DSLRUsers.com

Hey everyone, im looking at expanding my lense collection and im now just deciding between the two lenses.

the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4

or the 85mm f1.8

mainly used for portraits but other purposes would be handy

im sure i want the 85 mm because it means i'll have an awesome portrait lense.. and wont need to stick my camera in my subjets face to have a tight face shot in the frame? i also like the idea of 50mm because it the closest to the human eye in focal length? correct me if im wrong. and so it makes you more creative with your photos.

im not worries about the cost because all 3 fall into my budget.

any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.. especially if you own and 85mm prime and cane give us some feedback. As ive already read a few reviews on the 50mm

Cheers, Adz

for portraiture, (non full length), get the 85mm. much more flattering perspective (full frame, or 1.5 crops).

85mm is a delight, and also, with the extra length, you get a narrower depth of field, and perhaps nicer background seperation.

I dont have the 85 1.4, but I have the 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200mm 2.8vr. I also have the 30mm 1.4 sigma, and I like both 1.4's a lot. However, if I were you I would try either the 70-200m or the earlier 80-200mm for portrait work first, before getting the 85mm. I find the 70-200mm remarkable, having flexibilty and great quality. I would recommend it to anyone, and while I don't have the 85 1.4, I feel the 70-200mm is better.
I am still learning but I feel that when shooting portraits in a defined setting, f2.8-f16 is all you need. If you need a longish lens at 1.4 then the 85mm is the go. If you do not have the 70-200mm then I would get it and see whether the 2 stops (minus vr) are worth it.
FWIW I have a pro friend whose preferred portrait lens is the 80-200mm AFS.

skyva wrote:I dont have the 85 1.4

I think the RedT said 85/1.8 which is different price range to 85/1.4 ($800 less) and $1400 less than a 70-200 VR. Just getting things in perspective here.

This is True price range or around 600Aud. i just really want a lense with the lowest f stop i could afford in the price range. im worried the 50mm will be just more suited to full body shots. But i do like your advice.. i would love a 20-200 f2.8? i have looked at alot of these lenses id i put those 3 in the under $600 and under category.

i'd really love to play with a 50mm prime before i buy.. but there so cheap im thinking of just getting one anyway. and perhaps then start saving for a 70-200.

Arghh Confusing

Thanks everyone

Oh and please forgive my ignorance. But im still new to SLR photography what does "full frame, or 1.5 crops" mean? thanks

skyva wrote:while I don't have the 85 1.4, I feel the 70-200mm is better.

No.

They're different, and they're both good.

But they're different, and they each serve different purposes.

The Nikkor 85 f/1.4 is about the best glass that Nikon make, IMHO.

RedTriangle^ wrote:I'd really love to play with a 50mm prime before i buy.. but there so cheap im thinking of just getting one anyway.

For the former, why not arrange to get together with some of our local (to you) members? There's no shortage, and somebody there will have each of the primes you're looking at.

For the latter, look particularly at the 50 f/1.8, which costs about the same as a bus ticket down the road That would permit you to expand your budget in the 85mm realm, and allow you to go for the greater aperture (1.4) there, where it really helps with depth of field.

what does "full frame, or 1.5 crops" mean?

In popular DSLR photography, everything is pretty well derived from 35mm SLR photography. This applies to the camera styles, sizes, lenses, and the sensor upon which the image is captured.

When we look at the sensor, Nikon sensors, with the exception of the upcoming D3, all capture an image with a 1.5 crop factor. What this means is that the sensor is smaller than a 35mm film sensor - which is what is regarded as full frame - and, relative to that 35mm reference, your image is "cropped", and thus the edges of an image that you'd see in a 35mm frame are absent.

So, you start off with a smaller amount of workable image, and the 1.5 refers to the effective angle of view that the lens sees. This is most easily described as if it's a magnification factor - a 50mm lens effectively seems to become a 75mm, a 200mm seems to become a 300, and so on.

If you're shooting subjects that are far away and need reach, this can be to your advantage, as it appears to make them closer, but if you're shooting and need width, then it might be an issue for you.

In the production of a FF sensor, you need a much larger slice of good silicon at the production stage, and as the slices get bigger, perfection becomes more difficult to achieve. This is one reason the FF cameras are far more expensive than cropped ones.

im thinking about getting a prime also
hard descision to make

i pm'd you with reviews of those 3 lenses
as im unsure whether posting the links here is allowed


-Arthur

I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8....... cheap bit of plastic...... but as a lens it is fantastic and very very sharp...... at the price they sell for you just have got to have one...... and yes I do use this el cheapo lens for some of the shots for comissioned work...... I do not leave home without it

Arthur,

shockadelica- wrote:as im unsure whether posting the links here is allowed

Posting links is fine.

Red Triangle. Here is my run-down on the lenses. Bear in mind that this is my opinion having used all of them and owning three.

50mm F1.8 - The best value Nikon lens. Quite sharp from F2.8 onwards. Strong durable plastic construction. Surprisingly good for the money.

50mm F1.4 - Optically not much different to the F1.8 version. Slightly faster and better construction from metal. Overall, is better than the F1.8 but not sure if it's worth twice as much.

85mm F1.8 - Excellent portrait lens for the price. Similar to the 50mm F1.8 in sharpness. Good value.

