how's the 1.8 compare to the 1.4 (G or D version)?

I'd like to drop some $$ on an 85 but NOT break the bank. . .thoughts?

I hope so, I've just paid for the new 85mm G. Delivery estimate first week in December. I'm looking forward to trying it out!

The MTF doesnt explain it. but I agree.. theyre the pro level lenses.. in build and bokeh as well as edge to center goodness!

If you are shooting DX, don't bother with the 1.4. Spend the money on getting an FX body if you are looking to get better light gathering and a smaller DOF.

It is also not whether the 1.4 gets more light or not, they should be considered professional lenses, so the glass will be better. Check the MTF charts to understand what I mean.

Drab said:
Missing, yes, but needed?

Amongst a common class of lenses how is the incident angle a function of anything other that the focal length and (physical) aperture size?

I don't get it ...

Paperman said:
What is missing in the article is the same t-stop test done for f1.8 lenses - instead of just indicating there is no such light losses at f1.8 aperture .

Missing, yes, but needed?

Amongst a common class of lenses how is the incident angle a function of anything other than the focal length and (physical) aperture size?

EDIT: s/that/than/

Drab said:
Not IF all the additional (delta) light is coming in at a shallower incident angle to the plane of the sensor, and is either not focused by the microlenses or not absorbed by the light wells.

Sensors (and the attached filters and lenses sandwiched to the front of them) are not (obviously) theoretically perfect black bodies which absorb all the radiation which strikes them, much less absorb all radiation equally. (Film isn't either, FWIW).

Okay. Fair point. I do notice enough of an increase in low light shooting to make a difference. I wonder if anyone ever tested whether there is a 2/3 stop actual difference between a 50 1.4 and a 50 1.8 on a D90.

anjz said:
Interesting. I would imagine that with any given sensor, a 1.8 lens would have a 2/3 stop disadvantage compared to a 1.4 of the same focal length. Maybe I am mistaken?

According to the article , the problem originates from the extra wide aperture of f1.2 and f1.4 lenses and the rays that pass near the sides/edges of the diaphgram . The rays are too skewed/whatever for the pixels on the sensor to detect - so less light than there theoretically should be . The light loss is actually supported by tests done with these fast lenses . The t-stops are actually 0.5-1.0 EV lower than the f-stops .

It suggests therefore that the f1.4 may not be real and just a result of boosted ISO without our knowledge. ( It is not impossible considering Sony is doing a similar trick with the pellicle mirrored A55 )

What is missing in the article is the same t-stop test done for f1.8 lenses - instead of just indicating there is no such light losses at f1.8 aperture .

@Michael DeRose - The true difference between the 35mm and 50mm is the focal length rather than the speed. The 50mm will be more of a portrait lens with more reach vs the wider 35mm. Personally for indoors I currently use a 85mm 1.8 (then the 50mm, then the 35mm) so I can get close without tripping over coffee tables. But I limit my ability to get group shots.

The difference of the 1.8 vs 1.4's goes way beyond just the little bit faster.
Generally:
-1.4s are better built and are more capable of handling the bangs and drops of use.
-1.4s are larger than 1.8s - weight and physical size.
-Have quicker more robust focus motors
-Have better optics - contrast, distortion control, color rendition, and Chromatic abrasion.
-Diaphragm blade design - Better Bokeh, rounded vs. hexagon out of focus circles
-Standard filter size of 77mm (mostly the new lenses)

That is just a start of why 1.4s are better. Does this mean that they are better for each person for each budget? - No. For me the difference between the 35mm 1.4 vs 1.8 at this time, is not enough for me to justify the $1,900 difference to get one.

anjz said:
Interesting. I would imagine that with any given sensor, a 1.8 lens would have a 2/3 stop disadvantage compared to a 1.4 of the same focal length. Maybe I am mistaken?

Not IF all the additional (delta) light is coming in at a shallower incident angle to the plane of the sensor, and is either not focused by the microlenses or not absorbed by the light wells.

Sensors (and the attached filters and lenses sandwiched to the front of them) are not (obviously) theoretically perfect black bodies which absorb all the radiation which strikes them, much less absorb all radiation equally. (Film isn't either, FWIW).

Paperman said:
Have a look at this topic ... It suggests that that 2/3 stop may not exist at all .

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/06/is-f1-4-at-iso-200-really-f1-4-at-iso-200.aspx

Interesting. I would imagine that with any given sensor, a 1.8 lens would have a 2/3 stop disadvantage compared to a 1.4 of the same focal length. Maybe I am mistaken?

