Which 50 + 85 lens(s) to choose?

[NikonUser]

Hello there and a very Merry Christmas to all!!

Hope everyone got everything they wanted from Santa. Apparently he was too scared he would get the wrong thing so didn't bring me any Photography related equipment... I still did well though

Anyway... on to my question.

I'm thinking about adding a 50mm and 85mm lens to my collection. I'd be using the 50mm for general photography and portraits and the 85mm for portraits (head or head and shoulders). I don't do HEAPS of this type of photography but would like to get into it a little more and have a decent lens to do so.

The obvious choice with both is to get either the 1.4 or 1.8 versions of these lenses.

Now the extra light between the 1.4 and 1.8 doesn't really bother me... I'd be using the 'fastness' more for depth of field control... so with that aside... can anyone help me choose which lens(s) I should be looking at getting?

I've seen some examples where the 85 1.4 is quite a bit sharper than the 1.8 with also a lot better (rounder) out of focus highlights when stopped down a little. Can anyone comment on this?

Does this also apply to the 50mm?

I know the cost difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 is quite significant but I'd much rather spend more initally and get the right one than buy the wrong one and regret it later or worse end up buying both versions.

Any help with making these decisions would be greatly appreciated.

Paul

P.S. I hope this post makes as much sence to you guys as it does to me right now... Christmas drinks are taking hold

[MATT]

There has been plenty of the 50mm discussion, I believe if money is not that important go the 1.4. If however money is tight the 1.8 is a steal.


And are you going to lust after a 1.4 if you get the 1.8? No point buying it then selling it on to get the other.


MATT

[Onyx]

The 85 1.4 is the bee's knees. Wonderful focal length, optimally suited for portraits, and gorgeous bokeh. It's very easy to compose good shots because the thin depth of field just throws distractions out of focus (and out of mind compositionally).

The 50's - well, IMHO they've both got their downsides (I'm a pessimist, so only focus on the downsides). Quite a large number of forum members sing praises of the 1.4. Just avoid specular highlights, or it'll show up annoying/distracting heptagonal shapes. The latest versions of the 1.8 feels very plastic in build. Altho thankfully still retains a metal mount... It has rounder bokeh, but imfamously shows a white 'dot' or circle in the middle of every image which can be peculiar if you happen to shoot alot of blank featureless walls.

f/1.4 or f/1.8 I don't think they'll be many occasions in real world usage where shooting wide open would be practical. The depth of field is so tiny it just isn't fun. Of course, you may do it when first obtaining the lens just to show that you can, but after that it'll most probably spend its time at f/2.8 to f/4 for extremely shallow depth of field portraits, or f/8 to f/11 for shallow depth of field portraits.

[Mj]

I more-or-less agree with Onyx... the 85/1.4 is expensive but clearly superior to it's f/1.8 brother... whereas the difference between the 50mm lens is less clear... I've never seen any white spots on any of my brick walls though using the 50/1.8 !!!

[moggy]

Have to agree with MJ about the 50mm 1.8, it's got to be the best bang for buck around. Is the 1.4 worth $200 more than the 1.8 ? Not for this little red duck.

Bob.

.

[katweazl]

Thanks for the info guys. I was just having this dilemma as well between the 1.4 and 1.8 in the 50mm.

So I guess the consensus is to go for the 1.8 for "bang for your buck"?

I'm really interested for low light levels. Will you know the difference between the two? i.e. at the respective f-stop values what would the equivalent shutter speeds be?

Thanks

Joel

[birddog114]

I'm really interested for low light levels. Joel

Joel,
If you do want to shoot in low light and seriously, go for the:
Nikkor 58, f1.2 Noct.
It's a gem.

[moggy]

I'm really interested for low light levels. Joel

Joel,
If you do want to shoot in low light and seriously, go for the:
Nikkor 58, f1.2 Noct.
It's a gem.

At $2000+, and if you can find one!

Bob.

.

[gstark]

Thanks for the info guys. I was just having this dilemma as well between the 1.4 and 1.8 in the 50mm.

So I guess the consensus is to go for the 1.8 for "bang for your buck"?

