mongoose777 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Owned both in various forms(at last count I've had 5 50/1.8's of various forms and a couple 50/1.4's, currently own one 2nd gen Series E). Prefer the 1.8. Neither is great wide open as 50's go, neither is great at the edges until f2.8-f4. The 1.4 is 2/3rds of a stop faster and somewhat better built, the 1.8 is cheaper and has IMHO a nicer look. It's a tossup in image quality unless you get a bad example of one, Chinese f1.8 production is known for having some notable sample variation.
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
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>?
The sub-$800 or so Nikon primes all feel like crap when manually focused apart from the Macros. The higher-end ones like the 85/1.4, 105DC, 135DC and up have excellent manual focus feels although they're still a bit loose compared to a good MF lens (they have to be, good focus damping will bind the AF drive). Ring-type AF-S lenses also feel better than the lower-end screwdriver AF lenses. If you want truly great focus feel and damping with a body that can't meter with non-CPU lenses, you need one of the few AI-P lenses or one of the PC-E lenses (The Nikkor 45/2.8P Pancake, the two Voigtlander SLII's and the Coatal Optics 60/4 macro are all AI-P spec with CPU in an otherwise manual focus lens)
You already have convincing opinions to buy the 50mm f1.8 considering the remarks by Valorin.
From reading the posts, I do not believe anyone said that the 50mm f1.8 was better than the f1.4; virtually everybody have said that it is cheaper and has very good optical qualities.
I will put it this way. If you want a lens to last forever, better built and the f1.4 is important for you, the 50mm f1.4 is for you. If you want to go cheap and still have very good quality, then the f1.8 should be your choice.
I will add that some of my most beautiful shots have come from the 50mm f1.8 lens.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
If you're serious about your photography and will be shooting events, I'd consider upgrading your body to take advantage of more autofocus lenses. If it helps in that switch or addition, I'd consider the 50mm f/1.8 to save money. I'd much rather have a 50mm f/1.8 with AF than a 50mm f/1.4 without, for shooting people.
Thanks everyone. I did only ask what you get for the extra $200 and you came through.
I am looking at upgrading the body, prob to D90. I'm not a pro but would like the flexibility it offers. So for now, just starting to compile a list of lenses on my Christmas list. Didn't realize that if they don't say AF-S they won't AF on my D40, so thanks for the education. I am fine with mf for the time being.
Your tips have been great. Thanks for the intro to lenses I've never heard of MAWS!
digigirl wrote:
I am fine with mf for the time being.
You shouldn't be, unless you're fine with installing a third-party focusing screen at extra cost, or losing most shots to missed focus shooting at or near wide open. Unless you're going to stop down a LOT or bracket focus, might as well wait on this purchase until you get a D90.
jvarszegi wrote:
You shouldn't be, unless you're fine with installing a third-party focusing screen at extra cost, or losing most shots to missed focus shooting at or near wide open. Unless you're going to stop down a LOT or bracket focus, might as well wait on this purchase until you get a D90.
The D40's a lot easier to focus with than you might think, even with the stock screen. I don't have too many problems getting a solid number of keepers from mine with manual focus, particularly with lenses with a decent amount of focus throw. The biggest problem with the Nikkor AF's on a D40 is the short, imprecise focus throw, not the focus screen (which is non-optimal but not that much worse than a D90, unlike the awful VF's in the D70/D50)
mawz wrote:
The D40's a lot easier to focus with than you might think, even with the stock screen. I don't have too many problems getting a solid number of keepers from mine with manual focus, particularly with lenses with a decent amount of focus throw. The biggest problem with the Nikkor AF's on a D40 is the short, imprecise focus throw, not the focus screen (which is non-optimal but not that much worse than a D90, unlike the awful VF's in the D70/D50)
You're better than me... and I suspect better than 99.9% of the population. I didn't say the viewfinder on the D40 isn't nice, for what it is. To the OP, try manual focusing a lens on your D40 at f/1.8 and see your keeper ratio.
The D40's a lot easier to focus with than you might think, even with the stock screen. I don't have too many problems getting a solid number of keepers from mine with manual focus,
I agree. Some time and patience and you can make it work. Its no f100 veiwfinder for sure (just got that, a very roomy viewfinder lol) but is very workable. D40 is an intro camera, gives you enough to either step up from point and shoot and stay there or lay the ground work for more advanced stuff down the line. Ran mine till I got the d90 (can't justify full frame goodness yet, also can't afford it lol). If its all you know like the case with me at the time, you can work it without too many hassles.
Since OP going d90 at some point, i'd say go 1.8 to try it out. Its not a hard lens to flip when moving up to the d90, or keeping it. At around 100, its the cheapest entry to the prime world. It can be a keeper, Also with the 1.4 getting an upgrade soon, I'd wait and see what it does. Unless going older film body for sure, the removal of the the aperture ring not the end of the world lol...
So for now, just starting to compile a list of lenses on my Christmas list. Didn't realize that if they don't say AF-S they won't AF on my D40, so thanks for the education. I am fine with mf for the time being.