where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Hello! I am kind of new around here, but a lot time lurker. I was wondering if someone could help sort me out on selecting a good prime lens. I have a DX camera and i cant seem to make up my mind if i want to get a 35mm or 50mm. Also, is it worth the money to upgrade to some like a 1.4? I plan to take a lot of night shots, but also want something with a nice Bokeh.
thanks in advance
The 35mm 1.8 is a fantastic lens, especially for the $$.
Guys please do a forum search. We've been seeing the same questions getting asked over and over. We don't mind members starting new topics and asking questions it's just that there have been way too many "which should I get" post. Please do some research. What works for one person might not work for someone else. So it's hard to give a definitive answer to these types of questions. It all comes down to what YOUR needs are versus how much YOU are willing to spend. It's kind of like asking what's the best color in the rainbow?
Here are some other Prime discussions.
"What is your favorite focal length for prime lens???"
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=327
"Prime lens for D90"
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2489
I'm going to keep this thread open but I'm changing the title from "Need advice on selecting a good prime lens" to "Are f1.4 Prime Lenses Worth The Extra Money?". That should lead to a different discussion.
Michael DeRose said:
I plan to take a lot of night shots, but also want something with a nice Bokeh.
What kind of night shots? You don't need f1.4 to get landscape photos at night for example. A good tripod and remote release would be a better investment. F1.4 primes do give nice bokeh but that comes at the expense of very shallow DOF. Getting the focus right becomes more critical as a result. The biggest advantage of getting an f1.4 lens (for me) is the bright viewfinder. There's not much of an advantage between 1.4 and 1.8 so you can save money on buying an f1.8 lens but you'll see more of a difference going from a f3.5 or f2.8 lens.
i plan to take pictures inside buildings/outside (think bars,dim churches, camping with friends)with low low light. As for the bokeh, thats what i figured. I am now kind of leaning towards the 1.8 that johpap suggested.
I have no experience with the 35mm f/1.8, but my 35 f/1.4 ai is my go-to low light lens for my D200 or for any of my film cameras. I find that 35mm is a little more versatile than 50mm on dx indoors, but you probably couldn't go wrong with any of Nikon's 50s or 35s. The f/1.4 vs f/1.8 vs f/1.2 debate is really dependent on personal preference for things like size and weight of lens, cost/performance ratio, build quality, tolerance for 'bumping' iso, bokeh, depth of field etc. Some people just like to have the highest quality that they can afford, and others would balk at paying the large premium for 2/3 of a stop even if they could easily afford it. I generally don't think that the difference in moving from f/1.8 to f/1.4 is really that significant in light of modern sensor iso performance. That being said, I do love fast lenses, and just had to get a 50 f/1.2 ai-s even though I already had a 50 f/1.4 af-d. Now the 1.2 gets frequent use and the af-d generally sits. I thought I'd use it when I wanted af, but I always end up using the 1.2, so the af-d will likely be sold. The 1/3 stop difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is insignificant, and the f/1.2 really only seems to perform noticeably better around f/2. The big difference though, is in build quality. Faster lenses from the same manufacturer will generally have better build quality than their slower counterparts, although Nikon used to build most of the nikkor primes to the same standard.
On a related note, I actually had my first serious test of nikkor build quality yesterday when my 105 f/1.8 ai-s took a fall from about 1.5 metres and bounced off a door frame to the floor as I tried to catch it. It's quite a hefty lens with a lot of glass - so I cringed at the sound of it hitting the floor. I thought it would be a write-off for sure but it works perfectly - mechanically and optically.
If you're disposed to sweat the details (or lack thereof I guess...) of bokeh, then you might appreciate the 9 bladed diaphragm of the 50 f/1.4 af-s or the f/1.2 ai-s, but I personally would only care about bokeh if it was really intrusive enough to detract from a picture in some way.
I find that 1.4 is worth every penny. I love the brokeh and i feel that i cant get it with a 2.8
I mentioned this before, but with the 50mm range I think the nice and cheap 1.8 can't be beat and is better than the double the cost 1.4 D, and the G is a crazy price I think. 1.4 is a completely different animal compared to 2.8 and in this case its worth the money to upgrade.
CassiusRoads, I have heard the old 35mm 1.4 AIS is one of Nikon's best ever lenses. I can't ever find a copy only the F2 is always around. I also the heard the newish 1.8 is great as well just as Johpap says.
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. . .
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
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.
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.
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.
thanks for all the input guys!! This has been really helpful.
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
"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 ?
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.
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
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.
Chris , some of us are happy to make 25 cents a photo :-))
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?
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).
@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.
You must log in to post.
