I'm relatively new to the new digital slr's. Learned a ton so far, which has only increased my appetite for more gear. :-)
So, not completely impressed with the kit lenses that came with my D40, I'm looking at some additions. One I'd like to have is a 50mm. It was suggested somewhere as a basic staple. Initially, I found the 50mm 1.8 AF (Amazon $115) and was thinking that would be it. Then came across the 1.4 (Amazon $299) which is more than double the price.
Aside from slightly more aperature, what do you get for that big price difference?
It's built better (metal), but i wouldn't get it. I have the 1.8 and love it and my workplace has the 1.4 and i also love it. Not enough to justify paying that much more though. If you ever start selling images then you can get the 1.4
digigirl wrote:
Aside from slightly more aperature, what do you get for that big price difference?
Well, the difference in $$ is the larger aperture and an arguably better build. Regarding image quality, some think the f/1.4 is better (e.g., Bjorn Rorslett). Some think the f/1.8 is just as good or better (e.g., photozone.de).
If you need the larger aperture, get the f/1.4. Otherwise, the f/1.8 has the better bang-for-buck.
I liked my 1.8 so much I just knew the 1.4 would be ever better so, I got one (and sold my 1.8). Then sold it a month or so later and bought another 1.8. I never got the extra $150 of performance outta the 1.4.
I'm surprised no-one has pointed out that neither of those lenses with autofocus on your D40. You'll have to either wait for the upcoming AF-S 50mm f/1.4 or get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM. Neither of those two lenses are particularly cheap. Also check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM, which is a very good lens.
If you're okay with manual focus, then either of the lenses you've looked at are fine. I think it's hard to go wrong with the f/1.8 since it's so cheap. The f/1.4 should be a little better image quality-wise, but mostly you're just paying for the slightly larger maximum aperture.
I always have preferred the 1.8 myself. Build's not as good but it's just as sharp as the 1.4 AF-D and I like the rendering better.
That said, on my D40 I find the Voigtlander 40/2 and 58/1.4 unbeatable. These are true manual focus lenses with properly damped focus rings (Not the loose, imprecise focus rings on most of Nikon's AF primes) but are also CPU lenses so they offer every other function of AF lenses except AF. They're also better optically than either Nikon 50, far, far better built and the 40's extremely small (24.5mm long) and comes with a dedicated close-focus adaptor which gets it to 1:4 for near-macro work. I prefer them to using an AF prime like either Nikon 50 in manual focus.
I like the 1.4 much better but thats an opinion I have from using both of them, but in your shoes like mentioned above I would wait for the 1.4 af-s version to come out so you will have autofocus.
If you have a D40 and kit lenses, it's fair to assume that you're just starting out in photography. There are literally hundreds of different bodies, lenses, flashes, tripods, and other accessories that you could buy... and at some point will be at least tempted to buy. So I suggest that you keep a frugal budget in mind as a priority here.
The 50/1.8, known as the "nifty fifty", is a great addition to your bag of tricks and I recommend it highly, as long as you're prepared to manual-focus it while you have a D40/40x/60 camera that can only autofocus with AF-S lenses. Still, the image quality and the f/1.8 aperture will beat the pants off any kit lenses (and even some pro lenses), and it's just a great lens to have around. It'll also be a good teaching aid for yourself, since the prime will force you to think of composition and placement more carefully. And it'll let you pull off low-light shots that all your friends can't even approach.
But because you have so many other things to buy in your future, and the 50/1.4 is still going to be manual-focus for you, I'd definitely recommend that you get the f/1.8 version. The 1.4 is a great lens... but I don't see it as a good value for you. The price difference between those two lenses is a good SB-600 flash (or a large part of the SB-800), either which would be a LOT more useful to your photography skills and your daily shooting than the extra speed of the f/1.4 lens.
mawz wrote:
That said, on my D40 I find the Voigtlander 40/2 and 58/1.4 unbeatable. ... I prefer them to using an AF prime like either Nikon 50 in manual focus.
C'mon guys get real, the 50 1.4 is much better than the 1.8 lens!
Those that think the 1.8 is as good are just trying to justify themselves into thinking it a better value because your too cheap to start with. The 1.8 is not great wide open and is soft at the edges. The 1.4 has a nice solid feel when compared to the cheap plastic made 1.8 lens, IMO it feels like something came out of a cracker jack box. Its pretty much the same with the canon 50 1.8 & the 50 1.4 lens. The canons 1.4 is by far a better lens, just like the nikon 1.4 lens. Try one and compare it for yourselves and I know you will tell a difference.
mongoose777 wrote:
Those that think the 1.8 is as good are just trying to justify themselves into thinking it a better value because your too cheap to start with.
Blow it out your ear, Mongoose. Insolence and snide remarks will do nothing for your credibility. Besides, this question is not about "which lens is better" but "which lens is better for this user". Yes, the 50/1.4 is better than the f/1.8... how is that news to anyone?
Others made the point that the f/1.8 is a better value for a novice. And I made the point that someone who's starting out with less than $700 in camera and lenses is better off strategically with a $100 prime than with a $300 prime since there's going to be a lot of other stuff to buy both now and later. None of your comments refute (or even address) either of these points.
Let's try to stay focused on helping digigirl make the best choice for her particular needs and situation, hmm?
