nikon 50 f/1.8 is it good
- Thread starter exitnine
- Start date
correct ..i shoot the sig 30 1.4 on my d40 and love it
I see. Does the AF on that work with the D40? I think I might as well get the 50 1.8 because of it's good price tag, and I'll probably get better shooting in Manual.
Nice pictures mood.
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?
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?
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
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
View attachment 226317
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:
N
Nuteshack
Guest
N
Nuteshack
Guest
thanks for sharing Tom...for night shots i've had pretty good luck shooting my 50 1.4 @f8
I would love to see this @22 :wink: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:
N
Nuteshack
Guest
lol Garrie:biggrin:
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:
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.
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.
you know... I am finally starting to understand photography "technical" talk when I completely understand what you mean... that is very funny!! (oh and yes, I agree with the request! :biggrin
N
Nuteshack
Guest
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Similar threads
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/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/