Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Lenses: DSLR and Rangefinder, MF adaptions to 35mm such Zoerk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 19th, 2008, 11:41 PM
Husain Alfraid Husain Alfraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 75
Default nikkor 50mm f1.8 vs 1.4 vs 1.2

hello people...i want some suggestions about the lens Nikkor 50mm.

However, i don't know the differences between each one of them. (there are like 3 or 4 maybe)

i know the focal length is different but nothing else.

So, which one do you think is better with my Nikon D200? AF plz?
because they made me confused with the close f # 2, 1.8, 1.4, 1.2
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old March 20th, 2008, 02:08 AM
Dierk Haasis Dierk Haasis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hamburg (Germany)
Posts: 548
Default

The focal length of all 50 mm lenses is the same: 50 mm.

From the range you give only the 1.8 and the 1.4 are in production and AF lenses. Both are very fine with samples from both beating out the other. That is, some find their 1.4 slightly sharper than the 1.8, others find the opposite.

The difference between these two is just half a stop but the 1.4 costs roughly 2.5 times what the 1.8 costs. If you regularly crave or that tad wider aperture and money does not play a role, get the 1.4. Otherwise the 1.8 is more than sufficient. In tests I ran a few weeks ago I found the 1.8 [which I own] to be fully functional - that is sharp over the whole field, no distortion at all, no colour fringing - with DX-cameras [in my case: D2x and D200].

SLRgear is a good source to get hard facts and some feel for lenses.
__________________
Dierk Haasis
[DH² Publishing]
Writing and Imaging

Nikon D2x, Nikon D200, Breeze DownloaderPro, Capture NX2, xMedia2, IDimager, Adobe Creative Suite 3
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old March 20th, 2008, 05:04 AM
James Newman James Newman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Midwest
Posts: 658
Default

I have the 1.8 also on my D200 and it is a great, must have lens especially at the very low and affordable price. I can't speak for the 1.4 but mine does all that I need so I don't care to get the other.
__________________
James Newman
Chicagoland
www.pbase.com/jnewmanco1 c&c welcomed
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old March 20th, 2008, 02:22 PM
Husain Alfraid Husain Alfraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 75
Default

thank you so much my friends..i really appreciate it...then i'll go ahead and order my 50mm



peace out
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 16th, 2008, 03:35 AM
Dawid Loubser Dawid Loubser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Husain Alfraid View Post
hello people...i want some suggestions about the lens Nikkor 50mm.

However, i don't know the differences between each one of them. (there are like 3 or 4 maybe)

i know the focal length is different but nothing else.

So, which one do you think is better with my Nikon D200? AF plz?
because they made me confused with the close f # 2, 1.8, 1.4, 1.2
Hi Husain,

This may be a bit late, but I only realised today that Ken Rockwell (whose reviews I often take with a grain of salt, but you should decide that for yourself) has published at least two articles you may find of great benefit regarding 50mm Nikkor lenses:

The (manual-focus only, by the way) 50mm f/1.2 really does seem to be a lot worse than Canon's 50mm f/1.2 in brightly lit conditions, but that's probably not how you'd use it in anyway - from f/2 down it seems wonderful. So, if you need to work in ultra-low-light are OK with no auto focus, get the 1.2, but in all other respects the 1.4 or 1.8 would be a better lens. The 1.4 is likely worth the extra cost, it's still great in low light.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old August 17th, 2008, 04:56 PM
Husain Alfraid Husain Alfraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 75
Default

i got the 1.4...im so pleased by its results :)


Model: NIKON D200
Shutter Speed: 1/20 second
F Number: F/2.4
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 100


amera: Nikon D200
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/350)
Aperture: f/1.4
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 2/3 EV



thanx everybody :)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old July 29th, 2009, 04:54 AM
Felix De Sacco Felix De Sacco is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 2
Default Yes

The 1,4/50 with aperture 1.4 on my old D200 makes wonderful, crisp photos. I use it working in theatres or on Live Music Events, even against strongest stage light.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 29th, 2013, 12:51 AM
Carsten Wolff Carsten Wolff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia, Ireland, Spain
Posts: 31
Default

I keep WANTING an f1.2....every decade or so, I find myself buying one of the 50/55mm f1.2 Nikkors, use if for a few months, then sell it again. F1.4, heck even the f1.8 do more than fine for focus juxtaposition and low light work; and finding the right focus on the 1.2 handheld is always a gamble.... alas, they are lovely lenses.
__________________
"You know it takes a painter or a sculpture or a musician years to perfect their technique. Then they're free to make an expression in a matter of moments. It takes moments for a photographer to perfect his technique. And then it takes years for him to make it into something that is truly creative and worthwhile" - Paul Caponigro
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:18 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,925
Default

Carsten,

It used to be a matter of low light shooting capability. Then ISO 1600 was too grainy. Now ISO 6400 on my Canon 5DII is pretty usable and cleans up nicely. So the "Low Light" excuse for 1.2 lust is no longer tenable in most cases. Actually, the inexpensive EF 50mm 1.4 is a well built sharp performer and could be nominated for L-ness is Canon wished.




