lens for the money and good all a
round lenses. The f1.4 is twice the price and I have not had the
need for it yet. For a portrait lens shoulders up I have the Tamron
SP 90 f2.8 I bought from a recommend by a member on this board it
is a outstanding lenses, it is SHARP I injoy this lenses alot. You
would not go wrong with it.
Allen
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The 85 is indeed a studio lens, but on a digital with a 1.5X focal factor, it's getting very long. The ideal portrait lengh for 35mm film (and this is very subjective, obviously) is somewhere between 80 and 105mm. On an S2, the 50mm lens equates to a 75mm which is just about enough. However, I suspect that a 90mm (135mm equivalent) is just getting difficult to set up with any flexibility.

While I don't own any Tamron lenses (yet), I have heard good things about this particular lens, although I am sure, for my set-up, it would be a better lengh for film than digital.
Allen Bock said:
I don't have a studio and my back yard is big. Isn't Nikon's 85mm a
studio lens ? Not mush different there 5mm. The Tammon SP 90mm just
really stands out one of my best lenses, and for the price WOW if
you never use one try it, you will like it.

Allen
Donsta said:
Allen Bock said:
I also have the 50mm 1.8D best lens for the money and good all a
round lenses. The f1.4 is twice the price and I have not had the
need for it yet. For a portrait lens shoulders up I have the Tamron
SP 90 f2.8 I bought from a recommend by a member on this board it
is a outstanding lenses, it is SHARP I injoy this lenses alot. You
would not go wrong with it.
Allen
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have voiced my enthusiasm for the Nikkor 35-70 2.8D many times on this site

the range, while narrow, is perfect, IMHO, for people shots and the lens is very sharp & quite sturdy...also feels good on the S2

I also have the Nikkor 50 1.4 and love it...it is always with me when I shoot and a great low light lens, that I think is tack sharp from f 2 on up

the image sharpness falls off a bit at smaller apertures, but that is not why you would buy it

the 1.8 is muchly celebrated, but if you have the bucks, I think the 1.4 offers much for what is still not an outrageous price for something that is a long term investment
--
pbase galleries
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
 
The Nikon 35-70 is a very good lens. I think the reason is that it's not raved about like the 50mm is as follows. The 35-70 range is only a little greater than an 50mm lens. It's also bulky and a little slower to focus. Many people go for the 28-105 or 50mm for these reasons. Plus the 35-70 is 5 times the cost of the 50mm.

I have had both lens and I sold the 35-70 in favour of the 28-105 and have a 50mm F1.8 too
Alex
Artichoke said:
I have voiced my enthusiasm for the Nikkor 35-70 2.8D many times on
this site

the range, while narrow, is perfect, IMHO, for people shots and the
lens is very sharp & quite sturdy...also feels good on the S2

I also have the Nikkor 50 1.4 and love it...it is always with me
when I shoot and a great low light lens, that I think is tack sharp
from f 2 on up

the image sharpness falls off a bit at smaller apertures, but that
is not why you would buy it

the 1.8 is muchly celebrated, but if you have the bucks, I think
the 1.4 offers much for what is still not an outrageous price for
something that is a long term investment
--
pbase galleries
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
Click to expand...
 
Donald Hutton said:
Donald Hutton said:
Joe Lacy wrote:
Click to expand...
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group suggest and why?
Click to expand...
Joe's question is asked frequently. But what,exactly, "is" a portrait? How many people are in the portrait? Ho far back can you be from your subject(s)? If a portrait has two people in it, like a husband and wife,or a bride and groom, it is different from a family portrait with a total of five or six people in it. If you want an "environmental portrait", there's a good chance you'll want a wider-angle lens than if you are doing a glamour portrait of one person. Is it a pet portrait of a prized show or field dog?

Are we talking about studio shooting or field shooting? Do you want candid,environmental portraits,grabbed as your subjects work or play? Or are we lighting with strobes or hot lights? As you can see, there's not just one kind of portrait, and there are many,many types of faces and complexions.

I used to work at a high-volume portrait studio that used 35mm long-roll magazines and a 50-150mm zoom lens. I shot from 50 to 150 mm, at from 5 feet to 18 feet from my subjects. If you want to use vignettes and soft-focus filters, you need to move more into the telphoto range for smooth vignette effects with "most" vignettes (Lindhal,etc). In outdoor work, it is often neccessary to work from a distance. Brian McDonnell recently posted some shots from his first all-digital all-S2 wedding ,done with his 70-200 Sigma HSM, and they were very nice at showing just how good "longer" focal lengths can be when shooting two people,outdoors, with enough space to allow the subjects to "free up". Shooting from farther away can loosen up subjects, while having the camera 6-8 feet away will inhibit many people. I know this because I used to shoot 25-40 "Sets" a day,day in day out. Moving the camera BACK makes MANY people feel much more at-ease. Shooting at 15-20 feet with a 180 or 200 is an approach I sometimes like to use.

