50mm 1.8G vs 1.4G « Nikon Rumors Forum

50mm 1.8G vs 1.4G « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

50mm 1.8G vs 1.4G

(74 posts) (15 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 123 Next »

R8R

preferred member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 352
offline

aquarian_light said:
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.

I'm wondering how many clients have called you back based on your gear you showed up with at the first assignment, and not the resulting images. Or if you didn't get called back, you maybe assumed that it was because your lens wasn't big enough, and had nothing to do with the images.

No insult intended, but I stand by what I posted. Pop a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 on a D800 and then tell me it doesn't look "professional", or that some other 50mm prime looks "more" professional. Sorry but if you're client isn't impressed, it's not because of a 50mm lens.

Image quality, focus speed and ergonomics are king. The "look" of a lens should be way down the list.

Posted 5 months ago #
R8R

preferred member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 352
offline

Let's compare:

Pro?

Not pro?

Posted 5 months ago #
R8R

preferred member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 352
offline

BTW - one of the best portrait shoots I've ever been involved with (for my band) was the photog that showed up with a Canon 5D and a cheap 50mm. He stood each of us in a corner with one light and took ONE shot each. That was it.

You know what was impressive? The resulting images. Not the gear.

This is my last post on NR forums. People here are insane. Keep lusting after the next big thing that comes down the pipe from the manufacturers. It helps you much less than you think.

Later.

Posted 5 months ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Welcome to the internet. If something this trivial makes you have a hissy fit and storm out of the room it might be wise to have a time out and think about how childish you sound.

:]

Posted 5 months ago #
aquarian_light

member
Joined: Nov '12
Posts: 45
offline

R8R said:
Or if you didn't get called back, you maybe assumed that it was because your lens wasn't big enough, and had nothing to do with the images.

okay cool, now you've decided to insult me to... I really really don't care about your need to butt into this conversation and call someone's opinion ridiculous without explaining yourself. That is very much not supportive or contributing anything to our discussion. So please... if you haven't anything nice or productive to say, kindly keep it to yourself.

And for the record, You nailed it right on the head there, picture A is pro, picture B is enthusiast/hobbyist/shooting your cousins birthday party.
I've worked at several studios, and each one of them worked with either D3's or D2Xs and nikkor 24-70's and 70-200's with the biggest lens hoods you could find for shooting family christmas card photos. Not because we needed 7-9 frames per second, but because people expect TOP NOTCH EQUIPMENT. and I'm sorry, the lens in the second picture isn't impressing anyone. impressions my friend, get you hired BEFORE anyone has seen your images. But I digress. The sigma is a professional grade lens that LOOKS professional. I called up Nikon today and asked them what lenses they recommended for use with the d800 to take full advantage of is MPs. They didn't even list any of their 50's. Neither the 50mm 1.8G or the 1.4G was on the list from nikon themselves. And considering neither is a gold ring lens, I am not surprised.

Posted 5 months ago #
aquarian_light

member
Joined: Nov '12
Posts: 45
offline

R8R said:
BTW - one of the best portrait shoots I've ever been involved with (for my band) was the photog that showed up with a Canon 5D and a cheap 50mm. He stood each of us in a corner with one light and took ONE shot each. That was it.

You know what was impressive? The resulting images. Not the gear.

This is my last post on NR forums. People here are insane. Keep lusting after the next big thing that comes down the pipe from the manufacturers. It helps you much less than you think.

Later.

ONe photo of each of you? I sure hope you didn't pay him much.

Posted 5 months ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

aquarian_light said:
And for the record, You nailed it right on the head there, picture A is pro, picture B is enthusiast/hobbyist/shooting your cousins birthday party.

You're really reaching on this one, friend. People hire you based on your portfolio, your brand and your reputation, not just because you haul around big lenses. I know you've experienced this, at least perceptually, but you might want to rethink whether you're really as bang on as you may think that you are. Plenty of people have been making their bread and butter with gear way smaller than a 50mm on a gripped D800(nothing pro there?!?!Really?!!?*facepalm*), namely with little cameras like Leica rangefinders and small film SLR's.

