Might be a repost question, but I didn't find anything specifically comparing. So...
50mm 1.8G vs 1.4G on a D800.
Edge Sharpness, Center Sharpness, Bokeh-ness, build quality, focus speed, how well each would stand to being used as a weapon against burglars , really any comparison you can think of. Basically is the 1.8 not gonna do the job and make my D800 soft in it's private places (image corners), or is the twice as expensive .2 of a stop wider 1.4 really not worth it?
50mm 1.8G vs 1.4G
(74 posts) (15 voices)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
yes the 1.8 will make Your d800 soft, when You use it wide open. 1.8 has a faster AF than 1.4. center focus on 1.4 is ok, though d800 requires better glass - I'm not satisfied with the results I get from this combo. as for using it as a weapon... forget it. it's a plastic construction in a cozy form. as for the 1.4... well, played with it and didn't liked it due to slow af, though it's sharper (especially due to the fact that You can close it to 1.8 :))
if You want serious glass on d800 get zeiss's 50mm or even the sigma is better and it accepts 77mm filters.Posted 5 months ago # -
hmmm... Zeiss' 50mm in manual only... This is gonna be my low light event/reception lens, gotta be AF. and the sigma, I am skeptical of any sigma just by nature. I would think about the 35 1.8G but thats well out of my price range right now. The 85 1.8G is gettin close to the edge of what I can afford, as well as the 28 1.8G. Anything fast primes price range of less than or around 600 that are gonna be at least decent?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Go for the 50mm F1.8G, very sharp wide open. Any fast aperture lens is going to be soft in the corners wide open, so just shoot anyway and don't worry about. Get what you need, and don't pixel peep.
The 35mm F1.8G is a DX lens, and corners are soft as butter (since you seem to be worried about that). On FX, avoid it at all costs.
Posted 5 months ago # -
All of them are great lenses - none are perfect and all have their own characteristics.
At 1.4/1.8 if you sway just a bit you will miss focus as your DOF is probably less than a few inches depending on how far your subject it.
There is a couple of good threads if you search. All the 50's have been gone over many times.
Posted 5 months ago # -
PB PM said:
The 35mm F1.8G is a DX lens, and corners are soft as butter (since you seem to be worried about that). On FX, avoid it at all costs.
I like the moody look of the 35mm 1.8g on my D800. But I add vignetting to most shots anyway. Depends on the subject - I wouldn't use it for landscapes for sure.
Posted 5 months ago # -
-
I've owned the 50mm AI-S, 50mm f/1.8G and now the 50mm f/1.4G.
If I didn't want/need the little push into darkness that the f/1.4 gives, I would easily go for the f/1.8. It's cheaper, sharper and focuses way faster. However, I do a bunch of shots inside night clubs and other venues, and the f/1.4 on my D3 can basically see in the dark, so I'm sticking with it for now.
BTW - the 35mm f/1.8 works great on FF bodies. A little bit of vignetting, but it's not bad. It's actually very close to what one might add back to an image in Lightroom anyway. Not appropriate for everything, but a nice arrow for the quiver.
Posted 5 months ago # -
adamz said:
yes the 1.8 will make Your d800 soft, when You use it wide open. 1.8 has a faster AF than 1.4. center focus on 1.4 is ok, though d800 requires better glass - I'm not satisfied with the results I get from this combo. as for using it as a weapon... forget it. it's a plastic construction in a cozy form. as for the 1.4... well, played with it and didn't liked it due to slow af, though it's sharper (especially due to the fact that You can close it to 1.8 :))
if You want serious glass on d800 get zeiss's 50mm or even the sigma is better and it accepts 77mm filters.I think you are confusing the 1.8g with an older nikon 1.8.
On DX the 1.8g bows the 1.4g out of the water in terms of sharpness, even when compared at f1.8.Posted 5 months ago # -
Gabbb said:
I think you are confusing the 1.8g with an older nikon 1.8.
