I thought the shape and design of the aperture blades had a greater effect on the bokeh effect?
Its very 1960's anyway
Chat Forum
[closed]
50mm Lense Decision Help!
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I terribly confused now. Anyone care to summarise?
There's the:
Nikon 50mm f1.4 D AF Lens (currently £230 new)
Nikon 50mm f1.4 G AF-S Lens (£285)
Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF Lens (£107)(Prices from Warehouse Express)
Plus the DISCONTINUED:Yeah?
Which ones are we talking about here??
Posted 2 years ago # -
Which ones are we talking about here??
Heaven knows. For the full horror, take a look here ...
Posted 2 years ago # -
The new Nikon 50mm f1.4. Be aware there are 5 pages in this review.
HERE
this also has a link to the Sigma (6 page review).Note: the images below shows the new Sigma (far left) but the older Nikon f1.4D (2nd in from the R)- the one you don't want to be thinking about. Now do you start to appreciate where the extra £ is going? Let's also remind ourselves it for a DX not an FX body.
In truth that link and these images should stop this thread dead as really there is not much ealse to say. The Sigma "v" the new Nikon.
Hope this helped.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Right, so your conclusion Ti29er is that:
• the new Nikon AF-S f/1.4 50mm is lovely and has good bokeh
• the older (but still available) Nikon f/1.4 D AF 50mm isn't worth considering for the cash.
• the Nikon f/1.8 isn't worth considering, despite its cheapness, because it has inferior bokehHave I got that right?
So where does the Sigma fit in? Good or bad? (dpreview says comparable)
Do you have any links to comparison shots of the new Nikon 1.4 versus the 1.8, so I can see if this nicer bokeh is worth the extra £200 to me? (I rather suspect it won't be, but I'd like to see the difference anyway)
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm going to chip back in and say why not go and try them both out - see if your local camera shop will let you try them out with a view to buying and compare the two with some test shots and see for yourself.
Interesting reviews though and good to consider the differences
Me personally I am happy enough with my 1.8 - generally will be using it in the f5.6 region or smaller anyway for strobe lit portraits. Dont go in for bokeh personally - but what you get on the 1.8 version is good enough for me. I would have liked the 1.4 but the extra cash can be sunk into something else (need a new strobe for example - that will just about get me a SB600 if I can find one)/ another good lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
In truth that link and these images should stop this thread dead as really there is not much ealse to say. The Sigma "v" the new Nikon.
I'm not entirely sure I get this. Why purposefully buy bigger heavier gear when lighter stuff will do the same - you have to carry it about! I'm be willing to bet that neither the Nikon or Sigma is as sharp as my little 50mm OM-fit Olympus Zuiko, that would be to the right of that pentax on the size scale...
Posted 2 years ago # -
You have all the information you need in the above thread.
£200 would be an investment in a far superior, professional spec' lens over the slower f1.8.
You will see it in it's handling & the resultant images.The 2nd hand value of the Nikon in 5, 10 or 15 years time will be greater than that of the Sigma's. Other than that, there is nothing much between them.
More than this, I can't help you any further other than to add that it is worth reminding ourselves that the CEO of Hassleblad a year ago stated that whilst the size of the image files being produced will increase a little in the next few years it will far outstrip the lens technology available to manufacturers. So an investment in the newest lenses, and remember that these two are both optimised for digital cameras, they do in deed represent a quantum leap forward and really can't be compared to lenses of old.
Now go and try them on your camera would be the next step.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So an investment in the newest lenses, and remember that these two are both optimised for digital cameras, they do in deed represent a quantum leap forward and really can't be compared to lenses of old.
This sounds like Shimano trying to explain why we need 10-speed
Posted 2 years ago # -
You have all the information you need in the above thread.
What I haven't seen yet is identical sample scenes taken on both lenses, so we can compare the lenses.
£200 would be an investment in a far superior, professional spec' lens over the slower f1.8.
You will see it in it's handling & the resultant images.Right, but we're not all pro photographers. I'm distinctly amateur in fact.
So dropping an extra £200 on a lens is hard to justify if all it gains me is 2/3rds of a stop that I'm not likely to use (and neither is the OP by the sounds of it)Improved handling would be nice (apresumably the 1.4 uses the proper SWM implementation for AF-S, so you can switch between auto and manual just by tweaking the focus ring) but doesn't really alter the final image.
Nicer bokeh is of more interest, but I'd like to see how much nicer.
