[Closed] 50mm Lense Decision Help!

If you're intending to use it at f4 to f6 then just go for the f1.8.

It's a nice wee lens.

Stick with the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, its a super sharp lens.

[url= http://bythom.com/nikon.htm ]Thom Hogan has reviews of the f1.4 Sigma and Nikkor[/url]

The Sigma f1.4 got a cracking review in the BJP.
Forget the f1.8, it's not going to be good enough.
Consider also the 85, f1.4

what are you using it for? if it's only for looking on a computer screen/posting to flickr or doing small prints just get the cheapest one.

Your not helping here guys 😆

85mm f1.4 is probably pushing the budget a tad too far but would be lovely!

Forget the f1.8, it's not going to be good enough.

[img] [/img]
[url= http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/normal/af_50mmf_14d/index.htm ]AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D[/url]

[img] [/img]
[url= http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/normal/af_50mmf_18d/index.htm ]AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D[/url]

The f1.8 isn't bad at all!

[url= http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/mtf.htm ]Hot to read an MTF chart[/url]

85/1.4 is my favourite lens in the world - unbeatable for portraits 🙂

What're you using it for?

I had the 85mm 1.4 and while it was the most beautiful bit of glass, on a crop body it is pretty much useless for anything other than headshots of people. Put it on a full frame though, and oh my god.

the 50mm 1.8 however... a very useful length, I can't quite see the value in the 1.4 versions myself, fun, but the 1.8 is grand.. and you dont worry about breaking it, or even scratching it as the glass is 1.5cm back from the front of the lens. No need for a flare inducing, contrast, reducing filter.

Forget the f1.8, it's not going to be good enough.

Tosh. Nothing wrong with the f1.8 at all. Especially as the OP suggests he'll be using it at f4 - 5.6.

Yours is a DX body, so the 85mm might be too long.
A professional photographer pal of mine swears by his 50mm f1.4. He uses DX bodies.
I'm using FX so the 85mm has always been my main portrait lens.
Forget the f1.8 as it's not got the "legs" or be good enough if it's portraits you're looking at doing.
If everything you shoot is shot at f16, then save the money and go with the amateur f1.8.
In DX the 50mm is considered THE standard portrait lens. 85mm with the FX format.

PS - If you do shoot at f4-ish and buy the f1.8, you'll always know there's something missing that the f1.4 might well have added to your images. You will not be satisfied until you have the f1.4, of that I can promise you! ❗

Yours is a DX body, so the 85mm might be too long

All a matter of taste, or course, but for headshots a 50mm is too short IMO, and you get horsey-noses. I think fashion photographers generally use much longer lenses to avoid that sort of stuff and isolate the subject.
[url= http://fashionphotographyblog.com/2008/10/dslr-lenses-for-beauty/ ]http://fashionphotographyblog.com/2008/10/dslr-lenses-for-beauty/[/url]

Many moons ago I did some tests on Nikkor standard lens, back when I had four different versions at work, talking Pan F and Nikon F2's 😉

Nikkor 50mm f1.2, f1.4 & f1.8 plus a series E with no coatings left on the front element, from a press guy constantly cleaning it with his elbow!

Anyway we shot off a few test shot using a Bowens Illumitran (remember those beasts!)

Then compared the shots, ok, cannot remember what F-stop it was now, but the shots taken at F5.6 or F8, no one in the office could tell the difference between the lenses when a segment was enlarged and printed up.

Was a boring afternoon at work btw 😉

If everything you shoot is shot at f16

you're diffraction limited

the f1.8 50mm is a bargain. Got mine for £50 on eBay. Do you really need the f1.4 if you're just going to be posting online?

Ti29er - I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I'm really struggling to understand what you're saying. Since when has a lens got "legs", and why aren't the f1.8's legs long enough?!

Also, why isn't it "good enough"?

If you're trying to say that it lacks a large enough apperture to throw a background out of focus, on a crop sensor camera, then I repeat my above comment. Tosh. There's also absolutely nothing wrong with the build or image quality.