85mm F1.4 - One of the best two lenses Nikon manufacture. Superb lens, well constructed, super sharp even at F1.4 but expensive. Worth the money though.

70-200mm VR F2.8 - The other top two lens Nikon make. Optically brilliant, great zoom flexibility. Just superb. Not designed for portraiture, but does well at it. In fact, this lens does well no matter what you point it at. Also quite expensive. My first car cost as much as one of these. The lens will last longer though

NOTES:
Don't be afraid to consider the 50mm lenses for portraits. They work very well in this manner. The 85mm focal length is considered more of a portrait length with full 35mm frame, but with the crop factor of DSLR cameras, the 50mm is nearly there at 75mm. I've used the 50mm F1.4 for portraits and gotten excellent results. I do prefer to use my 85mm F1.4 though but if I have a constrained space, I will use the 50mm.


Choice usually comes down to what you can afford. For the amount you have mentioned, the 50mm F1.8 and 85mm F1.8 will do you well. You won't be disappointed with either.

EDIT: Typing error.

Killakoala wrote:50mm F1.4 - Optically not much different to the F1.8 version. Slightly faster and better construction from metal. Overall, is better than the F1.8 but not sure if it's worth twice as much.

I read that these are now made out of plastic with plastic filter thread.
is this not true?

shockadelica- wrote:

Killakoala wrote:50mm F1.4 - Optically not much different to the F1.8 version. Slightly faster and better construction from metal. Overall, is better than the F1.8 but not sure if it's worth twice as much.

I read that these are now made out of plastic with plastic filter thread.
is this not true?

Mine is two years old and made of machined black painted aluminium and the filter thread is also metal. It is made in Japan so maybe the 'made in China' versions are different now. Not sure. It is much more solid than the F1.8 version i used to have.

stumbling across amazon's website i found a combo deal of the 1.8 50mm and 85mm for 447usd + postage which i think i worked out to be around 617 posted to Australia. Im thinking this may just be the best way to get the best of both worlds.

Also i went to Teds camera house today and they had a 50mm 1.8 on a D80 which was perfect. So ia sked them if i could test it out.. asked the guy serving me to stand back and pose for me.. .. LOL it was great i actually knew more about the camera and the lense than he did from all my research and also information you have all given me.

My impressions were that its a Mean little lense that has excellent speeds i reckon compare to me 18-135 kit lense.. i wish now i had gotten a D80 body with the 50mm prime.

Still if anyone has an opinion or feedback as of the the quality and what not of these lense. please feel free to post away. as i'll still be reading this.

Thanks everyone, Adz

RedTriangle^ wrote:stumbling across amazon's website i found a combo deal of the 1.8 50mm and 85mm for 447usd + postage which i think i worked out to be around 617 posted to Australia. Im thinking this may just be the best way to get the best of both worlds.

Don't forget to add in the slug that your credit card company will impose because you have the temerity to engage in a foreign currency trnsaction. How dare you!

Bloody thieves.

But from whom on Amazon will you be buying? Do you know them?

Poon's price for forum members (read the FAQ) would be a nudge over Au$600 delivered.

 LOL it was great i actually knew more about the camera and the lense than he did from all my research and also information you have all given me.

Even without the research, there's a high likelihood that you'd have known more than he did.

I've got a 50-1.4 and 85 1.8, love them both!

of course.. i read somewhere about this forums relationship with mr poon. i saw some photos on the main forum couple weeks back. Im definitely going to check that out. beats trying to sus out amazon. thanks for that

For full length portraits nothing beats the 50mm F1.4. For head and shoulder portraits nothing beats the 85mm F1.4
I don't recommend the 50mm F1.8...it's poorly constructed and built down to a budget price in my opinion, though sharp enough.

50mm is my pick.....more versertile.....close focus. This is using it on a crop sensor

wonderful photos. really gets me excited about getting them. I'll have them very soon

i have a Series E 50mm F1.8 lying around from my dad's Nikon EM days, although its not autofocus, how would this lens rate in sharpness compared to todays equivalent?

at least its made in japan haha

What body are you wanting to use it on?

Sharpness should be fine, but it's an Ai lens, so compatibility with your body might be an issue.

just on a D70s, have taken a few pix with it on manual mode, seems to fly fine, unless im missing something.

focusing is the hard part, especially with the small viewfinder in the d70. even the ol' EM leaves the D70 and most digitals for dead in this area...

I think size is a BIG consideration in this equation as well. I travel a lot and often find taking my 50mm 1.4 makes my D200 like a large compact (quite large in fact). In 35mm speak it is really close to a 75 which is quite acceptable for portraiture.

I think that getting either would be a great asset. Many professional photo journalists used to use the 85mm Nikon lens as their standard portrait lens and it often sat on their camera most of the time. (I'm sure many didn't use it as well) It is closer to the 50mm than the 85mm for the current range of Nikon dslr cameras that are available to purchase today. I mean today.

I would also consider the Nikon 35mm as more of a standard lens. Having both the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8, the 35 makes an interesting third choice. It also gets pretty good write ups.

I love prime lenses. They make you do more exercise, they are lighter and they take up less space. Whatever you get, you can always get another in the future to compliment rather than to replace.

Regards

Peter Mc