nikon 50 f/1.8 is it good

Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,688
Location
So Fla
50@ 1.8
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


and @3.5
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
But Tom, wait a minute. Why in the world would you use a wide open aperture for this kind of shots?!

This kind of shot should generally require a well stopped down lens and a tripod. An f/1.4 or f/1.8 should better be used for a completely different purpose (e.g. portraits, subject isolation etc)

Secondly, I think I see a fair amount of motion blur on those shots, which might be one of the main reasons for the blown lights in these shots, especially with exposures this long (1 sec. and above) - did you use a tripod here?
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
962
Location
Germany, near Duesseldorf
To a precision loving, exacting German, they probably are. :wink: :biggrin:
Hi.

I am a precision loving, exacting German, too.

But I do prefer Nute's excellent real life shots to some dotted lines.

From my experience, the differences between the two lenses are not noticable in *my* photos. So no reason to spend more money on the 1.4 ...

Regards,

Mattes
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,808
Location
Canada
Roughly two years ago, the 50 f/1.4 was made in Japan. The current 1.4 is made in China. Is there a quality difference? My understanding is that the 1.4 made in Japan has a more robust body. The 1.4 MF lens I've had for year now is built like a tank. Are there any comparisons available that shows the IQ between the MF and more recent AF lenses?

I also have the 1.8 and love the results I get from it.

1.8, D2H

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


View attachment 226317
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
362
Location
NJ
I have two 50mm's f/1.8s, AF and AI.

I must say, the older once, non - auto focus, is must better for me, great colors , good DOF and overall amazing value.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
Hi.

I am a precision loving, exacting German, too.

But I do prefer Nute's excellent real life shots to some dotted lines.

From my experience, the differences between the two lenses are not noticable in *my* photos. So no reason to spend more money on the 1.4 ...

Regards,

Mattes
thanks Mattes
:biggrin:
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
thanks for sharing Tom...for night shots i've had pretty good luck shooting my 50 1.4 @f8
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
400
Location
Brooklin, Ontario
fora d40 just get a sig 30 1.4 and be happy:biggrin:
@1.4
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

:Love:
I would love to see this @22 :wink:
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
but for shots like this, the 1.8 is sufficient and there are actually no differences, besides the $$$$.
Of course; you usually buy a fast lens for a completely different purpose, not for taking far-away night cityscapes at f1.4.

To say that a fast lens is overrated because it takes poor night cityscapes @f1.4, would be similar to saying that a fork is a useless tool because you can't use it to eat soup.

Different tools are there to serve different purposes. :smile:
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Nice stuff, but I believe most of those pano's were not taken with a wide open lens, were they?

I don't necessarily say that you shouldn't use a fast lens for night cityscapes, but that you usually don't shoot such scenics wide open. Therefore the decision to purchase (or not purchase) a fast prime usually shouldn't be based on this kind of shots, because you most likely won't be shooting this kind of stuff below f/5.6 anyway.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
nothing to be sorry about..a GOOD sample of the 50 1.4 is sharper than the 1.8 at every f-stop down to f4 and prolly more..the 1.8 is sharpest @f6.3. that's in another zip code for me ..lol

u also get a shot at some decent bokeh from the 1.4 @1.4. (not so with the 1.8) the 1.4 has more BITE, better contrast, color rendition, all THAT:tongue:

for the xtra $150 or so, it's a DEAL!!!
:biggrin:
i still think the 50 1.4 has the edge down to f4
:biggrin:
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
Reno, NV
Is there anywhere on the cafe that does side by side comparisons with EXACTLY the same settings(save the 1.8 vs 1.4) to include all outside factors of light, metering and composition of the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8? Portaits, 'scapes(yes I know not the best use of these lens) in low light, general close ups, etc?
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
93
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Sharpness schmarpness... you all need to learn how to jack up the sharpness in your Unsharp Mask tool in Adobe Photoshop to 500% - that'll give you sharpness beyond your wildest dreams, regardless of what aperture setting you're at with either lens!

50mm f/1.4 if you want to spend a lot more money for a shallower DOF and to be able to see numbers and an infinity sign scroll left and right inside the barrel. Sharpness? IMHO, it's a neck-to-neck, toe-to-toe race in that regard. Maybe you'll end up with a "bad" copy of the f/1.4, too, that won't put out what others have said. Perhaps that's why we're reading of the the performance discrepancies here ;)
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,051
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
I bet you open a thread like this in other forums and you get the same replies! Let me start by saying that I have used both lenses.
Before buying a lens I usually pay very close attention to what I need the lens for. For sure I am not a low light shooter although both lenses do very well in low light. The f1.4 version is 2/3 stops faster.
How often do you need the marginal better performance in low light of the f1.4? How often do you enlarge to 20x30? Do you usually throw your lenses to the floor? How often do you use a 50mm lens? Do your style of photography really needs one? Simple questions for which I am sure you have simple answers.
I decided to buy the f1.8 version because I do not need the low light performance of the f1.4. I did not need a tank like construction and I am talking about the AIS version. My usual enlargements for quality are 12x18. My decision was a simple one and I went for the f1.8.
I have not tried the lens, in the more than 5 years that I have owned it, at its largest opening. Do that tells you something? Most of my shots are usually between f16 and f4 and the results from the lens have been very pleasant to me.
Precisely yesterday I took this file to Costco for a cheap 12x18. All the colors and details were there and the enlargement was super sharp to my old eyes. Isn't that what I wanted when I bought this lens?
Think carefully about WHAT YOU NEED. To me the answer was an easy one.


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


D100
50mm f1.8 at f16
Original RAW, color space RGB converted to sRGB.
Gitzo tripod, Linhof ballhead (sharpness starts right here.)

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
 
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
452
Location
SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY USA
Camerapapi as one of the criteria for choosing the 1.4 over the 1.8 asks "How often do you enlarge to 20x30?" What iif the answer to this is "I frequently intend to print 17X22 or larger prints."

Put another way - If you do not need the robustness of the pro glass, for large gallery quallity prints, do you need the 1.4 or other pro glass for the speed and IQ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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