Portait/Low Light lens..

[Kris]

Glen recommened me the 50mm 1.8D, and I've read fantastic things about it. As a result, I've made a bid on one..

Now, I've been doing some more reading and alot of people seem to suggest that its best to spend the extra and get the 1.4 for better low light capabilities and has nicer bokeh. They go one step further and suggest the 85mm 1.4 if you can afford it.

I want a professional quality lens for sharp detailed portraits and is suited for low light.

I'm a firm believer in quality, and will spend the extra if it will get what I need.

Ideas?

[Geoff]

That sounds reasonable...definately..after I buy the SB-800 (not sure when?!) I am going to look into the 50mm 1.4 I think, but yeah..I like quality too and will pay for it if I really feel I want that little bit extra! Let us know how you get on!

Geoff.

[Kris]

Will do! Given this lens should last me 10 years, I think its highly important to choose the right one. I don't want to end up with 2 lenses for 1 purpose..

[birddog114]

Will do! Given this lens should last me 10 years, I think its highly important to choose the right one. I don't want to end up with 2 lenses for 1 purpose..

Kris,
The best way to understand and evaluate the lenses you want to acquire is get into any meets of our forum, members in the community have all the lenses you want to purchase, you can access on the spot by put the lens you want on your D70 and shoot then study the EXIF, your liking or not later and make your own decision.

As you known, these are common terms: "I like this but I don't like that" or "I can't afford it" or "I never need it" or "I think about it" more and more. So make up your own mind by see it by your eyes and be a happy fellow.
One more thing to remember: sometimes same lens, same make, same vintage on the same cam but it produces photos differently cos perhaps there's a bad sample, person behind the viewfinder, your mood at the time of the photo taken.

[Kris]

Understand, but I'm impatient

[Greg B]

Understand, but I'm impatient

Know what you mean, I can't wait long enough to be impatient!

Bought the 50mm f1.8 on saturday - very nice.

[Kris]

Greg, nice one!

I've placed a bid on mine and would like to retract it but looks like I'll be owning one anyhow

[Glen]

Kris, I think you will find the jump from 1.8 tp 1.4 in bokeh not that much different in 50mm but in 85mm it is huge. The 50 and 85 are different focal lengths, it would be possible to own both for portraits, in fact I do. The 50mm would work better in your apartment most times. You are welcome to try both, unfortunately both are 1.8. The 85 1.4 is in a different league to these two (and I believe the 50mm 1.4) in terms of bokeh and cost. 50mm 1.8 = $250, 85 1.4 = $1500. Have a look at some of the samples posted on this site.

[Kris]

Thanks Glen. Yes, the 85mm 1.4 does seem rather exy (I'd rather a nice telephoto for $1500).

Perhaps the 50mm 1.4D is better for me then...

Would love to test them out one day..

[MHD]

85mm is to tight IMHO for protraits... I have enough troubles with the 50mm...

after the 50mm my next prime would be a 24 or something close for groups

[Greg B]

85mm is to tight IMHO for protraits... I have enough troubles with the 50mm...

after the 50mm my next prime would be a 24 or something close for groups

And the 24mm (=36mm in d70 land) will give everybody that slightly bigger nose that people love so much

[birddog114]

85mm is to tight IMHO for protraits... I have enough troubles with the 50mm...

after the 50mm my next prime would be a 24 or something close for groups

Get the 28mm/ f1.4 then you'll be happy

[MHD]

yes... yes I would...

But, from Maxwell site:

AF 28MM F1.4D LENS $4,469.00

So the wife would be very unimpressed!

[birddog114]

yes... yes I would...

But, from Maxwell site:

AF 28MM F1.4D LENS $4,469.00

So the wife would be very unimpressed!

don't tell the wife, the wife may not know what lens is what lens, cos they're all in black, take some nice portrait photos of her and she's happy then show her the cc bill later, is it work?

[MHD]

.....no......



Seriously though... there are a lot of things I will spend money on before a 4.5K prime...