On DX the 1.8g bows the 1.4g out of the water in terms of sharpness, even when compared at f1.8.I have not experienced that at all. People's continual over exaggeration on the "softness" of the first 50mm 1.4g lenses that were released and reviewed is becoming old. That was fixed years ago any only affected the first run. So is the expectation that they are suppose to be macro tack sharp wide open. They are not designed to be. Especially the 1.4s where bokeh is in the design goals. Better bokeh = slight loss in sharpness. If you like zooming in on eyelashes all day long you will see it. On any print you will not.
At 1.8, they both performed the same for me and I tried 3 copies of each a my local shop. Adams is correct though, on my D800 neither (nor does almost every lens wide open) take full advantage of the sensor. By 2.8 they performed the same.
I have had the 1.4g for years, if I was getting a new 50 for general purpose I would just get the 1.8 and save a few bucks. If I used the 50 as a primary portrait lens, I would consider the Sigma 50mm 1.4, test it extensively and get it calibrated. The Bokeh appears to be better and a tad sharper.
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3070
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=30
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3502Posted 5 months ago # -
Let me write a little bit more about N50/1.8. I newer was a huge supporter of the 50mm focal length, though to break myself I got only this lens on my recent trip to London and... it was the last time I made such a mistake. This lens is a trash on d800. It simply doesn't deliver, chromatic aberration is HUGE, geometric distortions are horrible, the contrast is neither close to any of my 2.8 zooms (I know it's not the same price league, though I would expect more from prime). As I wrote before, I've played with the 1.4 AF-S (actually owned the older AF-D version of it too) and it was way too slow for me in times of AF, though the IQ was better than from the 1.8.
Posted 5 months ago # -
CAs are bad on the 50/1.8. Older AFD 50mm doesn't take advantage of it at all either. Depending on the application none are terrible but if you need technical shots, there are better choices for sure. I've never had the expectations of sub 2.8s as being a technical choice.
I have been leaving my 60mm 2.8 on my D800 as of late. That and the 105vr are the only two that I have found can take real advantage of the sensor's detail. Only draw back is the every once in a while the Focus goes wonky due to the nature of macros.
Posted 5 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
People's continual over exaggeration on the "softness" of the first 50mm 1.4g lenses that were released and reviewed is becoming old.The 50mm f/1.8G that I had was definitely a tad sharper and focused way faster than the f/1.4G I have now. The f/1.4 has a smoother bokeh, and it seems to hunt less in low light, but focuses much slower.
YMMV.
Both are great. Just different.
Posted 5 months ago # -
@Tao - I love my N105vr on d800, though it's too long for contemporary street shots.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Yes, basically in reply to all of this, the most important thing I'm considering is the bokeh quality and the low light AF performance. I've already got my sharp landscape lens (16-35) and my sharp studio lens (24-70) and both give me *okay* bokeh. But what I really need is a tiny DOF and a bokeh like someone poured cream on my sensor. Sharpness is still a consideration, but not entirely a killer if its not great. I've read mixed reviews about the sigma 50. DPReview gave it a "highly recommended" and said not much about any CA, while places like photographylife.com said the Chromatic Aberations and the color fringing kill it dead and this lens should be avoided like the plague. I've seen the Nikon 1.4G's bokeh, its only as good as what I've already got. Too much hard lines going through my blurry bits and it seems to have a tendency to give up onion balls, while the Sigma showed blurry bits smoother than a baby's bottom.
Posted 5 months ago # -
adamz said:
Let me write a little bit more about N50/1.8. I newer was a huge supporter of the 50mm focal length, though to break myself I got only this lens on my recent trip to London and... it was the last time I made such a mistake. This lens is a trash on d800. It simply doesn't deliver, chromatic aberration is HUGE, geometric distortions are horrible, the contrast is neither close to any of my 2.8 zooms (I know it's not the same price league, though I would expect more from prime). As I wrote before, I've played with the 1.4 AF-S (actually owned the older AF-D version of it too) and it was way too slow for me in times of AF, though the IQ was better than from the 1.8.I agree, the 24-70mm F2.8G is much better at 50mm than the primes. You have to take into account that it simply has more depth of field wide open, and nano coatings which have a lot to do with it. I use 50mm on my 24-70 often, but I rarely use a dedicated 50mm lens, it just isn't the same. The 60mm F2.8G is a much nicer lens in terms of image quality, but it lacks the fast aperture. If the patents for the 50mm F1.2 ever become a real product I suspect the shortcomings of the current models will be addressed (poor contrast etc). You can bet it would come in at the price of the 24 F1.8G or higher though.