B&H: EF 50mm f1.4 $329
10.23 oz (290 g)

The plastic bodied Canon 50mm 1.8 is a perfectly adequate lens too and no doubt would not limit most all work could demand of it. Perhaps the contrast is indeed better on the EF 1.4.



B&H: Canon 50mm f 1.2 L $1299
1.30 lb (590 g)

"A Ring-type USM (Ultrasonic motor) uses ultrasonic frequency vibrations to drive extremely rapid auto focus with near-silent operation. A high-speed CPU and improved AF algorithm contribute further to AF speed. Good holding torque stops the focusing lens group without overshoot. Full time electronic manual focus override is available without having to switch out of AF."

Yes, the 50 mm 1.2 is indeed very special in that it's bokeh is beautiful at 1.2 to 2.0 and it's pretty glare resistant. It's a great portrait lens for pulling the person out of the b.g. However, the 50 1.4 might very well be free of Chromatic Aberration at f1.4. Of course, it can be corrected, but something to know.



B&H: Canon EF 50mm f1.8 at $110
4.6 oz (130 g)

But the truth is that the humble plastic-bodied EF 50mm 1.8 could do all the work a skilled photographer would demand of it. One could shoot an entire wedding with this one lens and stitch vast panoramas or add an extension tube and do macros of insects all at $110 for EF 50mm 1.8 version II!

For those who like dreamier and shoot into the light and can carry the weight, the 50mm 1.2L is a wonderful beast to have on ones team! Frankly, if have all three and hardly every is the 2 lesser lenses! It costs more than 10X the adequate EF 1.8. The latter is always good for going lighter or as a spare for when tripods get knocked over, LOL and it happens! :)

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 30th, 2013, 02:12 AM
jake klein jake klein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: minnesota
Posts: 747
Default

Personally, I find the biggest differences are the number of aperture blades and whether or not they are rounded. More blades ,and being rounded, help in keeping the out if focus highlights round as you stop down.
__________________
Best Regards,
Jake

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakekleinphotography/
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old January 31st, 2013, 04:10 PM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,373
Default

It is a matter of philosophical and practical interest/use for me. These apertures!
People seem to forget or not know that unbelievable low light shots were being made in the days of film when iso 400 was the answer to a photog's prayers.

Along with technical progress in low level light/high iso/low noise I personally believe that a f2 lens is sufficient. Along with a tripod, f2 is all that might be needed.

But, and as I have argued often enough, the aperture to me has never been for the allowance of light
levels.

I use the aperture to control the focus, the area/s of interest. Not to control the amount of light I let in.
Too much light, I use ND filters. Too less light for my cam/lens combo, I try and stabilize myself and my equipment.

Else just walk away. To wait for another opportunity and/or time.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 31st, 2013, 11:51 PM
Carsten Wolff Carsten Wolff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia, Ireland, Spain
Posts: 31
Default

@Asher: when I refer to"low-light use" I of course mean low-light on a film body (or unbelievably low-light perhaps elsewhere) :) - in any case, to me the brightness of the image in the optical finder is naturally also a factor (as useless as many "standard" fresnel screens that come with a DSLR are for anything faster than f2.8)...
@Jake: I agree with you about the aperture shape being potentially important and it is a factor e.g. on my faster view-camera lenses, which I often shoot somewhat stopped down or with dual aperture. But when I reach for something like a 50/1.2 or similar fast glass, I usually do so because I want to use those wide open, in which case the aperture blade shape doesn't actually come into play (I have a 65/0.75 that doesn't even have aperture blades).

You both make of course valid points though.
__________________
"You know it takes a painter or a sculpture or a musician years to perfect their technique. Then they're free to make an expression in a matter of moments. It takes moments for a photographer to perfect his technique. And then it takes years for him to make it into something that is truly creative and worthwhile" - Paul Caponigro
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!