Which lens: 50mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4 ?

Philoups

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
NYC, US
Hi,

I just bought the 50mm 1.8 nikkor lens for $120. As I was browsing B&H website, I just realized that they also have the imported 50mm 1.4 at $275. I can absorb the price difference.

I am thus now left wondering which one I should take.

I intend to shoot portraits; and may shoot at night (maybe 1/3 of the time); I probably won't use my tripod a lot for portraits shot at night. I generally like sharp portraits with blurry backgrounds.

(1) Is the 1.8 decent for shooting at night or it just won't do ?

(2) What other edge (besides bokeh), for my purpose, does the 1.4 give, if any ?

(3) Finally, assuming I want to get a better lens in the future, would the resale value of the 1.4 lens be less affected by use than that of the 1.8 (as the 1.8 is very cheap) ?

Thanks !

P
 
if you like to shoot in the dark... then get the much bigger f/1.4

because the camera opens up the lens fully when acquiring focus, the f1.4 being 2/3 of a stop faster than the f/1.8 will help framing a shot in dark conditions by giving you a slightly brighter viewer. Don't forget even when you shoot at say f/4 or f8 the aperture is wide open when focusing (every little advantage adds up)

I could only afford the f/1.8 when I got my 50mm but wish I had the extra money back then to get the faster f/1.4
 
I initially got the 1.8 and liked it so much I upgraded to the 1.4.

Honestly though, I don't see that much difference.

They're both great.

--
Bryan V.
P.S. I've had amnesia for as long as I can remember.
 
I have the 1.8D (well, since I had to buy it in an on holiday emergency last week having destroyed my 24-85 stupidly!) and I've had the 1.4G for a while. The 1.4G destroys the 1.8D for IQ, and is sharper wider open with better bokeh as well.

You would of course expect that for the price difference.

That said, for what it costs, the 1.8D is an excellent purchase, and I'll hang on to mine as a small, lightweight spare for holidays etc.
 
For portraits the f1.4 has the advantage because it is sharp at wide apertures, but neither lens has particularly pleasing bokeh IMO. Neither is 50mm long enough for portrait, but other peoples opinions will vary on that point.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
I owned the 50mm F1.4 manual focus. Great lens. Not much more except a 2/3 stop difference between that and the F1.8.

With the G lens out now, don't buy the 1.4D.

Enjoy the 1.8D for now, save your $$ and get the G. Seriously. The G is superior for your type of photography (the bokeh alone makes it better than any other Nikon 50mm, IMO).

I'm anti-G lens, but bought the G after hearing so much about it. Simply awesome, quickly becoming my favorite, most versitle well-rounded lens I own. That coupled with the 85mm F1.4 quashed my desire for an F2.8 mid-range zoom.

Spend your money once. Enjoy the F1.8, and when your budget allows sell it for minimal loss and get the 1.4G. Thom Hogan is right (I believe it was him), with the pricing between the 1.8D and 1.4D and 1.4G, there really is no reason to get the 1.4D now (if you already don't own it). Budget low? Save $$ and get the 1.8. Budget enough? Get the 1.4G. The 1.4D is in a sad spot. Now if the price difference was say $50-60, I might consider the 1.4D.
 
shipping costs and a UV filter (if you are into that kind of thing).

Prince online is usually between $440 and up.
 
Here are four examples shot at f2.5, f2, f1.8, and f2. The first two had minor cropping, the last two had major cropping -









Personally, I do not need the extra 2/3 of an f-stop. Besides being much less costly, this lens is considerably lighter than my circa 1991 50mm f1.4 lens. Main reason I replaced it was the autofocus died and Nikon could not repair it.
 
I had borrowed a friend's 50mm f1.4G lens. I must admit that lens is better constructed and has an easy manual focus override. But to my mind, these things were not worth an extra $300 plus.
 
Always get the best ;)

Many say the 50/1.8 is actually sharper at the same settings (than 50/1.4), but I still would rather have the faster one. If you could only have more I would consider sigma 50/1.4 from the start, and if not look at 50/1.4 G. Else, D is just as good.

--
- sergey
 
Everyone is right here, the 50mm F1.4 will afford you more artistic opportunities than the 1.8. Not that the 1.8 is bad in any way, it's a phenomenal lens, it's simply that the depth of field F1.4 gives you it beautiful. You might want to give a thought to older ais manual focus lenses. My first 50mm for my D300 was a 50mm F1.4 ais and I only paid about $90 for it. Sure there's no auto focus, but it's a good training for your eyes, and the lens is rock solid. I love the feeling of the cold hard metal in my hands, it feels like a piece of a tank.
 
Let's be realistic, the difference is nominal. Here is the DOF on a D90:

------------- f1.4 ---------------- f2 ----------------------- f2.8 ------------

3 feet: 2' 11.7' to 3' 0.4',' 2' 11.5' to 3' 0.5', 2' 11.3' to 3' 0.7'

5 feet: 4' 11' to 5' 1', 4' 10.6' to 5' 1.4', 4' 10.1' to 5' 2.1'

Your other concern is getting focus dead, on while shooting wide open. Yes it can be done, but your margin of error is nil. Here is a very luck example of a shot taken wide open, with my retired 50mm f1.4 lens -

 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top