Battle of the bokeh

[Dmpreciado]

So I'm on the fence of buying the 45mm 1.8f for my NX1. I currently have the 16-50mm S lens which in retrospect at 45mm should give me maybe 2.6 to 2.8 max. So that's 1f stop more than the 1.8 my question is, if it's even worth dropping 300 (for tax and shipping) for 1 f stop and better low light handling as apposed to the beautiful monsterous S lens. What am I curious about? Image Q, and handling. Anyone have both to enlighten my curiosity?

 

[wpstl]

So I'm on the fence of buying the 45mm 1.8f for my NX1. I currently have the 16-50mm S lens which in retrospect at 45mm should give me maybe 2.6 to 2.8 max. So that's 1f stop more than the 1.8 my question is, if it's even worth dropping 300 (for tax and shipping) for 1 f stop and better low light handling as apposed to the beautiful monsterous S lens. What am I curious about? Image Q, and handling. Anyone have both to enlighten my curiosity?

When it comes to low light shooting you have to ask yourself: do I need the extra stop or would a bump in ISO be the better answer?

To me, the most important factor is size. I love the 16-50 S but I really like traveling light at times so I bought the 45. The 45 isn't as versatile as a zoom but it's certainly smaller and lighter. And the IQ is excellent. And there is that one stop if you absolutely need it.

Where are you located? The non-3D version of the 45 is available in the U.S. for $229. I can always find a place with free shipping and no tax. Not sure if a similar price is available to you.

 

[Dmpreciado]

West coast. I don't have amazon prime so I'm assuming I'll pay extra for shipping. Size doesn't matter and I love the versatility of the S lens zoom. I'll probably end up just not buying it thanks

 

[otto k]

FWIW, at bhphotovideo.com it's 217
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/916134-REG/samsung_ex_s45anb_us_45mm_f1_8_lens.html

 

[ElviraGrey]

So I'm on the fence of buying the 45mm 1.8f for my NX1. I currently have the 16-50mm S lens which in retrospect at 45mm should give me maybe 2.6 to 2.8 max. So that's 1f stop more than the 1.8 my question is, if it's even worth dropping 300 (for tax and shipping) for 1 f stop and better low light handling as apposed to the beautiful monsterous S lens. What am I curious about? Image Q, and handling. Anyone have both to enlighten my curiosity?

I thought the prime was on the expensive side too. To be fair, compared to brands such as Fuji, Samsung offers superb quality at a great price. But otoh, Canon had a 50mm 1.8 prime for less than $100 when I bought it.

To satisfy my desire for a fast prime at a cheaper price point, I chose to go the legacy route and purchased a Minolta MD 50mm 1.7 + an adapter all for less than $50. I like it so much I'm considering the 50mm 1.4 version for about $80.

EDIT: I just realized that you have the NX1. It's probably better to get the Samsung version then to take full advantage of the NX1's video capabilities.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125072070@N08/

 

[zipcode]

It won't be better in low light than the S. At least in the usual way these are used: static subjects.

The stabilization in S will give you around 2 stops advantage, maybe 3. So you have at least 1 stop advantage.

The only reasons imo are bokeh and size. At 45 mm, you just won't get very shallow dof with the S, the 45 will have a good advantage here. Also, it's probably useless for video without stabilization.