As far as the Tamron 90, a digital 135mm equivalent goes--it is an excellent portrait lens for using vignettes and center-spots and diffusion/mist/netting filters on. It is razor-sharp. I have never felt that 135mm is "too long" for portraiture. Some people look MUCH better photographed with a long lens...it flattens their faces somewhat,and done right,on the right subjects, makes portraits that SELL. When shooting 35mm, I always felt that the 85mm lens was NOT long enough for my taste in close-in,single-subject shooting, and that a 105 to 135mm was preferrable. For environmental portraits, 50 to 85mm lengths are very handy. Heck, even 35mm is useful for showing "environment". Not every portrait has to be a close-up. I photographed a group of 30 this weekend....I found a 24mm on my S2 was the perfect choice.

If you want background control, and the ability to do really blown-out backgrounds, using the longer focal lengths is the answer. As focal length goes down, the angle of background width goes way up. If you need to shoot on narrow backgrounds, you need to be at a more telephoto setting--otherwise the background's edges will show.

Given all this, there is no "ONE" lens or length that is unmatched in every situation. At times you MUST have a focal length as short as 35mm, and sometimes one as long as 300mm looks mighty darned good. It's all a matter of taste, methods, and what you're looking for. My personal favorites would be the 85-90mm lenses, 105,135mm, and 180mm.

I guess if I had to pick just ONE lens as a compromise, it'd be a 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 zoom for one-or two-person portrait work.

A old,spectacular MF choice would be Nikon's 50-135mm f/3.5 Zoom-Nikkor. It's very versatile, but has no light metering except TTL flash metering on the S2. Tamron's 90 AF-SP is very sharp and has a deeply-recessed front element that allows you to use soft-focus or diffusion filters at wider apertures and still get pleasant effects. The 180mm Nikkors and the Sigma APO-Macro 180 with HSM yield very beautiful effects withor without diffusion filters applied.

I'd ask this question instead of the length question: How many blades in the diaphragm? The lenses with 9-blade diaphragms yield softer,more-pleasant out of focus backgrounds than those with 6- or 7-bladed diaphragms. Hint: Tamron AF 90, Nikon AF 85 1.4, Nikon AF 105 and AF 135 f/2 D-Defocus Control,80-200 AF-S, 80-400 VR,etc. My problem with the 50,55,and 60mm lenses is that MOST of them have 6- or 7-sided diaphragms. It has nothing to do with their length per se.A case in point: Voigtlander's 75mm f/2.5 with the 9-bladed diaphragm yields a spectacularly beautiful out-of-focus background....using a 50mm or 55mm on a digital body does NOT yield quite such a lovely picture. So, it is not so much a question of 75 versus 77 mm, but more on the diaphragm and its effect on the final photo.

Right now I am finding the 80-400 VR makes a good portrait lens, with a smooth OOF background area look, image stabilization, and the ability to blow backgrounds totally "out" if I desire. Personally, I am looking forward to the upcoming 70-200 AF-S G VR lens from Nikon...9-blades,VR, f/2.8,all that.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
 
The 50 1.8 is probably the best value out there, but there are some cautions:

The lens is very inexpensive and it shows in the build quality. I have one and frankly it is not as sharp at infinity as my 60 micro. While many people rave about this lens, many people also think it is just ok at best. The reason for this is most likely manufacturing variance. It has the cheapest build quality of any lens I have ever seen.

It is a very inexpensive lens, but if you are fortunate to get a good one, a very good performer. You may want to test it well before your return period runs out though.

For portrait work on the S2, I actually prefer the 85 1.4. The subject does not feel as intimidated and the out of focus areas are silky smooth and delicious.

The 60 micro has similar characteristics, but you do wind up "in your subjects face" more.
If you are short on space for your studio setting, the 50 or 60 might be best.

Best regards,
Jonathan kardell
--
It's all good, but some stuff is better.
 
Donsta said:
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I've just bought the Nikon 50 1.8D. I notice the construction is clearly cheaper than,say, my Nikon 24 2.8--very plasticky (lens made in China). Some quick shots made with the new lens are not all that sharp--certainly NOT tack sharp as, say, my Niko 35 -70 2.8. Have I bought the wrong 50 1.8? It only cost CDN$190 new; that's only US$122, so I don't expect too too much from the lens but everybody raves about it so that I'd like to understand why.