Posted 5 months ago # -
R8R said:
YMMV.Never saw that one before so I looked it up:
Acronym Definition
YMMV Your Mileage May Vary
YMMV Yam Mild Mosaic Virus (virology)
YMMV Your Method May Vary
YMMV Your Market May Vary (advertisements)
YMMV You Make Me VomitYep that didn't help...
aquarian_light said:
Yes, basically in reply to all of this, the most important thing I'm considering is the bokeh quality and the low light AF performance. ... But what I really need is a tiny DOF and a bokeh like someone poured cream on my sensor. Sharpness is still a consideration, but not entirely a killer if its not great. ...Have you considered an 85mm? The longer the focal length, the better the bokeh gets - of course it all depends on the distance of everything.
I have looked at the sigma a few times. I do like the bokeh and 1/2 like the filters are the 77mm. The other half of me likes the small size of the Nikkor. The only one's I have used in the shop were all miss-focused though. I could always get them corrected but that is more work than I wanted to deal with. Lightroom can always correct the CAs on import as well.
D800 with 50mm G @1.4
Color version
Outside of really controlling the shot, or getting lucky, most videos of people showing how they edit their "Creamy" photos, they actually mask the subject out and do a slight un-sharpen on the image.
That is what I did on this one:
Fuji X100 35mm @ f2.0 iso 6400
VS (note they are moving and not miss focused)
Posted 5 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Never saw that one before so I looked it up:
Acronym Definition
YMMV Your Mileage May Vary
YMMV Yam Mild Mosaic Virus (virology)
YMMV Your Method May Vary
YMMV Your Market May Vary (advertisements)
YMMV You Make Me VomitYep that didn't help...
Pick one and we'll go from there.
TaoTeJared said:
Have you considered an 85mm? The longer the focal length, the better the bokeh gets - of course it all depends on the distance of everything.Yeah the new 85mm f/1.8G is pretty great. I looked at it in the shop through my D3. Loved it. Much better than the older D version. Bokeh is sweet and it's relatively quick to focus. It also gets some good reviews for sharpness, etc. Camera labs did a pretty thorough comparison of the 85's.
It's next on my list. (at some point next year)
Posted 5 months ago # -
Yeah,
TaoTeJared said:
Have you considered an 85mm? The longer the focal length, the better the bokeh gets - of course it all depends on the distance of everything.I have looked at the sigma a few times. I do like the bokeh and 1/2 like the filters are the 77mm. The other half of me likes the small size of the Nikkor. The only one's I have used in the shop were all miss-focused though. I could always get them corrected but that is more work than I wanted to deal with. Lightroom can always correct the CAs on import as well.
Yeah the 85 is just too long though, I am needing either a 50 or a 35, and the 35s that just way too expensive. A 28 is a possibility but then theres just too much of the background for my personal taste in portraits/street photos. The 85 looks great, and if I needed an 85 that choice would be easy as pie. But a standard prime is what I want for sure. And as you said, if it weren't for the focusing problems and the CA I would go for the Sigma, and all my filters are already 77mm and the nikkor's bokeh isn't as nice or I would go for it. Considering with one I'd have to buy a focus calibration chart, and with the other I'd either have to buy new 58mm filters or and adapter and then work with making the bokeh softer in post with the other, there's very clear trade offs.
Posted 5 months ago # -
@ aquarian_light, since it looks like not too many members of this board actually have and use the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 I'll chime in and say that it's at least worth a try. I have this lens and although I rarely use it, it performs well when I do. I've primarily used it for portraits and night time holiday outings. It performed really well last year during this season but this year I've been taking my 24-70mm for more versatility.