Just because you imagine a world where size is the variable that the client looks out for doesn't mean that reality supports your point of view. Results are what a seasoned client expects and is willing to pay extra for - they generally couldn't give a shit about how big your damn lenses are. Most people have such a poor understanding of modern camera gear that they just leave it in the professionals hands. Plain and simple.

Posted 5 months ago #
aquarian_light

member
Joined: Nov '12
Posts: 45
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
You're really reaching on this one, friend. People hire you based on your portfolio, your brand and your reputation, not just because you haul around big lenses. I know you've experienced this, at least perceptually, but you might want to rethink whether you're really as bang on as you may think that you are. Plenty of people have been making their bread and butter with gear way smaller than a 50mm on a gripped D800(nothing pro there?!?!Really?!!?*facepalm*), namely with little cameras like Leica rangefinders and small film SLR's.

Just because you imagine a world where size is the variable that the client looks out for doesn't mean that reality supports your point of view. Results are what a seasoned client expects and is willing to pay extra for - they generally couldn't give a shit about how big your damn lenses are. Most people have such a poor understanding of modern camera gear that they just leave it in the professionals hands. Plain and simple.

That may be true for where you live, but unfortunately it's not here where I live. People will make judgments about you based on the gear you bring here. Sort of like bringing a $70 dollar beginners electric guitar to a multimillion dollar recording studio. Sure you may be able to play the hell out of it, but it's still a shitty guitar.
Now in a perfect world, I would absolutely agree with you, but I'm sorry to say this is not the world I live in.

Posted 5 months ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

The world is what you make of it.

Posted 5 months ago #
aquarian_light

member
Joined: Nov '12
Posts: 45
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
The world is what you make of it.

Wish I could afford to think that way.

Posted 5 months ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

I agree that R&R took this whole discussion to a different place. The fact that someone appreciates the feel of a lens/camera combination over a similar lens with that camera is purely and totally subjective. Perhaps he doesn't get that or feels that we should have the same opinion. Enough reading might prove that I'm not the only one "out there" who feels this way.
I know the Mods are going to want to nudge this back on track. None of these 50's are perfect, but if Nikon were to make one, I'm sure it would be what we'd flock to if it's needed.

Posted 5 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

aquarian_light-

It appears we live in the same state - I can tell you, results, trust, kindness, and a willingness to go a bit further will get you work here. Gear is not going to get you hired or admired - what you do with it, and how you treat people will.

Studios use the gear you mentioned because it is top notch, will take a beating and can be relied upon. Not because of what it looked like. Not to say one should show up with a D3200 and a kit lens for a multi thousand dollar shoot, but few even know what "pro" gear looks like nor how big it should be. Flamboyance rarely sells much around here.
For sure, lens designers do not consider size at all. Look at Leica, much smaller, much better, and much more expensive and not even AF and better than anything Nikon or Sigma has produced.

On the Topic - The sigma is not any more pro than the Nikkor. Nor does it perform any better or take "advantage" of the D800.

Note that the Sigma is at it's highest resolution at 1.4, which for lenses is odd as they always become sharper as you stop down. What Sigma did is set the optimal focus at 1.4, and it degrades from there. The Nikkor 1.4 reaches it optimum at 2.8 and experience has shown me it stays Near the top till f8. Neither will "take full advantage" of the D800 sensor.

I do not like the idea of "taking advantage of the sensor" with the D800 - it is backwards. The D800 finely takes advantage of the lenses that have their roots based from 100 year old+ designs that have been tweaked over the century. I have found that the Sensor has given more options with the results taken with every lens, and have never found that any lens limits the ability to take great shots.