Chris , some of us are happy to make 25 cents a photo :-))

Also keep in mind that a working professional is not going to even consider the cost of a 35/1.4 or 85/1.4 over their ƒ/2 or ƒ/1.8 variants, the lenses pay for themselves in a gig or two. When you're shooting a cover for German Vogue with a budget of $40,000, you aren't going to think twice about the cost of the higher grade lenses. Better yet, supply your own lighting gear, camera equipment, and other technical material on top of the time, and bill them to hell and back for the use of your own gear. Effectively you're renting your entire arsenal of equipment out to the client whenever you shoot a commercial assignment with your own gear.

Have a look at this topic ... It suggests that that 2/3 stop may not exist at all .

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/06/is-f1-4-at-iso-200-really-f1-4-at-iso-200.aspx

2/3 of a stop is 2/3 of a stop. Nice to have. the Nikkor 50 1.8 vs. 50 1.4G, the G has better bokeh. To me, made it worth triple the cash. I did own the 1.8, as well.

"Why are 1.4 lenses SO freaking expensive? They are primes, they are "simple" lenses."
The glass used is bigger, the optical quality is better, the casings are metal alloy compared to plastic, and like a D3 compared to a D90 they're designed to last longer and take more abuse...all this adds to the cost.
Like everyone else I'd love to know how much they actually cost to make and how much is profit.
Wether an F1.4 lens is worth the money is a personal choice, do you need an extra stop or wpuld it be better to buy the F1.8 and spend the savings on another lens ?

Ok, I am sure I am going to regret asking this... but anyway, here it goes:

Why are 1.4 lenses SO freaking expensive? They are primes, they are "simple" lenses.

I can understand that the 70-200vrII has a motor to focus, two to control VR, sensors, a lot of lenses, etc.

I can also understand a BIG prime like a 300 or a 400 have huge glass in them, but for example the 35, 50 and 85? Why?

Regards

thanks for all the input guys!! This has been really helpful.

I bought a 50mm f/1.8D a while ago. I use it on an FX body and to this point have played with it almost exclusively in fairly bright conditions wide open. I got it more for the DOF than for low-light. It is a fantastic lens for pulling a single subject out of a busy background. Would the f/1.4G have been worth 4x as much? Maybe, but not for me. This is not a primary lens for me at this point, more of something I am trying to learn, so cheaper was better.

You guys crack me up!

@NikoDoby - How about dumping some of the 6+ month old feeds - get confusing when they get new comments on them and some don't seem to relevant.

On the actually topic:
1.8 vs 1.4 (specifically for the 50 and 35DX - I own both) for stills they only thing I pay attention to is when the lens will become more sharp - 2.0 vs 2.2 or the depth of field.

Realistically it doesn't matter all that much. I would focus on is what focal length you want.

Now if you are looking at the 24/35 1.4 that is a whole different story. But I'm assuming you were not comparing a $100, $200, $400 lens with a $2000 lens.

NikoDoby said:
Dear Mike

I'm not your DADDY, but tell your mom I said Hi.

Warmest Thoughts,

Niko DOBY

Early dementia is so hard to take... ;-)

I'll let her know.

My best.

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

NikoDaddy, thanks for leaving the thread open...

My very best,

Mike

Dear Mike

I'm not your DADDY, but tell your mom I said Hi.

Warmest Thoughts,

Niko DOBY

My 85/1.4 and 50/1.4s receive use on an essentially daily basis. They are indispensable for me, especially when I'm reaching for any light I can get when pushing tri-x to 3200 in my F3 or F4.

Hi,

NikoDaddy, thanks for leaving the thread open...

For video, yes, with qualifications.

For stills, I'm not sure. I've use the older lenses with OPM (other peoples' money).

On my nickle, I'm using the f1.8 and I'm very happy - and I'm using DX right now. I'm not sure that I'm going to FX. That's why I'm on the fence. If I were shooting video with FX sensor, I think I could see a stronger case for 1.4, especially at 50, and 35, the wide-ish, where you want to shallow-up.

I'd certainly consider sensor size, lens, and use.

Just saying...

My very best,

Mike

get a tilt shift, tripod, and remote release if you're doing landscapes. . . .primes at 1.4 are great for really low-light/portrait shots. . .(if you're taking $$ into account). . .

actually a solid tripod and remote release will save you TONS of money (albeit at expense of convenience), because you could technically shoot at small apertures all day long without worry for blur. . .