Posted 2 years ago # -
This sounds like Shimano trying to explain why we need 10-speed
Perhaps you'd like to expand upon this as I fail to see any parallels with the whole world moving to digital in its many forms & in this instance, a fundamental change in imaging from the ground-up - and you siting an extra tooth on the rear cassette from one manufacturer!If you want reviews, you'll need to do some more leg work as both lenses are new. The BJP ran articles on both plus a few manual 45 and 50mm lenses.
Go and handle them!Posted 2 years ago # -
If you can't take a decent portrait with a 1.8 your not going to be able to do it with a 1.4.
I'd spend a lot more time thinking about what your trying to achieve and a lot less on what your going to do it with.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Perhaps you'd like to expand upon this as I fail to see any parallels with the whole world moving to digital in its many forms & in this instance, a fundamental change in imaging from the ground-up - and you siting an extra tooth on the rear cassette from one manufacturer!Light is still the same light we used to capture on film, yes?
Excluding slight improvements here and there with optical design and better lens coatings, what's changed?
I use a 5DMk2 with a full-frame sensor hugely critical of the lens mounted on it. I've used Canon's 50 mm f1.8, Canon's 24-70 f2.8L, Canon's 24-105 f4L , and an old 70's era Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f1.4 and performed some tests in the past. The Oly comes out top for sharpness both in the centre, and at the edges of the frame when stopped down, and gives by far most natural smoothness when wide open as far as each of the lenses will go. In actual fact, my favourite portrait lens on the full frame sensor has to be my 90mm Tamron SP f2.5 Macro of 80s vintage - razor sharp where it needs to be, but provides a very pleasing softness outside the focus plane. Both those old lenses give less CA than the L-series glass.
So, aside from ultrasonic focussing (not really an issue) or IS/VR - again, not so much of an issue with fast lenses and rapidly improving high ISO sensitivity, what are the improvements in modern lenses?
Could it simply be that new is better because we are told new is better, and perhaps autofocus is a ms faster?
As far as I've seen, the only real areas where new lenses are worth the outlay is at the very wide end, or at the hyperzoom level, where convenience of one lens overrules IQ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Another option would be the 60mm macro 2.8 in either the new G or older D version, if you are mainly shooting at F4-F6 the slower 2.8 max won't make a difference, the perspective will be better for portraits on a D90 with slightly more subject isolation over a 50mm and you gain close focus capability.
P
Posted 2 years ago # -
remember to consider bokeh
Posted 2 years ago # -
Aside from some old lenses, and they're a few of them, manufacturers have made huge advances in lens design and technology over the years.
Digital imaging has demanded some serious re-thinking of how to best take advantages of this new digital imaging technology.
That's one reason why Hassleblad were so forthcoming about the likely small improvements in the lenses, if any, and certainly not doing the advances in the chip technology justice. They have been very progressive, abandoning the 6x6 square format and moving to a smaller, rectangular "negative" area of 40.2×53.7mm, and at present their flagship manages 60 million pixels (McCain eat y'er heart out)To believe otherwise would be to discard all the independent magazines and journalists who bench test optics worldwide. Chip technology makes significant improvements about every 2 years or so, that is not the case with optics. There's no conspiracy going on here - these people test lenses and give us the results. Some of the Nikon for-DX lenses have been less than impressive, however this new series of lenses seems to move the game on considerably.
Just read all the articles and it's fairly overwhelming IMHO, made possible partly because of the advances in cameras (how many SLR models do Nikon presently have on sale?), notably the introduction of the Nikon full-sized chip set in the shape of the FX camera bodies.
And it's not just the actual improvements, it's the perceived improvements that will see these two lenses be worth more in the years ahead than say the f1.4D, which, rightly or not, has a poor reputation. He should not consider wavering from the two lenses identified earlier; be it the Sigma or the new Nikon.
All hail: The Bokeh!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ti29er - Member
Again I stress, the f1.4D is NOT the lens we are in debate over, that, I'm afraid to say, deserves to be consigned to the Trash Can of history.Erm, Nikon disagree with you. Still listed as a current product [url=http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/product_details.page?ParamValue=NIKKOR Lenses&Subnav1Param=Auto Focus Lenses&Subnav2Param=0&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=l2&ID=402](here)[/url] along side the AFS and given that it's not much cheaper than the AFS that came out some time back now (2008 I think) I suspect there's a reason for that. Can't be that the AFS is essentially a AFD with a motor tacked on for the low end bodies because as we agree it's a completely different design. Could it be that the AFD is just a simple but rather effective beastie?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ti29er - quite patronising to suggest an f1.8 owner wouldnt understand what bokeh is. The 50mm lens isnt just for use at maximum aperture. They make an excellent travel lens, lightweight and easy to carry. Composing takes more thought due to the fixed length and therefore generally leads to better composition. All great attributes and not one bit of "bokeh" in sight.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm quite enjoying this. To be fair I have a D300 and the 50mm f1.4 AFD. I suspect the weak link in the chain (as it will be for most of us) will be the thing that pushes the shutter release.
