DSLRUsers.com

Hello everybody,

I'm looking forward to buy a 50mm prime lens for my D70s. There are two popular versions for it - 1.4 and 1.8. The 1.4 comes for around 250$ and 1.8 comes in for almost 95$ (prices in US$).

My question is that if there's any difference in the optics for both lenses? Is it really worth paying almost extra 150$ for the 1.4 version?

Thanks for your time.

Regards,

Kamran

I would personally say no.
But this is because I do not take many "No Flash" Low light photos.
Therefore I have the f1.8

Technically (or common perception)

the 50mm f1.4 is sharper at f1.8 then
the 50mm f1.8 at f1.8 if you know what I mean.

Most lenses are sharper when stoped down one to three f stops in general

Also the f1.4 is “known” to have better Brokeh if this important then maybe

This does not make me want to pay a $150US for the privilege of less then 1 stop advantage. But you or other readers might need the extra half stop and or if you are taking photos where flash is not allowed or brokeh is paramount then go for it.

Sharpness -> both lenses is among the sharpest in the Nikkor range.

Either lens is a great piece of glass…just choice then one that suits you and save up for the 70-200 VR

Kamran,

The most obvious differences between the two (I have both) are plastic (1.8 ) vs metal (1.4) construction, the amount of glass used (1.4 has a lot of glass in comparison to the 1.8 ) and approx 1 stop difference in both min and max apertures (1.4-16 vs 1.8-22).
As far as optical quality goes, it would be hard to pick the difference. MTF charts might suggest that the 50/1.8 is a little better wide open than the 50/1.4 wide open. I am yet to see a MTF chart for the 50/1.4 at f1.8. In real terms, I doubt that you would ever really notice a difference with normal apertures in the f4-f8 range - I have not. Larger apertures I think the same. I have never compared the two at smaller apertures. Most of my shooting with this lens is done at f4-f8, occasionally f10 and wide open to f4 when shooting under ambient light indoors.

Ask this question over at DPR (it has been asked) and most responses will give the thumbs up to the 50/1.8. Indeed, I have seen people ridiculed for suggesting the 50/1.4 is the better lens. Whatever... I prefer the 1.4 for its build and smooth action of the focus ring (and the fact that it is a really nice lens to use). Having said that, I believe that the 50/1.8 represents **excellent** value for money and I doubt that you would be dissappointed.

Cheers

Matt

Kamran,

Optically the jury is out to lunch for me - either lens is a fine choice.

What I would suggest is that you search around and try to find a second-hand unit which is Made In Japan rather than China. They seem to be a little more robust in their construction.

Hi,

I have the 1.8 and though plastic in construction is an excellent lens. Colour and sharpness when used on the D70 is very good. It does need (in general) to be stopped down for best results (I've found), but wide open is still acceptable.

Thanks everyone,

It's sure going to make my choice a whole lot easier now!

I'll look around for a used 1.4 I think .... or else I'll simply buy a new 1.8.

Regards,

Kamran

Kamran,

A used 1.4 might be the best choice. 1.4's build quality is better and it performs noticeably better at large apertures (even at 2.8 or so). However, at around 5.6 some tests have shown the 1.8 is actually a tiny bit sharper but the difference is so small it's purely academic. The 1.8 is exceptional value for money for smaller apertures and very usable even at 1.8.

So which one to choose from pretty much depends on how you're going to use the lens. I bought the 1.8 because most of the time I shoot at 5.6 or higher so the 1.4 would've been plain waste of money for me. Also 50mm is quite tight for a 1.5x digital camera and not actually very useful all-around lens (though it definitely has its uses and you want it!) so it might be wise to choose 1.8 to save some bucks, because chances are you'll want a wider prime too.

hahah... the age old question...

I faced this question when I had to choose my 50mm...

Basically the 50/1.4 becomes very sharp much earlier than the 50/1.8 (that is what you are paying for) the 50/1.4 also has a lot more glass (the end element is much bigger, that is also what you are paying for)

I have a review of each lens on http://kit.potofgrass.com

where are you from? go to a minimeet and try them...

For the record I went for the 50/1.4 and absoluetely ZERO complaints

Hi Kamram,

have a look at this thread:
http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=7575

I posted a link to a site that has a good comparaison of the two lenses, and there are a few post on that thread also about the two lenses.

I got the 1.4, second hand, and love it.

Cheers,

radar

One part of the question that remains unanswered is whether or not you need the extra light that the 1.4 can offer you. If the answer to that is never, then the 1.8 is an excellent choice.

If answer is maybe, occassionally (or more frequesntly) and you then buy the 1.8,. as soon as that first time hits you, you;re going to be pretty mightily pissed off.

So, rule #1 is to consider your photographic needs, first and foremost.

Pretty much all been said... at the end of the day you get what you pay for... which you choose is really dependant on how deep your pockets are... and what you want to get out of the lens.

It is a case of you get what you pay for - and the 1.4 being more than twice as expensive as the 1.8 considering both brand new.

If you were to get one today, the 1.4 are no longer endowed with metal construction of earlier years. These days, it's made in China with a plastic finish of a comparable quality to other wide angle primes (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, etc). It is still a step up from the 1.8 in feel and quality though.

I find the 1.8 has better bokeh - the 1.4 exhibits heptagonal specular highlights, whereas the 1.8 it's rounded (or at least in my old 1970s series E sample).

I have the 1.4F and i am very happy with it. The extra stop doesn't make that much difference, but the build quality is better and it feels better in the hand.

Unlike Onyx, i reckon the Bokeh is nicer.

Having the choice of 1.4F gives you some interesting options for use of Depth Of Field.

That said, i did have the 1.8 and i thought it too was a great lens. Probably the best value for money lens Nikon sells.

Either lens is Highly reccomended. Get the one you can afford or get teh 1.8 and put the savings towards another lens......maybe a 35mm F2, or an 85mm 1.8...etc...the lens lust is coming....

A few questions to those of you who have the 50 1.4:

- Have you come across many circumstances where you've had to shoot wide open @ f1.4, because the light levels were too low ??

- do you find the shallow DOF @ 1.4 a problem when focussing ??

- do you think you could have done with the 1.8 instead ??

I would be interested in your feedback....

Aussie Dave wrote:A few questions to those of you who have the 50 1.4:

- Have you come across many circumstances where you've had to shoot wide open @ f1.4, because the light levels were too low ??

Not many, but the few times that I wanted it, it was nice to have it.

- do you find the shallow DOF @ 1.4 a problem when focussing ??

I don't anymore, but found it a problem initially. Now that I know, I can make it work for me.

- do you think you could have done with the 1.8 instead ??

Probably, but got my 1.4 at a good price so I went with the 1.4 and happy to have spent the extra. Still learning it's full capabilities.

Cheers,

Radar.

Dave

I'd like to echo everything Andre said, except to say I paid full (well birddog) price for my 50/1.4

I spent several hours today at Phuoc Hue monastery and I'm currently PPing the hundreds of pics I took, but one thing that's screaming out at me is just how wonderful the 50/1.4 shots look before I start PP. The first 2 shots below are taken at f1.4 using natural light. The third shot is at f2.8 and I used the SB800 flash. None of them have had anything done to them whatsoever except a resize and a save as jpeg. Click an image for larger version.

I trust you had a nice day out there today Peter. The photo of the Venerable (the last one, which i would have preferred in portrait rather than landscape (fussy)) shows the aperture artifacts that Onyx mentioned earlier, where bright highlights appear as pentagonal highlights due to the shape of the aperture. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, i believe the out of focus elements still look better. (In My Opinion)

I also would like to mention that the 50mm 1.4 makes a great portrait lens too, with it's crop factor its equal to about 75mm, which is a nice length for capturing that elusive human design.

I did manage to snap off a portrait of some friends with my 50mm 1.8 before i sold it, and the pics looked great too even with that lens.

Interesting thread. I have just purchased the 1.8 as for my needs it was the right lens at the right price. As others have mentioned this is the consideration you need to take.

Peter your photo's are silk. I love the SB800 shot .....especially because I bought one at the same time as my lens , they should turn up tomorrow

Steve
My PPd shot of the Master Venerable in the Ullambana Day thread has been more cropped than this.

Marcus
If you look in the Ullambana Day thread there are a lot more shots taken with the SB800 doing its thing. It made a HUGE difference in the portrait shots in particular.

The Ullambana Day thread is here

Peter, Ooh Yeah! Just checked out your link. Should get em tomorrow.......can't wait!!

I just hope I can achieve the same results

#3 is very sharp Peter but #1 and #2 are far too soft for my liking and probably shows up the fact that wide open is not always the best