Posted 5 months ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

First of all I was waiting for how this discussion will develop, that's why I didn't shut it down. I understand both of Your points aquarian light and squamish, so I understand the point of view R8R. Sometimes emotions are taking over, but please remember it's internet and moreover we are from all over the world over here. On one hand, sure the images are important - though not the main factor for the clients in many cases. Either we like it or not, there are ppl on the market who think that bigger is better and are willing to pay You based on Your hardware. Youo as a photog sell the whole package and ppl are buying You based on what they know about You or how they perceive You. Anyway, back to the topic. IMHO, the problem with using N24-70/2.8 instead of any other Nikon 50mm lens is not the aspect of who does the 50mm looks on a certain camera. The problem is the weakness of any 50mm lenses on the market. Even Zeiss glass isn't as great to out-resolve d800 sensor, though it's certainly the best out of them. What makes sigma 50mm so popular among pros, just this what You mentioned Tao - maximum quality at 1.4. If I'm buying a 1.4 lens I'm getting it for one reason only: I wanna shoot at 1.4. If I would like to have a cheap travel lens, than I don't need 1.4 and can get 1.8 instead, and can stop it down to even f8 - like in the old times, f8 and forget.

Posted 5 months ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

TaoTeJared said:
aquarian_light-

It appears we live in the same state - I can tell you, results, trust, kindness, and a willingness to go a bit further will get you work here. Gear is not going to get you hired or admired - what you do with it, and how you treat people will.

Studios use the gear you mentioned because it is top notch, will take a beating and can be relied upon. Not because of what it looked like. Not to say one should show up with a D3200 and a kit lens for a multi thousand dollar shoot, but few even know what "pro" gear looks like nor how big it should be. Flamboyance rarely sells much around here.
For sure, lens designers do not consider size at all. Look at Leica, much smaller, much better, and much more expensive and not even AF and better than anything Nikon or Sigma has produced.

On the Topic - The sigma is not any more pro than the Nikkor. Nor does it perform any better or take "advantage" of the D800.

Note that the Sigma is at it's highest resolution at 1.4, which for lenses is odd as they always become sharper as you stop down. What Sigma did is set the optimal focus at 1.4, and it degrades from there. The Nikkor 1.4 reaches it optimum at 2.8 and experience has shown me it stays Near the top till f8. Neither will "take full advantage" of the D800 sensor.

I do not like the idea of "taking advantage of the sensor" with the D800 - it is backwards. The D800 finely takes advantage of the lenses that have their roots based from 100 year old+ designs that have been tweaked over the century. I have found that the Sensor has given more options with the results taken with every lens, and have never found that any lens limits the ability to take great shots.

My findings are very different from the DXOM results, It could be that their 1.8g sample is a lemon, or that my 1.4g samples were both bad. In either case, what put me off from keeping the 1.4g mainly was not the sharpness, but the Loca.

This is my own comparison image, shot on a tripod with focused perfectly on the same thing. (used contrast detection to be sure)

The Left one is made by the afs 50mm 1.8G and the right one by the afs 50mm 1.4g, both set at f1.8

Posted 5 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Gabbb said:
My findings are very different from the DXOM results, It could be that their 1.8g sample is a lemon, or that my 1.4g samples were both bad. In either case, what put me off from keeping the 1.4g mainly was not the sharpness, but the Loca.

I'm not a huge fan of DXO's lens tests for sure as I think their baselines are often off, but they are standardized so at least you can see what the strengths are across lenses are if it is even shifted.

That said, I was surprised to see the low CA on the 1.4g - your shot of it looks just like what I see out of my 1.4 with CAs and thought the newer 1.8 was better than the scores state. I also thought the Sigma was much worse than what they show as well.

Personally I do not mind the Green CAs of Nikkors as I find that much easier to fix or less noticeable. Sigma lenses tend to have an almost neon green and/or purple/magenta CA that is an artifact of the glass they use. I find those colors more difficult to handle and more noticeable.

adamz said:
...What makes sigma 50mm so popular among pros, just this what You mentioned Tao - maximum quality at 1.4. If I'm buying a 1.4 lens I'm getting it for one reason only: I wanna shoot at 1.4. If I would like to have a cheap travel lens, than I don't need 1.4 and can get 1.8 instead, and can stop it down to even f8 - like in the old times, f8 and forget.

This is exactly why I keep looking at one year after year but when I look at my data from my shots, and in reference to another thread, "Portraits - f-stop and eyes in focus"(http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=15698), I am almost always at an angle and shooting at f/2-2.2 for the DOF to keep the eyes sharp across it. By that time the gain just isn't worth the cost. (Dang rational thoughts - I like to get shinny new lenses.)

