Dazed and Confused Which 50?

Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
595
Location
Sooke, B.C. Canada
To all- Up until now I've known exactly which lens I've wanted to add to my collection, it was just a matter of getting the right price.
However now I'm really stuck and indecisive. I need a 50 mm prime for my summer vacation next month. I was really hoping Nikon would have a 50 1.4 AFS out soon but no such luck. My options are the Nikkor 50 1.4 now at $309.00 (Canadian) or take a chance at the Sigma 50 1.4 which is being released in two weeks. I've been really really happy with my Sig 30 1.4 and if the Sig 50 is even close it would be my first choice. BUT the MSRP here in Canada is a whopping $649.00! Why the $150 premium up here just baffles me.
Common sense would say go with the Nikkor and sell it if and when an upgrade comes out. The problem is I rarely sell anything and hate the hassle.

Another option would be the 50 1.8 at $129.00 as a stop gap.

The recent thread by The Dude made me salivate over the Nikkor, Obviously a guy that can great results from a 50 buck P+S still I was really impressed.

So any and all help, advice, thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
42,223
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
To all- Up until now I've known exactly which lens I've wanted to add to my collection, it was just a matter of getting the right price.
However now I'm really stuck and indecisive. I need a 50 mm prime for my summer vacation next month. I was really hoping Nikon would have a 50 1.4 AFS out soon but no such luck. My options are the Nikkor 50 1.4 now at $309.00 (Canadian) or take a chance at the Sigma 50 1.4 which is being released in two weeks. I've been really really happy with my Sig 30 1.4 and if the Sig 50 is even close it would be my first choice. BUT the MSRP here in Canada is a whopping $649.00! Why the $150 premium up here just baffles me.
Common sense would say go with the Nikkor and sell it if and when an upgrade comes out. The problem is I rarely sell anything and hate the hassle.

Another option would be the 50 1.8 at $129.00 as a stop gap.

The recent thread by The Dude made me salivate over the Nikkor, Obviously a guy that can great results from a 50 buck P+S still I was really impressed.

So any and all help, advice, thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

i just sold my 50 1.8 and ordered the 50 1.4
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
1,120
Location
Hamilton, Ontario
I have the 50 1.8 and while it does everything I need, alot of people will recommend the 1.4 because that extra stop will make a difference. If you have no budget constraints go for the 1.4, and if they do upgrade to an AF-S prime, just sell your 1.4 to me cheap :wink:
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
To all- Up until now I've known exactly which lens I've wanted to add to my collection, it was just a matter of getting the right price.
However now I'm really stuck and indecisive. I need a 50 mm prime for my summer vacation next month. I was really hoping Nikon would have a 50 1.4 AFS out soon but no such luck. My options are the Nikkor 50 1.4 now at $309.00 (Canadian) or take a chance at the Sigma 50 1.4 which is being released in two weeks. I've been really really happy with my Sig 30 1.4 and if the Sig 50 is even close it would be my first choice. BUT the MSRP here in Canada is a whopping $649.00! Why the $150 premium up here just baffles me.
Common sense would say go with the Nikkor and sell it if and when an upgrade comes out. The problem is I rarely sell anything and hate the hassle.

Another option would be the 50 1.8 at $129.00 as a stop gap.

The recent thread by The Dude made me salivate over the Nikkor, Obviously a guy that can great results from a 50 buck P+S still I was really impressed.

So any and all help, advice, thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
simple ...you're just one 1.4 short of the 1.4 trinity ...so hey! the 50 1.4, of course!

d200/50 1.4 @2.8
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
300
Location
Syracuse, NY
I just purchased my second 50mm F1.8 lens 3 days ago from B&H for $110.00

You can always cheat and up the ISO dial if you have a digital SLR. The difference between the slower and faster lens is only 2/3 of an F stop. Some Nikon reps claim it is closer to 1/2 stop, perhaps some light is absorbed or scattered by the internal design of the lens.

So what do you get if you buy the more expensive 1.4 lens versus the lighter 1.8 lens, which is nearly $200.00 lower in cost.

1. The more expensive lens has one more glass element in it versus the less expensive lens. The glass is a little wider in the faater lens.

2. The more expensive lens has a better looking COSMETIC appearance, but this is mainly because the more expensive lens has that little footage window.

3. More Weight. Heavier weight does NOT mean better construction. Two Nikon reps told me independently of each other that the less expenive lens is constructed just as rugged as the more expensive lens. Both lenses have usage of polycarbonate plastics in their barrel construction, both lenses have metal mounts. The rubber focusing ring is about 50% wider on the more expensive lens. Oh goodie, another one quarter of an inch wider width in the rubber focus ring, Yippie!

4. A higher credit card or cash bill balance since the faster lens is nearly $200.00 more PLUS the added sales tax if that is added to the total.

However, here is another fact, if you go to www.nikon.com and click on photographic imaging products, then click on product support, click on Nikkor lenses, click on Normal, you then see the two AF-D lenses on the screen, select both the 1.8 and the 1.4 lens and if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you will see the MTF test chart for each lens. The higher up the chart and the flatter the red and blue lines the better the contrast and sharpness of the lens. If you look at the chart which Nikon tests with the lenses set at maximum aperture, you will clearly see that the lower cost lens beats the higher one hands down, based on Nikon's own test results. Note how poor the contrast is on the more expensive lens, it swings down real low on the blue line, to nearly the bottom of the chart.

I was getting shutter speeds as high as 1/200th of a second photographing Times Square, Saturday Night on Fuji 800 Superia Color film with my F5 and the lower cost lens. Other posters here on NikonCafe have made statements that the less expenive lens is capable of producing professional results if stopped down around 2 stops or more from wide open.