I'm really interested for low light levels. Will you know the difference between the two? i.e. at the respective f-stop values what would the equivalent shutter speeds be?

Joel,

If you're going to be shooting in low light levels, the first time that you miss a shot because you couldn't open up to 1.4, you'll be kicking yourself.

MAke your decision based upon your worst case scenario - which basically equates to your needs.

[Mj]

katweazl,

careful... your requirements and NikonUser's are not the same...
look before you leap !!!

NikonUser specifically said that lowlight capabilities were not a key concern... on the other hand you've said that IS what you're looking for.

[NikonUser]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I think I'll go for the 50 f1.8 and then save up for the 85 f1.4

The only thing that worries me about the 50 f1.8 is the plastic build. It's not that I need it to be strong... I just like the more professional feel of the more robust lenses.

Can you explain what you mean about the white dot in the middle of images? Sounds strange?

Thanks again guys

Paul

[johndec]

Paul, the "white spot" can only be seen in very unusual circumstances like if you have a fetish for photographing blue sky or plain walls at very small apertures and then applying auto levels to the image

Strangely enough I've done this on several occasions (to check for muck on the sensor).

The image below taken with 50mm f1.8 at f22. I've never noticed any spots during "normal" use so don't worry about it  BTW, it's only a 37kb image but pixspot is slow today..

[johndec]

Here is the same thing at f8. Almost invisible after auto levels and invisible in the original image.

[Onyx]

Nicely illustrated John.

Paul - it's a non issue under normal use, so forget about it but keep in mind in case you happen to observe it don't freak.

Typically it shows up more under backlit situations - some say it's due to reflection off the sensor and bounced back through the inadequately coated rear lens element (keeping in mind this is one of the cheapest Nikkor lenses, they may have skimped on coatings) the transparency of the optics, while great for rendering extremely sharp images, has a tendency to transmit internal reflections too, rendering the 'white spot'.

Much like the D70's tendency to exhibit moire with fine repeating details, 99.995% of situations it won't ever be an issue, it's just about knowing your gear and its limitations and working within them.

[NikonUser]

Thanks for those images.

I must say that I don't often shoot white walls and apply auto-levels either But now I know that if I do I won't have to freak out.

Now I think the only decision I will have to make when the time comes is weather to go with the D200 or D2X...

Thanks for that everyone

Paul

[el nino]

On vacation and I came across a store here (Sri Lanka) selling a used 85mm /1.4. Took a couple of sample shots.

I've posted links to the unedited files. The first 2 (3659 & 3654) were shot with natural light, no image manipulation. The last two were with studio lighting. White balance auto for all.

DSC_3659.NEF
http://s33.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0AQZ ... XGF89S0CJY
1/200sec f/2

DSC_3664.NEF
http://s33.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=166R ... BVUB537SXW
1/125sec f/1.4

DSC_3665.NEF
http://s33.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=31L2 ... M6VBUA7I2U
1/125sec f/8

DSC_3666.NEF
http://s33.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0QDH ... Y0EHAQIKHJ
1/500sec f/3.5

[katweazl]

Just purchased the 1.4 from keaphoto-oz on ebay. $359 + Hoya HMC UV filter + 7 year wty.

Can't wait to get it and give it a whirl!!!

Joel

[sirhc55]

Depending on the price, the 85mm f/1.4 is one sweet lens

[katweazl]

Sorry I meant the 50mm.....we were discussing it earlier in the thread!!

[petermmc]

I think the 85 1.8 is a fine lens. If you were going to buy only one of the two, I would suggest you go for the 50 1.4 as it is very similar in results to the standard 85 that was stuck to many photojournalists film cameras in the past as their standard lens.

The 50 gives you about 75mm effective focal length which is pretty close for good portraits. The 85mm 1.4 is a very large, older looking lens that gives great quality. The 85 1.8 still gives great quality and you would be very happy with it I am sure. You could get a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8 for about a grand.

I have these two and am very happy with them. I'm even going to get them out of the bag now and give them both a whirl to justify my opinions.

Peter Mc