[Onyx]

If we go by the 1/focal length guideline for handholdable shutter speeds, the 85 is not very suited for low light work IMHO. Portrait work in other situations yes, but perhaps not strictly for low light use.

Personally, I was disappointed with the 50/1.4 I tried out. Sure, it's among the fastest lens in the Nikkor range, but the bokeh is horrendously strange. You had better make sure there are no light sources in the frame, or it'll show the seven-sided aperture blades, eg:

http://dr-cbtan.fotopic.net/p7095863.html

Very distracting for me.

[birddog114]

Onyx,
Seen your photo before, my guess it could be a bad sample or you were in NYC. In Sydney, it works well, it like to stay in Down Under!!!!

[Dargan]

Onyx Would the same bokeh occur with the 1.8 in the same situation? Could a movement of position have changed this outcome? The 50 1.4 is my next planned purchase and I have just stumbled across this photo of yours. Any other comments or sites to visit on this lens choice from any posters?

[MHD]

I have heard that the Bokeh on the 1.4 is actually a bit better than the 1.8 (well thats what I heard)

[Glen]

Hi Dargan, this is one focal length I have been thinking about for some as I believe it is the most useful with the crop factor for portraits. My thoughts have been A) 50mm AF 1.4 B) old 50mm AIS manual 1.4 or 1.2, both are supposedly a little soft C) 45mmP 2.8 supposedly has wonderful bokeh but is expensive

B or C look like my choice, may try both and see which I prefer

[birddog114]

I had an opportunity to shoot with the 45 2.8P, it produced wonderful bokeh, far lot better bokeh than the 50/1.4, once again the 50/1.4 has a nice bokeh as many people has known but in between 1.4 and 1.8, no one can give the right verdict and exactly judgement, few factors applied and also it's depend on sample of the glass.

[Glen]

Birddog, the first aussie I have met who has used the 45 2.8

Would you rate the bokeh as getting close to your 85 1.4? 80% as good? 90% as nice? How would you rate the 45 2.8 and the 50 1.4 out of a hundred if the 85 1.4 was 100%?

Sorry for a million questions, would just like your expert opinion on that lens, as it seems the best new lens for bokeh (or as I learnt from Matt, boke) in that length.

I actually missed a 45 2.8 on ebay for $250 while I was on my anniversary.

[birddog114]

The 45 2.8P is 80% to the 85/1.4 in low light/ natural light/ no flash
the 45/2.8P is 70% and the 50/1.4 is 50% to the 85/1.4.
This is based on my experiences with the 45 2.8P, I still prefer the 45 2.8P than the 50/1.4 if I have a chance. It's a forgotten Nikon gem!
Actually I bought it years ago once I was working in Boeing Field Seattle.
Stupidly, I swapped it for a flight helmet from my buddy, who is flying for National Guard in Portland, Oregon.

[Glen]

Thanks Birddog, that is very, very helpful. I can see the 45 2.8 is a big improvement over the 50 1.4 for boke, so should be a next for me in that size.

Now if you ever come into one again, I have about half a dozen old motorcycle helmets I would swap for it I am sure you like your National Guard helmet which you probably have one of only and the little 45 2.8 would get lost amongst your lens collection





ps You have still left me lusting after the 85 1.4, I think I am catching something from you Birddog

[Onyx]

Onyx Would the same bokeh occur with the 1.8 in the same situation? Could a movement of position have changed this outcome? The 50 1.4 is my next planned purchase and I have just stumbled across this photo of yours. Any other comments or sites to visit on this lens choice from any posters?

Dargan - I would assume the same would happen in a similar situation with the 1.8. It's a problem endemic to the 50 focal length (and why I dislike this focal length). However having said that, I've just reviewed some night time shots I took with the 50/1.8 series E (MF lens that's supposedly uses the same optics as the AF) and they've got perfectly round light sources. I suppose the 1.4 sample image was close focussed, while the 1.8's (haven't uploaded them online yet) were focussed more towards infinity. That may account for the differences.

[Greg B]

Wouldn't the aperture have an effect too? If the lens is wide open, the bokeh would be round because the diaphragm blades would be out of play.