50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8?

Hugh_C

Hi there,

I've been utterly seduced by all of those gorgeous short DoF images I'm seeing everywhere & am contemplating a 50mm for my Nikon. I'm wondering if anyone here has practical experience of the 1.4 - is it worth the exxxtra $$$ over the 1.8? Does that extra ~half stop make a difference in real life? I'm aware that's it's a whack load more money but the SSIA is looming and I'm self-treating.

Any practical advice? flickr seems to be incredibly slow tonight so I can't look up their forums.

Thanks,

Hugh

311

I've only got a canon ,but one thing I've learned from my 1.4 and 1.8 lenses is.

Although 1.4 is faster than 1.8 ,you need to spend more time on the 1.4 ,because the Dof is so small.

I like the 1.4 ,but it's a lot of work using it
Personally I'd buy a 1.8 first ,you'll always use it because it's lighter than the 1.4.

Hope that helps.

m_stan

This should answer this for you, though this is referring to the Canon lenses.

I can only speak with experience of the Canon 1.8 and though it's built like a kids plastic toy and it's a tad on the slow side, it is a very fun lense. Since I'm only a beginner in photography, I probably wouldn't notice the difference in the 1.4.

Check out my flickr for some examples of what I've taken with this lense.

Redundo

I have a Canon 50 f1.8 and though it is a great quality lens, I just don't have much use for it.

The digital crop factor turns the 50 into something more like a 70. Which is ok for doing portrait work, i guess, but its not got the same all-round versatility it has with film.

blather

Redundo wrote:

I have a Canon 50 f1.8 and though it is a great quality lens, I just don't have much use for it.

The digital crop factor turns the 50 into something more like a 70. Which is ok for doing portrait work, i guess, but its not got the same all-round versatility it has with film.

I use my 50mm (with 30D as a portrait lens) too. It's great for doing candids at a social event - at ISO 3200 with 1.8, you can shoot decent shots in crap light. It is a bit cheap looking tho....

pete4130

The 50mm 1.8 is amazing. It's a 75mm on digital (1.5x crop factor on most Nikons). Its very cheap for such a sharp fast lens. Opinion has it that the 1.4 version isn't as sharp. a;; the 1.4 going for it is the extra half stop and a more robust build quality. Personally I couldn't justify the extra expense for the 1.4 over the 1.8. The 1.8 is cheap, cheeerful, fast, amazingly sharp and really light....you can't go wrong! I have one, several friends have one and we agree its one of the best lenses you can get....borrow one ond see for yourself.

Pete.

Borderfox

Personally I would get the f1.4, always can use half a stop.

melekalikimaka

i have the nikon, tis a great lens, 1.4 is serious money for a prime , and the camera can struggle with focus when opened fully, 1.8 is a lovely ap, crisp undistorted and is amazing for most types of photography, especially with people. i reccommend it wholeheartedly, tho i have been through a few due to crappy plastic mounts and my love of mosh pits for pictures

magicbastarder

how much is the price difference?
you may get more use out of spending the money elsewhere than on half a stop and a smaller DOF. that said, i've a 50mm 1.4 (not a nikon) and i love it.

Stephen

The f1.4 costs more than twice what the 1.8 costs. 1.8 can be got online for about €120, 1.4 for about €260-300.

Hugh_C

Thanks all, my brother-in-law is coming back from Hong Kong in a few weeks and I might just ask him to pick up a 1.8 for me.

I'm sold...

pete4130

You definitly won't be disappointed!

Fenster

I somehow managed to not reply. I would love to try the 50 f/1.4, as it can shoot at f/1.8 just fine - the AF on the 50 f/1.8 is kinda crappy, I've found.

Hugh_C

Fenster wrote:

I somehow managed to not reply. I would love to try the 50 f/1.4, as it can shoot at f/1.8 just fine - the AF on the 50 f/1.8 is kinda crappy, I've found.

wonder if that's a canon issue though...

I'll be getting a the nikon.