Re: 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob Williams, Jan 13, 2009.

  1. Bob Williams

    Bob Williams Guest

    measekite wrote:
    > Other than some additional speed what does the faster of these lenses
    > (either Canon or Nikon) give you other than 3 times the price?
    >
    > Is the image quality any better?
    > If, so is it so substantially better as to jusify the price?


    At any aperture larger than f=5.6, I don't think you will see ANY
    difference. At f=1.8 you may see a slight difference.
    It is a lot harder to grind a BIG piece of glass so that the resolution
    is acceptable at f 1.4, than it is to grind a smaller piece of glass to
    give the same resolution at f 1.8. That's what you are paying for.
    I never could understand why people with DSLRs would pay such a premium
    for such a slight increase in light gathering power.
    After all, if you need more sensitivity most quality DSLRs will let you
    shoot at ISO 1600 or more.
    See what a user of a Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 has to say on the subject.
    > http://www.amazon.com/review/R1YRAW0K3WMUDB/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1YRAW0K3WMUDB


    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Jan 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Bob Williams" <> wrote in message news:JaXal.44654$...
    > measekite wrote:
    >> Other than some additional speed what does the faster of these lenses
    >> (either Canon or Nikon) give you other than 3 times the price?
    >>
    >> Is the image quality any better?
    >> If, so is it so substantially better as to jusify the price?


    > At any aperture larger than f=5.6, I don't think you will see ANY difference. At f=1.8 you may see a slight difference.
    > It is a lot harder to grind a BIG piece of glass so that the resolution is acceptable at f 1.4, than it is to grind a smaller
    > piece of glass to give the same resolution at f 1.8. That's what you are paying for.
    > I never could understand why people with DSLRs would pay such a premium for such a slight increase in light gathering power.
    > After all, if you need more sensitivity most quality DSLRs will let you shoot at ISO 1600 or more.
    > See what a user of a Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 has to say on the subject.
    >> http://www.amazon.com/review/R1YRAW0K3WMUDB/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1YRAW0K3WMUDB

    >
    > Bob Williams


    And also read the follow-up comments! I, too, think the original
    poster had a bad sample of the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor. Having had
    several, it is basically sharp short the far corners (with FF) at f1.4,
    but with a *slightly* reduced overall contrast. By f2, most of the
    full frame is quite sharp and contrasty (and better than the f1.8
    at f2, FF), short the far corners (again, for FF...), which are not
    bad even wide open. LENS SAMPLES VARY! The two lenses
    are close, even at the widest stops, and the f1.8 is cheaper, not
    much slower, and it has essentially no linear distortion, making
    the 50mm f1.8 Nikkor a bargain lens. You may find my listings
    for these lenses, at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html,
    interesting...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jan 13, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Coolasblu
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    422
    Godfrey DiGiorgi
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. DHB

    50mm f1.8 & Digital Rebel Pictures?

    DHB, Oct 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    406
    Colm Gallagher
    Oct 18, 2003
  3. GAH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    546
  4. Pipo

    Sigma 18-50mm:good or not?

    Pipo, Dec 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    389
    Mark B.
    Dec 20, 2003
  5. M-M
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    31,260
Loading...

Share This Page