To the OP - get the Sigma if you do go for an f1.4 - it looks much more impressive 🙂

Cant see me going FX in the near future so am happy to pay a bit more to make the jump to a f1.4 lense but still cant decided between the Nikon or the Sigma

<pedant>It's lens by the way <pedant> 😀

when did lenses start to be called 'glass'?
been in the photography business for over 10 years and never heard the term used. is it an americanism or a geek forum thing?

...for DX cameras, somewhere in the 50 to 60mm range is a perfect portrait focal length..

The f/1.8D version, however, remains a bargain. I think you'll have to think long and hard about what the f/1.4G offers you over the f/1.8D if you've got a DSLR that can use non AF-S lenses.

And when you do, you'll decide that it's mostly that f/1.4 that you get for the extra money. By f/5.6, the best aperture for the f/1.4G, both lenses seem pretty much the same to me. In between f/1.8 and f/5.6, the new lens seems to have a bit more sharpness, especially into the corners. So you're trading price for very fast aperture use.

Well Thom Hogan, a well respected pro says there ain't much difference. f1.8 can be had for £60, f1.4 is £289.

£220 for two-thirds of a stop seems a lot to me - especially if you're shooting above f4 as the OP is.

"glass" is an in-crowd jargon expression, a kind of jovial contempt...

MrSmith - Member
when did lenses start to be called 'glass'?
been in the photography business for over 10 years and never heard the term used. is it an americanism or a geek forum thing?

mmm good question, for as long as I can remember I've always referred to sighted scopes, bins and lenses as "glass", I wonder where i picked that up from?!?

when deer stalking there is the term "to glass the hillside"

nothing to do with photography though

I've got both. The Nikon f1.4 is a far better lens than the f1.8.
If you don't anticipate shooting everything at maximum aperture, then the Sigma might well be a better lens.
However it's heavier and bigger than the Nikon.
Forget the f1.8, it's a proverbial red herring.
Don't know the difference in price, but to my mind, I always buy the Nikon / 'Blad / Leica (not Sigma, Tamron et al) lenses.
This has I think paid off over the years as & when I sell / buy bits the OM kit seems to hold the price well.

[url= http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page2.asp ]No one has yet added this link.[/url]

[url= http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/page2.asp ]Also here[/url]
Be aware the Nikon lens it's pitted up against is the older D version and not the new version you're thinking about.

Forget the f1.8, it's a proverbial red herring.

mixing metaphors - it's not supposed to be a clue...

A bit it's a "[i]proverbial[/i] red herring" simon, like the herring in the proverb. Y'know, the one that was red. 🙂

Always buy the best glass you can afford, it will be worth far more than the cameras ever are when you come to sell it.

The Nikon lens are I'm afraid to say the best buy, the Sigma whilst saving you money in the initial investment will end up worth pence due to peoples snobbery.

If you can afford it buy the Nikon end of.

Here's a link about lenses from Ken Rockwells pages

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-or-camera.htm

Here's a link about lenses from Ken Rockwells pages

And here's a picture of a clown:

[img] [/img]

Here's a link about lenses from Ken Rockwells pages

I have the nikon F1.8 50mm, its a great lens....is it as good as the much more expensive F1.4 ? on paper no but in reality you are unlikely to notice the difference - if it matters that much and you can afford it, buy the F1.4, if you want a bargain priced excellent prime 50mm lens, get the F1.8

having just picked up a d300 body myself, I have been looking around at what lens to go for. Chose the f1.8 version over the 1.4 and haven't so far been disappointed - very pleasing results (having jumped ship from pentax the only thing I thought I as going to miss was my old manual 50mm f1.7 which was a superb lens)

personally I would go 1.4 if I had the money, but 1.8 is good

now do I go 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 (nikon) or go for something like this which gets good reviews and I have read has a bit of a following
http://lenstip.com/166.1-Lens_review-Samyang_85_mm_f_1.4_Aspherical_IF_.html

if you dont think or know you need f1.4 then you prob dont

No one has yet discussed a main feature of the fast lenses over the amateur lenses; namely [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ]Bokeh.[/url]

Now, if you need to check that link I'd bet you own a f1.8 and not the f1.4.