The Sigma 50mm, for me, focuses relatively fast. I've never used the Nikon f/1.4 or the f/1.8 so I can't compare focus speeds but from what I've always read the Sigma is at least faster than the Nikkor 1.4. Image quality at 1.4 is decent at most. Very shallow DOF prevents me from using it there a lot. By f/1.7 the colors become more vibrant, and by f/2 and especially f/2.4 sharpness is clean and the colors pop. I'm usually not looking for edge sharpness when I use that lens as I'm primarily using it for it's rendering of bokeh about the edges of the framed image so I can't comment there.
I've held my co-workers Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G and to me, as much as it is a good lens, it just feels way to light. I love the beefyness of the Sigma. Makes the D800 look and feel like a real hunk of photographic technology.
Before I bought it I did read many, many threads that gave me fair warning prior to purchasing it but I did anyway and have felt pretty good about it. The only thing I have issues with is the onion-slice look of lightbulbs (Christmas, etc.) in the bokeh. It's mostly apparent if you look at crops of the original image. Any other object that's in the background is very nicely smooth - it's just the defined light bulbs where it's noticeable.
As far as using it as a weapon - it's heavy enough to cause some damage - maybe even requiring a few stitches if "used" effectively. : )
Best of luck in your decision.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Anonymous
Unregistered
Posts: 1offlineflee,http://www.bassclubsnews.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=43002&replies=2#post-43417; state-owend enterprise want people to see their decadent,jordan 11 bred, but not at the right time machine to turn on one's heel.Entrepreneurial spirit does not fall ,enterprise .relationresultLast month, the most well-known local sports Brand Company lining has undergone major changes :the original CEO Zhang Zhiyong to resign ,the founder of lining be reinstated ,jordan 11 bred release.
Foreign media reports ,this kind of behind the personnel changes ,is lining had hitherto unknown performance Waterloo :2011, lining to achieve operating income 8900000000 yuan ,drops 5.8% compared to the same period ,net profit fell 65% .
In the past few years ,lining not only failed to achieve beyond Nike ,Adidas international brandPosted 5 months ago # -
aquarian_light said:
Yeah,Yeah the 85 is just too long though, I am needing either a 50 or a 35, and the 35s that just way too expensive. A 28 is a possibility but then theres just too much of the background for my personal taste in portraits/street photos. The 85 looks great, and if I needed an 85 that choice would be easy as pie. But a standard prime is what I want for sure. And as you said, if it weren't for the focusing problems and the CA I would go for the Sigma, and all my filters are already 77mm and the nikkor's bokeh isn't as nice or I would go for it. Considering with one I'd have to buy a focus calibration chart, and with the other I'd either have to buy new 58mm filters or and adapter and then work with making the bokeh softer in post with the other, there's very clear trade offs.
Out of curiosity what are you comparing the bokeh of the lenses too? Or what lens's bokeh are you trying to achieve?
Posted 5 months ago # -
-
-
TaoTeJared said:
Out of curiosity what are you comparing the bokeh of the lenses too? Or what lens's bokeh are you trying to achieve?http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1932/AF-DC-NIKKOR-105mm-f%252F2D.html
I know thats not entirely possible with just a fast standard prime, but that's ultimately the comparison. I've never seen a more bokehlicious lens.R8R said:
Sorry, but this is ridiculous.<rant>
I'm not exactly sure why you felt the need to insult Rx4s opinion, but what s/he said actually makes perfect sense. In a professional environment, putting a small plastic-y looking lens on your camera doesn't exactly instill the highest sense of professionalism to the clients. The fact that the sigma is a bit bigger and has that larger filter size really keeps the professional look of the d800, and in this business, looks are everything. And to the untrained person, professional photography equipment is just BIG. Big camera, BIG lenses, big lights. That may not always be the case for pro stuff sure, but that's what people expect. Rolling into a shoot with a d5100 and a little pancake lens, chances are no matter what amazing shots you get, you won't be hired by them again. </rant>@Rx4Photo, thank you for all that great input. I'm about 80% set on getting that sigma now. I too have read about the direct light making onions in the bokeh, but honestly thats not really a big deal. Much easier to fix in post than an entire background with nuthin but onions everywhere.
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
