50mm f1.4 or f1.8?

[mr noble]

Thinking of getting a 50mm prime.

Whats the real world difference between the 2? Is the 1.4 worth the extra $$$ ?


Thanks.

Greg N

[ArosaMike]

Main issues are build quality. Most 1.8 lenses will be plastic bodies, but the 1.4s will be metal. I'm not really sure the 1.4 is worth the extra dough though. All personal opinion I guess. Do a pBase search for the two and compare images from both. A picture says a thousand words after all

[megy]

I have the 1.8 version, cant fault it, dont use it a great deal, but when i do i like it.

[graham@reading]

I bought the 1.8 a month or so ago and, although it looks ridiculous mounted on the 1D, it does a good job - particularly in low light.







I'm still getting to grips with the DoF though as it is VERY shallow at those fast speeds.

And, frankly, for 60 quid, it's a stonking lens.

Edited by graham@reading on Friday 22 September 09:06

[Andy M]

IIRC you're a Nikon man so the following information will be pretty useless.

Test of Canon's 1.4 & 1.8: http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50

If the lottery numbers come up, even better:



Yours for about £1,000

[Gemm]

If you are getting f1.8, then go for mkI as it's better built. Major difference between f1.4 and f1.8 (apart from the obvious) is full-time manual focus capability, which is one feature I couldn't live without.

[Mr Noble]

Gemm said:

If you are getting f1.8, then go for mkI as it's better built. Major difference between f1.4 and f1.8 (apart from the obvious) is full-time manual focus capability, which is one feature I couldn't live without.

Meaning what exactally? You can't manually focus the 1.8?

The dof is what I am after being able to use, I love the shallow dof shots where you can pick out the thing you want to be in detail.

I am guessing that there will not really be much difference in the DoF distances for most "normal" shots, and that focusing on the thing you want sharp may actually give better results on the 1.8.
(?)


Where did you find one for £60 mon ami? I'm seeing the 1.4 in Hong Kong for about £130 and my buddy is coming back from there again in about 3 weeks.

Greg

[graham@reading]

I was referring to the Canon 1.8 Didn't realise you were after Nikon until Andy's post.

[Gemm]

graham@reading said:

I was referring to the Canon 1.8 Didn't realise you were after Nikon until Andy's post.

Forget about what I said if you are after Nikon then.....

[_dobbo_]

Interestingly enough the 1.8 outscores the 1.4 on Fred Miranda. Can't figure that out.

It also soundly beats both canon equivalents, so take how good the Canon guys say it is and add a bit on I guess!

Don't expect much in terms of size - it's a tiddler!



I got mine from ebay for about £70 delivered, it's 90 odd in the UK.

[Andy M]

_dobbo_ said:

It also soundly beats both canon equivalents...

How do you work that out? Simply on Fred Miranda reviews, or from technical information?

[poah]

get the f1.4

[Mr Noble]

Actually just thought about it and as I have a Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro, do I really need a 50mm too.

Not going to be that much difference really.

Hmmmmm..

[poah]

two stop difference between the lenses. makes a difference for DOF

[Gemm]

Yes, 2 stop difference can be huuuuuge, so it depends on whether you'll be doing lots of low light shooting or not.

[_dobbo_]

Andy M said:

_dobbo_ said:

It also soundly beats both canon equivalents...

How do you work that out? Simply on Fred Miranda reviews, or from technical information?

Just from the fred miranda stuff. Owner satisfaction is significantly higher for the Nikons.

[dcw@pr]

get the f/1.8. I have a 1.4, which I use very occasionally, but for most people, most of the time, you would be better off saving your money imho.

Edited by dcw@pr on Friday 22 September 15:21

[poah]

I have the 30mm f1.4 from sigma and would love a 50 1.4 and the 85 1.2

[Tuna]

With a 1.8 MkII I get some wonderful results. Don't be put off by people who worry about the plastic body of the MkII - it's tough stuff and no more flimsy than some metal bits are. A 1.4 would be nice, but at 1.8 the DOF can get too shallow to manage (I'm just an amateur), so I can only imagine the number of shots I'd screw up at 2 stops wider.

At the price, you can't go wrong with 50mm 1.8

[JonRB]

My dad had a 50mm F1.2 for his Nikon back in the 70's. Bought it in Saudi and even so it cost a small fortune.

He tried to sell it years later and was offered £5 for it. I have a feeling he still has it in a drawer somewhere, knowing him.