Fred

Fred
 
Fred - I'd send the lens back to your dealer - I also have the new "made in China" d lens (although it wasn't covered in grease: you sort of expect that when it has that label on it) - it is very sharp. I have used an older version (non-d) and it seems very comparable. This lens should be very sharp. I think that quality control on cheaper (not just this lens, but anything below "pro" grade) lenses is a big issue - I tested a 24-85 G and I'm sure it was a bad apple.
Fred Phillips said:
Donsta said:
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I've just bought the Nikon 50 1.8D. I notice the construction is
clearly cheaper than,say, my Nikon 24 2.8--very plasticky (lens
made in China). Some quick shots made with the new lens are not
all that sharp--certainly NOT tack sharp as, say, my Niko 35 -70
2.8. Have I bought the wrong 50 1.8? It only cost CDN$190 new;
that's only US$122, so I don't expect too too much from the lens
but everybody raves about it so that I'd like to understand why.

Fred

Fred
Click to expand...
 
This is a great informative reply... I think I get a little lost in my own environment and don't see the big picture all the time. Thanks for the post. It has some very good thoughts.
Derrel said:
Derrel87035 said:
Derrel87035 said:
Joe Lacy wrote:
Click to expand...
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group suggest and why?
Click to expand...
Joe's question is asked frequently. But what,exactly, "is" a
portrait? How many people are in the portrait? Ho far back can you
be from your subject(s)? If a portrait has two people in it, like a
husband and wife,or a bride and groom, it is different from a
family portrait with a total of five or six people in it. If you
want an "environmental portrait", there's a good chance you'll want
a wider-angle lens than if you are doing a glamour portrait of one
person. Is it a pet portrait of a prized show or field dog?

Are we talking about studio shooting or field shooting? Do you want
candid,environmental portraits,grabbed as your subjects work or
play? Or are we lighting with strobes or hot lights? As you can
see, there's not just one kind of portrait, and there are many,many
types of faces and complexions.

I used to work at a high-volume portrait studio that used 35mm
long-roll magazines and a 50-150mm zoom lens. I shot from 50 to 150
mm, at from 5 feet to 18 feet from my subjects. If you want to use
vignettes and soft-focus filters, you need to move more into the
telphoto range for smooth vignette effects with "most" vignettes
(Lindhal,etc). In outdoor work, it is often neccessary to work from
a distance. Brian McDonnell recently posted some shots from his
first all-digital all-S2 wedding ,done with his 70-200 Sigma HSM,
and they were very nice at showing just how good "longer" focal
lengths can be when shooting two people,outdoors, with enough space
to allow the subjects to "free up". Shooting from farther away can
loosen up subjects, while having the camera 6-8 feet away will
inhibit many people. I know this because I used to shoot 25-40
"Sets" a day,day in day out. Moving the camera BACK makes MANY
people feel much more at-ease. Shooting at 15-20 feet with a 180 or
200 is an approach I sometimes like to use.

As far as the Tamron 90, a digital 135mm equivalent goes--it is an
excellent portrait lens for using vignettes and center-spots and
diffusion/mist/netting filters on. It is razor-sharp. I have never
felt that 135mm is "too long" for portraiture. Some people look
MUCH better photographed with a long lens...it flattens their faces
somewhat,and done right,on the right subjects, makes portraits that
SELL. When shooting 35mm, I always felt that the 85mm lens was NOT
long enough for my taste in close-in,single-subject shooting, and
that a 105 to 135mm was preferrable. For environmental portraits,
50 to 85mm lengths are very handy. Heck, even 35mm is useful for
showing "environment". Not every portrait has to be a close-up. I
photographed a group of 30 this weekend....I found a 24mm on my S2
was the perfect choice.

If you want background control, and the ability to do really
blown-out backgrounds, using the longer focal lengths is the
answer. As focal length goes down, the angle of background width
goes way up. If you need to shoot on narrow backgrounds, you need
to be at a more telephoto setting--otherwise the background's edges
will show.

Given all this, there is no "ONE" lens or length that is unmatched
in every situation. At times you MUST have a focal length as short
as 35mm, and sometimes one as long as 300mm looks mighty darned
good. It's all a matter of taste, methods, and what you're looking
for. My personal favorites would be the 85-90mm lenses, 105,135mm,
and 180mm.
I guess if I had to pick just ONE lens as a compromise, it'd be a
70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 zoom for one-or two-person portrait work.

A old,spectacular MF choice would be Nikon's 50-135mm f/3.5
Zoom-Nikkor. It's very versatile, but has no light metering except
TTL flash metering on the S2. Tamron's 90 AF-SP is very sharp and
has a deeply-recessed front element that allows you to use
soft-focus or diffusion filters at wider apertures and still get
pleasant effects. The 180mm Nikkors and the Sigma APO-Macro 180
with HSM yield very beautiful effects withor without diffusion
filters applied.