A sweeping statement I know, but if you do not know nor appreciate what bokeh is, then buy the f1.8 as it's one of the main features of the faster lens, be it the 85, 50, or 35mm lenses (in particular).

I have the older Nikon f1.4 AFD 50mm - good lens and was available relatively cheaply when the AFS arrived. However the reviews I saw of the AFS (I admit I haven't played with it) suggested it was nothing special compared to the AFD. Both were meant to be slightly better than the f1.8. I think the D90 can drive a non-AFS lens so I'd have a look for the AFD f1.4, if only to see what price its available for.

Take it back the old one is still over £200.

Forget it. The f1.4D lens is not worth any premium, if anything at all over the standard f1.8 in this instance.
The choice is the only to be between these new lenses, either the Nikon or the Sigma.
Read the reports if you need to, but the 50mm f1.4D is no good (in this context) having been completely re-designed from the ground up and to say it moves the lens on would be to be an almost dis-service to how different it is.
Do not waste any £ on a the old 50mm f1.4D lens.

Well everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I still like my old AFD. It works nicely on the two bodies I use it on. I doubt I would pay the £220ish they seem to want for it now that the AFS is available at £280ish - but that's mainly because the AFS lens will work on all the bodies (even the cheap ones) while the AFD requires an old or expensive body. In use it's pretty good - though apparently the focus on the AFS is slightly faster which has advantages.
I agree the lens has had a ground up redesign, but remember that was mainly to improve focusing. In the admittedly low value sharpness tests the old lens actually came out ahead - only to loose out on focusing speed which in some (many?) situations negates that extra sharpness. I'm told there's also a little more distortion on the new lens - but you probably won't notice that.
Anyway you won't spoil my love of that tiny little AFD f1.4 50mm - it's still my favourite and has been since it got me through my (monochrome) NVQs.

Some varied viewpoints on the bokeh question:
[url= http://www.nikoscope.com/pages/results.jsf?context=forum+messages&query=50mm+1.4+bokeh+forumId%3A%22146%22&auxQuery=50mm+1.4+bokeh&startSearch= ]http://www.nikoscope.com/pages/results.jsf?context=forum+messages&query=50mm+1.4+bokeh+forumId%3A%22146%22&auxQuery=50mm+1.4+bokeh&startSearch=[/url]

I can't see any links or articles about the [i]new[/i] f1.4 lens in relation to bokeh.
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.

If you shoot with Leica lenses in particular, this effect / feature can give you that very specific and recognisable signature to many images.

I thought the shape and design of the aperture blades had a greater effect on the bokeh effect?

Its very 1960's anyway

I terribly confused now. Anyone care to summarise?

There's the:

[img] [/img]
Nikon 50mm f1.4 D AF Lens (currently £230 new)

[img] [/img]
Nikon 50mm f1.4 G AF-S Lens (£285)

[img] [/img]
Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF Lens (£107)

(Prices from Warehouse Express)
Plus the DISCONTINUED:

[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/product_details.page?ParamValue=Discontinued&Subnav1Param=Nikkor%20Lenses&Subnav2Param=0&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=l2&ID=660 ]50mm f/1.4 Nikkor[/url]

[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/products/product_details.page?ParamValue=Discontinued&Subnav1Param=Nikkor%20Lenses&Subnav2Param=0&Subnav3Param=0&RunQuery=l2&ID=661 ]50mm f/1.8 Nikkor[/url]

Yeah?

Which ones are we talking about here?? 😕

Which ones are we talking about here??

Heaven knows. For the full horror, [url= http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#50slow ] take a look here ...[/url]

The new Nikon 50mm f1.4. Be aware there are 5 pages in this review.

[url= http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/ ]HERE[/url]
this also has a link to the [url= http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/ ]Sigma [/url] (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.

[img] [/img]

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 bokeh

Have 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)