Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF vs f/1.8 AF

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
35,319
2,453
126
Nikon has two lenses that I'm looking at now. I need a good, general purpose lens that can handle relatively low-light situations. Ideally I'd like to be able to break free of the tripod for pics with my D80. I don't have any lenses that will let me do that unless I'm shooting at the sky during the day.

There's the f/1.4 lens for $314.14 and the f/1.8 for $120.

As far as lighting goes, is there any kind of formula for shutter speed vs f-stop? For example, if a shot would come out well with a 1/60s speed at 1.8, would it come out well with 1/100s for 1.4?

I really like the 1.8 because of its price. Does anyone have any experience with either of these?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
The 50mm f/1.4 is sharper at equivalent apertures up to f/2.8, and has more pleasing bokeh because of the 9 bladed diaphragm.

That said, the 50mm f/1.8 gives you a lot more bang for the buck. Instead of buying new, pick up one used, since these lenses are always in demand and hardly lose any of their used value at all. If you buy one for $80-something used, you can sell it again for about the same if you're not satisfied with it.
 

andylawcc

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
18,183
3
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
That said, the 50mm f/1.8 gives you a lot more bang for the buck. Instead of buying new, pick up one used, since these lenses are always in demand and hardly lose any of their used value at all. If you buy one for $80-something used, you can sell it again for about the same if you're not satisfied with it.

would the same hold true for the f/1.4 ?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I would think so. I buy/sell Nikon lenses all the time. Most are used, and on most I break even or make a small profit when I sell.

The only time you lose money in a buy/sell is when you pay for a new retail item.
 

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
The 50mm f/1.8 is super sharp around f/4 and above, and basically just gives up a little bit of sharpness at the very wide open parts of its aperture range compared to the f/1.4 which presumably is sharp by f/1.8 or f/2?

Here's a sample picture I just took with my 50mm f/1.8 at 1/125, f/3.2, ISO 400
http://i78.photobucket.com/alb...20/996gt2/DSC_9815.jpg
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
Originally posted by: Chaotic42 For example, if a shot would come out well with a 1/60s speed at 1.8, would it come out well with 1/100s for 1.4?

yes. that would be the same exposure.


the 35 f/2 might be a bit more useful. though it's a little more spendy.

if all you have is the kit lens right now, you might also take a look at the 28 f/2.8. the 50 f/1.8 and the 28 f/2.8 would be a good pair and pretty inexpensive.
 

pennylane

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2002
6,077
1
0
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
As far as lighting goes, is there any kind of formula for shutter speed vs f-stop? For example, if a shot would come out well with a 1/60s speed at 1.8, would it come out well with 1/100s for 1.4?

This site seems to explain stops pretty well (I felt lucky when I searched). I'm horrible with nomenclature but I'll attempt a quick explanation. Basically, one "stop" refers to a halving or doubling of the amount of light that hits your sensor/film.

With ISO, to get a one stop difference in light, you either double or halve the ISO (sensitivity). ie, the difference between ISO200 and ISO 400 is one stop. The difference between ISO 200 and ISO 800 is two stops.

With shutter speed, to let in twice as much light, you use a shutter speed that's twice as slow. ie, the difference between a 1/30 exposure and a 1/60 exposure is one stop (assuming you keep aperture and ISO constant).

Aperture controls the size of the hole that lets in light and is measured in terms of diameter, and f-stop is the ratio of that diameter and the focal length. But, to get half or twice as much light, you need to double or halve the area of the hole. Since we're now talking about areas but aperture is measured with distances, there's a square root of 2 term in there. A one stop difference in aperture corresponds to a 1.4x factor between f-stops. ie, an f/1.4 aperture is one stop bigger than an f/2.0 aperture. An f/4.0 aperture is one stop smaller than an f/2.8 aperture.

That website shows how you can adjust the 3 settings and still get the same exposure. You can give and take stops between the 3 settings.

Also, people also use the word "stops" when referring to dynamic range. ie, people say things like "Film has 7 stops of dynamic range, while my d-slr only has 6." (I made those numbers up). That should make sense, right?

Hopefully that was not too convoluted and factually correct.


The 50mm f/1.4 gives you an extra 2/3 of a stop over the 50mm f/1.8. I think people say it's also of higher quality. I have a 50mm f/1.8 and it works for me just fine. However, if you're looking for a general purpose lens, 50mm might be a bit too long on a DX camera. It gets closer into the portrait range. Perhaps you should look at a 35mm f/2 or a 28mm f/2.8 if you want something general purpose. You could also look into a constant f/2.8 lens walkaround zoom lens. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is an excellent lens (optics perhaps in the league of the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8) and is at a reasonable price point. It's quite a popular lens.
 

virtuamike

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2000
7,845
13
81
I have the 50/1.4. I used to have a 50/1.8. They're both solid lenses. I like the 50/1.4 better for shooting at wider apertures and more pleasing bokeh. If money is an issue, then the 50/1.8 is the better value, but you can find good deals on both if you buy used.
 

bondboy

Senior member
Apr 2, 2005
877
0
0
Keep in mind that with a 1.4, your depth of field is also thinner. Could be an issue for focusing if your subject is moving.
 

SKC

Golden Member
Jan 8, 2001
1,206
0
71
Another vote of support for the 1.4's bokeh, it's really sweet. No experience with the f1.8. I got the f1.4 on ebay with the live cashback deal, it was a more reasonable price.
 

virtuamike

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2000
7,845
13
81
Originally posted by: bondboy
Keep in mind that with a 1.4, your depth of field is also thinner. Could be an issue for focusing if your subject is moving.

I think this more of an issue with the photographer than it is with the equipment ;)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
Originally posted by: bondboy
Keep in mind that with a 1.4, your depth of field is also thinner. Could be an issue for focusing if your subject is moving.

SLRs are hardly up to the task of focusing a 50 f/1.4 @ f/1.4 (lower aperture the dof can cover for it), so focusing is always an issue.


take a gander

that chart uses the concept of dog based on when it was made, probably pre-war. with the ultra high resolution capabilities of modern digital sensors, dof has become even more narrow.
 

andylawcc

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
18,183
3
81
Originally posted by: 996GT2
The 50mm f/1.8 is super sharp around f/4 and above, and basically just gives up a little bit of sharpness at the very wide open parts of its aperture range compared to the f/1.4 which presumably is sharp by f/1.8 or f/2?

Here's a sample picture I just took with my 50mm f/1.8 at 1/125, f/3.2, ISO 400
http://i78.photobucket.com/alb...20/996gt2/DSC_9815.jpg

well, here's a shot with my olympus 410 + 25mm f/2.8.
P9024521.JPG
@ f/3.2, 1/60, ISO 400. Would ya think it's on par in terms of IQ?