Fast Lens

[ljh34465]

I am curious as to how many of you have a 50mm prime lens, f1.4 or 1.8 for low light situations?

Would you recommend this type of lens for a digital or is a 75mm equivalent not as useful as a 50mm?

Is the "hassle" of a non-zoom worth the trade off for speed?

Can get the 1.8 for just over $100 USD, the 1.4 is over twice as much - worth it??

For use on a Nikon D70s.

Any input would be appreciated.

TIA

Larry

[cyclohexane]

I am curious as to how many of you have a 50mm prime lens, f1.4 or 1.8 for low light situations?

I used to have a 50 f/1.8 AF, and shot pretty much everything, in lowlight or otherwise, with it attached to my D70. The sharpness and contrast was superior to my 18-70 f/3.5-4.5. I ended up selling it to make room for other stuff because I just didn't use it enough after getting the 85 f/1.4.

I also have a 50 f/1.4 AIS that came with my FM2N.

Would you recommend this type of lens for a digital or is a 75mm equivalent not as useful as a 50mm?

The 50 f/1.8 is still one of the cheapest ways to get a fast lens. If you want the 50mm equivalent view, then you can get a 35 f/2.0, which offers a ~52.5mm equivalent field of view.

Is the "hassle" of a non-zoom worth the trade off for speed?

Yes. Also, the superior DOF control and optical quality compared to most consumer zooms.

Of course, if you're not shooting anything that moves, the shutter speed gains might be inconsequential.

Can get the 1.8 for just over $100 USD, the 1.4 is over twice as much - worth it??

f/1.4 is a 2/3 stop advantage over f/1.8, so that's the difference between 1/320 of a second and 1/500 of a second at the same ISO. If you need the extra speed, then by all means get the f/1.4. Some say the f/1.4 has better bokeh than the f/1.8, but I have not compared them.

[ljh34465]

Thanks, Michael. Appreciate the input

[Rense]

I have a 50 mm f/1.8, a 85 mm f/1.8 and some M42 lenses that are 1.8 1.4 or even 1.2.
I truly like the DOF that you can achieve with the lenses.

And remember a human is the best zoom: it is nearly always possible to take two steps forward or backward.

As for the price: the M42 lenses cost next to nothing. The Asahi Pentax 55m f/1.2 was only 3 Euros.

[ljh34465]

Thanks, Rense,

I think the $100 USD is about the same as 3 Euros right now

[Rense]

LOL

[cyclohexane]

LOL =)

[azrussell132]

Save your money...buy the 1.8.

[ljh34465]

Thanks, Russ,
That is exactily the kind of opinion I am looking for

[nyschulte]

having both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 and doing mostly studio work, stopped down at 2.0
there is no reason for me, except for the built quality, to use the 1.4.

On the other side, using the 1.4 wide open without flash on location is unbeatable for those candids

Nicolas

[Nikonfreak]

Absolutely... I have and continue to use the 50mm f/1.8, the 35mm f/2.0 and the 85 f/1.4 lenses.

I highly recommend all of them.

If you want to save a few dollars, look for the 85 1.4 used or go to the 1.8 version of it. There are reasons to go with the 1.4 version, bokeh being one of them, but unless you're using it a lot and making some change with it, you can save a bit by getting the 1.8 version.

Julio

Home

[ljh34465]

Thanks, Nicolas and Julio, appreciate you taking the time to look and comment.

Looks like opinion is leaning towards the f 1.8 on a cost/value basis.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by ljh34465

I am curious as to how many of you have a 50mm prime lens, f1.4 or 1.8 for low light situations?

I have a 50F1.4 and a 85F1.2

Would you recommend this type of lens for a digital or is a 75mm equivalent not as useful as a 50mm?

a 75mm equivalent is almost an 85mm, the 'standard headshot/portrait lens', so yes, for those kind of shots, I recommend the 50mm

Is the "hassle" of a non-zoom worth the trade off for speed?

"hassle" ?? what "hassle" ?? the fact that you have to move your feet ??

Some models actually prefer it, when the photographer uses primes, because then they know better whether the photographer is going for a close(r)-up or for a more 'complete' full body shot

Can get the 1.8 for just over $100 USD, the 1.4 is over twice as much - worth it??

Yes for the build quality and the extra speed - if you value these, but not for much else: IQ of both the Canon and Nikon 50F1.8 and 50F1.4 is about equal.

In Canon land the 50F1.4 also adds silent AF (USM) and Full Time Manual Focus (significant to me...), I do not know about the Nikon 50's, but if something that significant would be the case, Cyclohexane would have told us

...*my* €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[jfrancho]

My 28 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 are the most used lenses in my kit.

[cyclohexane]

I do not know about the Nikon 50's, but if something that significant would be the case, Cyclohexane would have told us

Heheheh, thanks for the vote of confidence.

The only differences in the 50mm Nikkors are the max aperture, bokeh, and to some degree sharpness. Except for the max aperture, I wouldn't consider any of these significant differences.

Bokeh: The f/1.4 is touted as being smoother, but the f/1.8 really isn't a slouch. I can say that the f/1.4 has smooth bokeh, but I don't know if it's 3x the cost smoother.

Sharpness: Up until about f/4, the f/1.8 is touted as being sharper, with the f/1.4 taking over after f/5.6, but the difference is insignificant. Both lenses are sharp.

Build quality is about the same for the AF D lenses. Any manual focus version, including the budget "Series E" 50mm f/1.8 debuted in 1979 is built better than the AF D lenses. There were metal AF versions manufactured briefly, but I have not seen them available used for some time, and their focusing rings sucked even more than the latest models.

I'm pretty sure one if not both of the current 50mm AF lenses are out of production, which means all the new ones floating around are "new old stock".

[Narsuitus]

Originally Posted by ljh34465

I am curious as to how many of you have a 50mm prime lens, f1.4 or 1.8 for low light situations?

For low light situations, I have the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.8, the 35mm f/1.4, and the 24mm f/2.