Some seriously great images have been taken with what would be regarded now as pretty poor kit - not I hasten to add by me.
My 1930s folding Zeiss Ikon 120 roll film camera bought for a fiver takes great shots when you load it with PanF and feed it plenty of light - exposure can be a little tricky, but image quality... you could walk into some of the bigger prints. Truly beautiful.
The other thing though is some of the best shots, most iconic images are far from technically perfect. Poor lighting, out of focus, shaken, overly grainy - but the composition and the timing makes the shot. And that you can do with any of those 50mm lenses.
Still like throwing everything but the subject out of focus though - except one of my favourite shot that I took is of a friends wedding, a long run up a piano to two champagne glasses, with the the glasses spot on in focus and the happy couple thrown out of focus. Yeah clichéd, I know.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ti29er: If lenses are improving so rapidly, could you please explain in the context of this why a 25 and 35 year old lens don't give CA on a 21mp FF sensor, whereas three modern Canon lenses (2 L-series) do? Or is this because you've spent rather too much on 'pro' lenses and now see where you could have saved a couple of thousand?
At the long end, I've two lovely zuikos, a 135 f3.5 and a 200 f4 that also perform better than their L-series counterparts.
Another great advantage is that I can carry these lenses with me at the same time, rather than choosing one or two, and breaking my back under their weight.
Oh, and if you want bokeh, the older lenses are almost certainly masters there...
Posted 2 years ago # -
As someone else said earlier (I can't recall who and I'm not wading back through it all again) I'm not a pro either and what it came down to in the end was cost. It's that simple. The 50mm f/1.8 is a very good lens despite some of the stuff spouted on here and I think I got mine for £60 so it was an absolute bargain. I've never thought I was missing anything, never hankered after the f/1.4 and certainly never regretted not spending the extra £200. As for the bokeh, well, it's very nice on the f/1.8 and I've not had cause to complain. It's nicely rounded and produces a pleasing effect (to my mind).
Now, they might not be great photos but I'm more than pleased with them and I don't take photos for anyone else so I'm very happy with the results. Given the chance again, and having the money for the f/1.4, I would still by the f/1.8 then take the family out for the day with the money left over and maybe get a few good shots of them while we were out.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've got a 20+ year old Nikkor 50mm 1.4 AI. Lovely bokeh on that baby!
Seriously though, if you're running a camera that'll take AI lenses (the better ones from the D200 onward) then you'll do fine with something like that. I picked mine up for about £100. It's very easy to manual focus because it's so bright. It'll make you slow down, look at the view and actually think about the depth of field.
It's softer when full open than the 1.8 (also manual) it replaced and not as sharp overall. It is much better at isolating the subject though, which is probably the most important difference.Posted 2 years ago # -
Be4ch about sums it up
I've never thought I was missing anything,
Put another way: he simply doesn't know.
Give him a f1.4 for a month and then ask for his thoughts based on having the knowledge!
f1.4 every time. f1.8 if you're planning on taking mediocre images that everyone else can manage.
No disrespect meant, but as you say, they may not be great photos. Why buy a lens if this is your aim?
If you want more, then you need one of two lenses you rightly identified and stop sitting on the fence and dithering about money and not understanding why one lens is much larger and more expensive and has different effects etc etc - go and try them out and do us all a favour - please!Posted 2 years ago # -
If you want to justify to yourself (you wife?) spending an extra £200 odd on a lens, then good for you. Just don't keep spreading the misinformation.
The 1.8mm lens is perfectly adequate. Not as specialised as the 1.4 in terms of bokeh but having owned both in the past (I kept the 1.8 if it matters) the pretty background baubles matter in only a handful of shots IMO.
And I also don't think lenses have progressed much since the '80s. AF has become more intelligent, and as was mentioned earlier, lens coatings have come on a little, but right now, we're limited by the optical qualities of glass. Ceramic lenses may be on the way, but not for a good while yet at consumer friendly prices.
Don't believe the hype.
Posted 2 years ago # -
f1.4 every time. f1.8 if you're planning on taking mediocre images that everyone else can manage.
this sounds semi religious - wouldn't it be highly subject dependent ? (Ignoring the fact the the subject is so much more important than the hardware)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Damn - agreeing with SfB moment.