I love the idea of the Zeiss Distagon 55mm f/1.4 ZF.2 (have you heard is it AF or MF only?) but the price tag of $4,000ish is unjustifiable for me personally. There comes a point when the gains are so small and the majority of my work's end result is doesn't bennifit from it, the cost is just a desire rather than a "need." It would be fun to use though!

Posted 5 months ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

Staying on the subject, in order to address the question at hand. In case you have not seen some these video's here they are.

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

Posted 5 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

@ golf007sd..... thanks for the two reviews....I looked at a portion of each and would propose a title for them...

"Narcissus and Hysteria do a lens review..." LOL I really would appreciate this fellow if instead of all the drama he would simply outline the data of the lenses and give an impression without all the extraneous material.

In any case.... lens comparisons are always interesting. And, the final decision in a purchase of a lens should be with an individual who finds what suits them in all respects. I have tried some lenses which were very highly rated, yet not for me. Then again, my old 50mm f/1.4D made about ten years ago or more....works for me as a "long normal" lens.

Some of us are from the old days when a 135mm on 4"x5" was "normal". So, my amazement is all the discussion about 50mm when I think more could benefit by looking at the 35mm length...

Oh well... the videos are entertaining....

Posted 5 months ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

TaoTeJared said:
I love the idea of the Zeiss Distagon 55mm f/1.4 ZF.2 (have you heard is it AF or MF only?) but the price tag of $4,000ish is unjustifiable for me personally. There comes a point when the gains are so small and the majority of my work's end result is doesn't bennifit from it, the cost is just a desire rather than a "need." It would be fun to use though!

The gains of that lens are on par with if not well beyond the advantages of using FX glass with very large diameter elements on a DX crop sensor. I've read a few threads discussing whether the new lens is essentially a repurposed Zeiss MF lens and that surplus stock of said lenses may have justified the creation of this lens. From the sample photos I've seen recently Im seriously considering it... which means I'll have to start saving now. :p

Posted 5 months ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

@msmoto Agree with your titles. After some of the early back and forth regarding the OP's question and the subsequent action from R&R (though extreme) I thought a little light video would lighten the mood. Never the less, I have the 50 1.4G and much light TTJ I have found its performance to be pleasing for the shots I have taken with it.

With the 24 1.4G, 35 1.8G, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8G, and the 105 2.8 VR II, my arsenal of prime lenses is set. Of these the order of usage has been the 85 1.8G (60%), 105 2.8 (15%), 50 1.8G(10%), 24 1.4G (10%), 35 1.8G(5%). The 24 1.4G has just recently been added to my gear hence the low usage. I have a feeling that its contribution will go up real fast...it is an awesome lens. Hence, the 24, 85, 105 will always go with me when going out to shoot. The 35 & 50 are for those in house family & friends gathering lens in my book.

Cheers...

Posted 5 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

One of the videos I keep going back to. Get past the shooting to about 00:07:30

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

Posted 5 months ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

Following TTJ link. Here is Matt's series of the 50mm shoot out...Part 1-6..

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Widget

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

Posted 5 months ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

@ttj - gonna be mf

Posted 5 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

adamz said:
@ttj - gonna be mf

Nuts :(

@golf007sd - I enjoy Matt's videos - usually focuses on the things I do as well, even if we are on opposite ends of preferences.

Posted 5 months ago #
chris_weinert

senior member
Joined: Oct '12
Posts: 90
offline

adamz said:
if You want serious glass on d800 get zeiss's 50mm

I doubt anyone who's ever tried the Zeiss would second that. The image quality of the Zeiss is very mediocre.

@aquarian_light: I didn't read all that bling-factor discussion, but if you're still interested in the 50s: The 1.4G is softer than the 1.8G and very sensible to haze from bright light. Do check this comparison, too (scroll down a bit for haze comparison, and for sharpness comparison a couple posts later): http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=11836&page=3

Posted 5 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

If you recall Chris many of us went through saying we needed to use the micro adjust to get the focus corrected on the 1.4g. Not to say your tests do have some merit, but to say it was the conclusion is not fair.

Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 123 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.