Owned both, I like the 1.4 better....but the 1.8 is no slouch. I like my natural lighting shooting and the 1.4 is more of a light vacuum so I prefer it. Other stuff like better build quality make it favored too, but I am in the mindset of getting keeper glass at this point and like glass better built since I know I will have it many years down the road.
As mentioned, on the d40 it will be manual focus. I ran the 1.8 and and the 35mm F2D on the d40 for many months using manual only focus. As always a case by case by case basis but I did no mind it too much (just sucked at some events, manual focus didn't work too well after I had a few frosty beverages, definately not a weakness of the lens though ). Was nice to have low light without cranking iso up, and sharper to boot. Manual focus will suck at times, but the 1.8 is worth the aggravation (for its price, its a steal). Did not shoot the 1.4 on my d40 to compare. I'd probably do it though if the AF-S version wasn't coming out.
50 is a strange length on crop cameras (actually is 75 with crop factor). Ghetto portrait lens (vice the recommended king 85mm) it is great. Walkaround, okay since its basically in the telephoto range. But you will have to learn to work around the lens. Or get tougher cause indoors especially, you will be backing up into walls alot ...
Some I know hate the lens on crop sensors, others like me like it. Try both in a store and compare, also see if you dig the length.
There is the 50 1.4 AF-S coming out soon. Just some FYI to throw out. Will autofocus on your rig. Release date unknown but if you really need autofocus may be worth the wait (supposed to be december-ish).
So your the expert now, hmm...
She asked for what you get for the price difference, not for being cheap like you.
She asked what you get for the price difference, she did not ask about the better value. So you decide whats best for her! Your opinion is just that, as well as mine. Don't attack me, as I only pointed out some were just being cheap.
You get what you pay for. As for credibility, don't patronize me, you jerk! As far as credibility goes, I have a ton of credibility from my collogues as I shoot sports professionally throughout the country. And for stating the focus comment, You apparently come across to be the know it all with your one sided comments.
Hey, you don't know me and I don't care to know you. I gave my opinion as you did with yours, and thats it, so deal with it.
Talk about blow, you seem better at it.
In this case you don't. It seems really stupid to buy a $300 lens that is handicapped (no AF on D40), while a $100 lens with the same handicap could make sense.
Edit: Oh, by the way. Both feels like CRAP when manually focused. How about that; a $300 lens that feels like crap?
Give it a rest mongoose. You practically called the guy cheap which led to his remarks in return. Now you're calling people jerks and so on. Lets try be a bit more mature here.
Given the fact that the thread starter has a D40 and kit lens, many of the points already made are pretty valid.
Bottom line, for a newbie to photography, you'd be better off with the 1.8. I mean if I was on a budget, I'd rather have the 1.8 and a tripod from the 200 dollars change hmm?
Speaking of 'feeling like crap'. Do the other Nikon primes also feel like crap when manually focused? I mean my 35mm F2D doesn't exactly MF like a 24-70 F2.8, but given it's size and the i.q it gives, does the damping (sp?) these primes offer REALLY matter THAT much>?
Edit: Oh, by the way. Both feels like CRAP when manually focused. How about that; a $300 lens that feels like crap?
Compared to what? 1.8 felt fine to me compared to 60mm AF-S and the 35mm (other glass I manual focused because of choice for the 60 for micro work and 35 since AF-D on the d40).
Compared to any MF prime. I have yet to try an AF (non AF-S) prime with decent manual focus abilities. Even the 24-70 focus ring feels like crap in my opinion. There is almost no dampening at all, and I actually have a piece of tape to make it NOT rotate when using AF.
Of course you can live with a poor focus ring, but perhaps it wouldn't feel great if the lens wasn't cheap. Too bad the D40 doesn't meter with older MF Nikkors.
Edit: I don't think I would buy the 50/1.8 either, because of the very small viewfinder of the D40. I had a hard time trying to MF with my former D200, even with split prism screen and viewfinder magnifying piece. It will probably be a nightmare trying to focus that fifty on the D40 with the stock screen.
For many people, the Sigma 30/1.4 would make more sense.
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
Does anyone here use the 'in focus' dot??
If I shoot with a camra with a smaller VF I use the "in focus dot", but with a big bright VF I usually use my eyes.
With regards to the OP question; I owned the 1.4, sold it and got the 1.8, neither one made me dissapointed, however there is no doubt in my mind that the 1.4 is way overpriced compared to to the 1.8.
Now I'm on the waiting list for the 1.4 AF-S - and the only reason I'm getting this new baby is the AF-S part. And the only reason I prefer AF-S over screw driven AF is that the former is possible to calibrate and fine tune if with a higher precision.
I'd wait for the new version of the 50 1.4 to come out, because by then you might be able to find a good used deal on the current 50 1.4 (well, I'm sure there are some now)... I don't know if having only manual focus would be a severe impediment, but if you want to take photos in bad light without flash right now, buy either... If manual focus bothers me, then just spend the money on something else right now.
). Was nice to have low light without cranking iso up, and sharper to boot. Manual focus will suck at times, but the 1.8 is worth the aggravation (for its price, its a steal). Did not shoot the 1.4 on my d40 to compare. I'd probably do it though if the AF-S version wasn't coming out.
...