By the way did anyone notice that the link Ti29er pointed to doesn't entirely agree with the arguments he is advancing? And if anyone wants a set of conclusions that run almost entirely counter to that link try Ken Rockwell. Camera reviews are like bike reviews - take with a pinch of salt.
Posted 2 years ago # -
agreeing with SfB moment.
don't worry, I'll soon come up with something you can conscientiously refute
Posted 2 years ago # -
f1.4 every time. f1.8 if you're planning on taking mediocre images that everyone else can manage
But you said the handling was better on the 1.4. And the focus is better.
So doesn't that mean it's easier for "everyone to manage" better pictures on the 1.4, especially when not shooting wide open?Put another way: he simply doesn't know.
Give him a f1.4 for a month and then ask for his thoughts based on having the knowledge!...
..not understanding why one lens is much larger and more expensive and has different effectsCould you maybe try being a little less patronising?
Despite being a hobbyist using the 1.8 I still understand what bokeh is and I understand why the 1.4 lens is bigger and more expensive. But for me (and I suspect the OP) the extra cost isn't justified.
I'd still like to see an identical scene shot with the 1.4 and 1.8 though. Just to see the differences.
Didn't you say you had both?Posted 2 years ago # -
That's one reason why Hassleblad were so forthcoming about the likely small improvements in the lenses, if any, and certainly not doing the advances in the chip technology justice. They have been very progressive, abandoning the 6x6 square format and moving to a smaller, rectangular "negative" area of 40.2×53.7mm, and at present their flagship manages 60 million pixels (McCain eat y'er heart out)
Hassleblad don't make sensors, they don't even make their own cameras and lenses as the H3 is a rebadged fuji and the lenses are fuji made too.
they haven't abandoned the 6x6 format as they now use the kodak 39 mp chip in the CF39 (still only 36.7 x 49.0 mm )for the C-series 6x6 cameras.
the 6x45 format was chosen for the new cameras not to be "progressive" but because wafer production costs increased with sensor size and the senors produced by Kodak and Dalsa were of the smaller format, even then they were not full frame and some crop factor was involved.the new lenses are nothing special as they rely on software to correct aberrations and this function has only been available with the new Phocus software which is a bloated poorly developed processor hungry piece of software. the previous flexcolour was not exactly a joy to use either (being based on the scanner software inherited from imacon)
if anything Leaf and Phase were far more forward thinking.Posted 2 years ago # -
Despite being a hobbyist using the 1.8 I still understand what bokeh is
I'd just like everything to be sharp :o)
they haven't abandoned the 6x6 format
I've always thought the square format was the most wasteful as subjects are rarely that shape, so it needs most cropping
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd just like everything to be sharp :o)
I found the 1.8 more than sharp enough (for me).
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well someone heres definately fallen into the more expensive equipment makes better pictures trap - shame really but marketing has to have an effect on someone I suppose....
Posted 2 years ago # -
If you want to justify to yourself (you wife?) spending an extra £200 odd on a lens, then good for you. Just don't keep spreading the misinformation.
+1
Zoom lenses have improved a lot, yes. AF has improved, yes. Have coatings and the lenses used to make primes come on? Not from what I've seen using what anyone would describe as quite an unforgiving sensor, with several modern 'pro' lenses, and many older 'pro' lenses currently available at a fraction of the price. Stopped down to f2.8 and f4 respectively for the two zooms I mentioned up there, but the f1.8 'nifty fifty', and certainly my Oly Zuiko f1.4 give as good, if not better results than lenses costing 10x as much.
You can choose not to believe me Ti29er, but providing misinformation because you've spent over the odds on something doesn't mean you should try to force everyone else into making the same mistakes. In that respect, my previous comparison to the marketing power of Shimano for the new 10-speed being 'needed' and an 'improvement' works very well indeed.
I have no doubt the handling, build quality and possibly AF are improved on the f1.4 nikkor vs the f1.8. I seriously doubt the IQ is that improved, especially stopped down as being discussed up there. By all means buy the more expensive version if you want, or if you need the extra increase in light sensitivity at f1.4, but if it were my money, i'd spend the extra £200 on going somewhere nice to use the camera, or put it towards a different lens that allowed me to do different things...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yep, nothing wrong with my Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 from the late 60s. Well and truly up there with the latest lenses. Even the coatings are very good. Highly radioactive, but very good.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Highly radioactive, but very good.
Best. Footnote. Ever.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Highly radioactive, but very good.
Hmm, perhaps I should bring some of my older ones to work and poke the geiger at them...
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