I'd ask this question instead of the length question: How many
blades in the diaphragm? The lenses with 9-blade diaphragms yield
softer,more-pleasant out of focus backgrounds than those with 6- or
7-bladed diaphragms. Hint: Tamron AF 90, Nikon AF 85 1.4, Nikon AF
105 and AF 135 f/2 D-Defocus Control,80-200 AF-S, 80-400 VR,etc. My
problem with the 50,55,and 60mm lenses is that MOST of them have 6-
or 7-sided diaphragms. It has nothing to do with their length per
se.A case in point: Voigtlander's 75mm f/2.5 with the 9-bladed
diaphragm yields a spectacularly beautiful out-of-focus
background....using a 50mm or 55mm on a digital body does NOT yield
quite such a lovely picture. So, it is not so much a question of 75
versus 77 mm, but more on the diaphragm and its effect on the final
photo.

Right now I am finding the 80-400 VR makes a good portrait lens,
with a smooth OOF background area look, image stabilization, and
the ability to blow backgrounds totally "out" if I desire.
Personally, I am looking forward to the upcoming 70-200 AF-S G VR
lens from Nikon...9-blades,VR, f/2.8,all that.

--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Click to expand...
 
Fred Phillips said:
I've just bought the Nikon 50 1.8D. I notice the construction is
clearly cheaper than,say, my Nikon 24 2.8--very plasticky (lens
made in China). Some quick shots made with the new lens are not
all that sharp--certainly NOT tack sharp as, say, my Niko 35 -70
2.8. Have I bought the wrong 50 1.8? It only cost CDN$190 new;
that's only US$122, so I don't expect too too much from the lens
but everybody raves about it so that I'd like to understand why.
Click to expand...
Hi Fred,

This is not good news!! I have been waiting for over 2 months for a 50 f1.8 and it appears that a whole new batch of 1.8 Ds have been manufactured. Prior to this the 1.8s were only AF with no D (as I understand). It could be that the earlier ones were a much better quality than the new batch? Perhaps I will be forced to purchase the dearer f1.4 - or just give up on the 50 altogether and just go for the 60 Micro. I have a S/H Nikor 35 f2 which is giving sharp results and I was expecting equal if not better from the 50. Oh well....
--
Doug Jones
Canberra
http://www.panamagic.com.au
 
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?
Click to expand...
A 50 is too short to be flattering for portraits. Forget all this nonsense that you read on these forumw about a 50 becoming an 80, etc etc. A 50 mm lens on the S2 will crop to the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on 35mm film, but thats it. Its angle of view, no more. Part of the reason for using a telephoto lens is to gain the compression you get from a longer lens, and the resulting pleasant perspective. Using a 50 on an S2 to get to 75mm is no different than taking an image shot with film and a 50mm and zooming or cropping in.
 
Surely you should be using a 300mm and a megafone for correct perspective. Yes forgot my working is NOT 60 feet long. Point being you need a lens that you can work with in the area you have.

Joe is correct aboout the 1.5 really be a crop and hence perspective, depth of field be as a 50mm lens, simply the image croped to what a 75mm lens would capture.

I use the 50mm for full length as I have no room to use a larger lens. Results are very good. The images are pin sharpe and photoshop make them softer when needed.
Alex
Justin Case said:
Joe Lacy said:
I need a standard tack sharp portrait lens. What does the group
suggest and why?
Click to expand...
A 50 is too short to be flattering for portraits. Forget all this
nonsense that you read on these forumw about a 50 becoming an 80,
etc etc. A 50 mm lens on the S2 will crop to the same angle of view
as a 75mm lens on 35mm film, but thats it. Its angle of view, no
more. Part of the reason for using a telephoto lens is to gain the
compression you get from a longer lens, and the resulting pleasant
perspective. Using a 50 on an S2 to get to 75mm is no different
than taking an image shot with film and a 50mm and zooming or
cropping in.
Click to expand...
 
Brian Mcdonnell said:
I have the 50 1.4 and really love it.......however I haven't used
it since discovering my 35-70 2.8D which I picked up used for
$475.00. I am shocked that people do not speak about this lens
more often. I understand that the range is not great but for a
studio portrait lens, this thing rocks! Between the 35-70 and
Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO/USM I have the perfect equipment for portraits
and the rest is up to me.
Click to expand...
I also have the 35-70 2.8D, bought it used forCan$800 this lens always gives me beatiful images, it replaced my 28-105 which is also a nice lens but not quite as nice as the 35-70 2.8D, now I am yearning for a 17-35 2.8D,

Anyone out there wants to trade a 17-35 2.8D for a 80-200 2.8D plus the 28-105? both less then 3 month old.
Peter

Peter Leyenaar
Decisive Moment Photography
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top