I hoep that my comments help you.

Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY

P.S. Nikon has NOT released the MTF curves for the 1.4 lens at 1.8 so we don't know if it would perform better. All that we have to go on from Nikon is the data that they have released. Don't forget to get the HR-2 lenshood to go with the lens. The US version in New York City is $5.00 more then the grey market version, so for the extra $1.00 a year you get the longer warranty go for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N

Nuteshack

Guest
I just purchased my second 50mm F1.8 lens 3 days ago from B&H for $110.00

You can always cheat and up the ISO dial if you have a digital SLR. The difference between the slower and faster lens is only 2/3 of an F stop. Some Nikon reps claim it is closer to 1/2 stop, perhaps some light is absorbed or scattered by the internal design of the lens.

So what do you get if you buy the more expensive 1.4 lens versus the lighter 1.8 lens, which is nearly $200.00 lower in cost.

1. The more expensive lens has one more glass element in it versus the less expensive lens. The glass is a little wider in the faater lens.

2. The more expensive lens has a better looking COSMETIC appearance, but this is mainly because the more expensive lens has that little footage window.

3. More Weight. Heavier weight does NOT mean better construction. Two Nikon reps told me independently of each other that the less expenive lens is constructed just as rugged as the more expensive lens. Both lenses have usage of polycarbonate plastics in their barrel construction, both lenses have metal mounts. The rubber focusing ring is about 50% wider on the more expensive lens. Oh goodie, another one quarter of an inch wider width in the rubber focus ring, Yippie!

4. A higher credit card or cash bill balance since the faster lens is nearly $200.00 more PLUS the added sales tax if that is added to the total.

However, here is another fact, if you go to www.nikon.com and click on photographic imaging products, then click on product support, click on Nikkor lenses, click on Normal, you then see the two AF-D lenses on the screen, select both the 1.8 and the 1.4 lens and if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you will see the MTF test chart for each lens. The higher up the chart and the flatter the red and blue lines the better the contrast and sharpness of the lens. If you look at the chart which Nikon tests with the lenses set at maximum aperture, you will clearly see that the lower cost lens beats the higher one hands down, based on Nikon's own test results. Note how poor the contrast is on the more expensive lens, it swings down real low on the blue line, to nearly the bottom of the chart.

I was getting shutter speeds as high as 1/200th of a second photographing Times Square, Saturday Night on Fuji 800 Superia Color film with my F5 and the lower cost lens. Other posters here on NikonCafe have made statements that the less expenive lens is capable of producing professional results if stopped down around 2 stops or more from wide open.

I hoep that my comments help you.

Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY

P.S. Nikon has NOT released the MTF curves for the 1.4 lens at 1.8 so we don't know if it would perform better. All that we have to go on from Nikon is the data that they have released. Don't forget to get the HR-2 lenshood to go with the lens. The US version in New York City is $5.00 more then the grey market version, so for the extra $1.00 a year you get the longer warranty go for it.
sorry, but u can't get shots like this with the 50. 1.8

@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


break-out the charts, baby!
lol
:cool:
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
42,223
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
sorry, but u can't get shots like this with the 50. 1.8

@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


break-out the charts, baby!
lol
:cool:
the 2nd shot is almost too good to be true....one of your alltime best and we all know that is sayin g something
i sold my 1.8 last week
1.4 comes wednesday (the 50 1.4 that is)
so what should i get next ?
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
595
Location
Sooke, B.C. Canada
Nute- I already have you to blame for the 30 1.4 and 85 1.4!! Now you have to go and show me those pics again. I think these photo's reflect the skill of the photographer more than the lens.

The other thread on the Sig 50 1.4 is catching my attention but man o man what a hefty price for a 50 prime. I'd really kick myself if Nikon announced a 50 1.2 or 1.4 AF-S Nano prime at Photokina.

Thanks to everyone, now I'm even more undecided!??
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
42,223
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Nute- I already have you to blame for the 30 1.4 and 85 1.4!! Now you have to go and show me those pics again. I think these photo's reflect the skill of the photographer more than the lens.

The other thread on the Sig 50 1.4 is catching my attention but man o man what a hefty price for a 50 prime. I'd really kick myself if Nikon announced a 50 1.2 or 1.4 AF-S Nano prime at Photokina.

Thanks to everyone, now I'm even more undecided!??
all of the afs talk about these 2 primes is IMO overstated..
1st of all i won't be using them for sports or moving objects and the 85 1.4 (I got one last week) is very fast on the d300 and d3....IQ on the 85 1.4 has blown me away. The 50 1.4 will be my WA lens for my D3....
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Man, you are CRUEL..... just how do you get this mind-blowing detail & sharpness @1.4 without the shot looking over-processed?! :confused:

Share some tricks with us mortals! :biggrin:
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
42,223
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
was this from a tripod ?
if not don't even tell me how u did 1/25 handheld

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
230
Location
Colchester, UK
I love the 1.8D, but I have had the 1.4D for a few weeks and I've been impressed. Better build, very sharp stopped down and pretty nice wide open, as well.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
722
Location
Hartsdale, NY
I love my 50 1.4 - it is probably my most used lens. That said, it cannot keep up with my son and D200 in AF-C mode like my 70-200 can. The new Sigma 50mm 1.4 AF-S (or whatever their acronym is) is something that has severely piqued my interest for the reason specifically.

If I were you, I'd pick up the Nikkor 1.8 right now and sell it for a $15 loss when you upgrade to the Sigma. But that's me.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom