50mm f/1.4 fastest AF lens for a Nikon digital?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by DeanB, Feb 23, 2007.

  1. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    Hello all, I am looking for the fasted possible AF lens on a nikon
    D2Hs, and I think its the 50mm f/1.4. Its for available light shots
    indoors, of kids that never sit still! I know there's a 1.2 but its no
    AF. Maybe someone else makes a lens that would work?

    DeanB, Feb 23, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. DeanB

    Yoshi Guest

    Just crank up the ISO a stop and save some money.
    Yoshi, Feb 23, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    I do, I set it at 6400 some times. But my fastest lens now is 2.8, so
    I stand to gain quite a lot going to 1.4 or 1.2
    DeanB, Feb 23, 2007
  4. Read the reviews on the 1.4 and the 1.8. I got a 1.8 some time ago
    based on a couple of reviews that preferred it over the 1.4. don't
    remember why any longer.

    I do know that with the 1.8 on a D50 at ISO 800 the flash doesn't seem
    to pop up much if at all.
    Ockham's Razor, Feb 23, 2007
  5. I've got the 50/1.4 AF-D and there are times when I have really needed that
    extra speed over the 1.8, such as shooting at a mainly candle lit party
    recently. I was shooting iso1600 and was getting 1/30s average shutter
    speeds and about 30% of the shots were decent keepers. If I had the 1.8 I
    think I would have been in trouble!

    cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
    Adrian Boliston, Feb 23, 2007
  6. DeanB

    JR Guest

    I have both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8...They are both so similar, but the
    extra speed of the 1.4 is great....now be careful, the DOF is so
    shallow, not alot of is in focus....

    JR, Feb 23, 2007
  7. A lot of appeal of an ultra fast lens is the very narrow depth of focus. I
    took a shot of the desert at our works christmas party at f1.4 and there
    must only be less than half an inch that's in focus!

    Adrian Boliston, Feb 23, 2007
  8. Maybe okay for landscapes. Not okay for most of what I do -- I'm
    already at the top usable ISO a huge percentage of the time.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 23, 2007
  9. Eww, yuck! That's a perfect example of bad bokeh. (Specular highlights in
    the OOF areas are brighter at the periphery of the disk.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 23, 2007
  10. You might want to scrap the 50 all together and pick up an old 58mm f/1.2
    Noct Nikkor. The 50/1.4 does OK, but you'll really love the low light
    performance and bokeh of the Noct. The Noct isn't AF, but who really wants
    AF in those low light situations?

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Feb 23, 2007
  11. DeanB

    Paul Rubin Guest

    If you really want to pull out all the stops, get a Canon 5D and 50/1.0 EF.
    Paul Rubin, Feb 23, 2007
  12. And you better want the focus to be about a hair breadth thickness.

    All this exchange about ultra fast lenses seem to forget that with these
    lenses wide open the DOF becomes smaller and smaller until you do not
    have a useful end result.

    Hell, turn on a light or two in the room and get a decent picture. Or,
    god forbid use a fill flash off the ceiling or a white piece of paper.

    Are you taking pictures of the event, person, desert, etc or are you
    just screwing around with a camera and lens to see who can get the
    lowest light shot of something that becomes more and more unrecognizable.
    Ockham's Razor, Feb 24, 2007
  13. DeanB

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I used to shoot chess tournaments with a 50/1.4, 135/1.8, and 28/2.0
    (later got a 35/1.4). That was with TMZ 3200 film. Nothing was ever
    fast enough. Fooling with the lights or using flash would have gotten
    me thrown out of the building. If the camera cannot see what the eye
    can see, there's a technical limit to overcome, through more lens
    speed, more ISO, or some combination.
    Paul Rubin, Feb 24, 2007
  14. DeanB

    DeanB Guest

    He he I would if I have limitless $$$! That lens is amazing. There was
    also a 0.9 at some point, either leica or canon I forget now.
    DeanB, Feb 24, 2007
  15. But always compromised. Perhaps a camera that can shoot at ISO 12600
    may allow such shots, but ever more low f stops is not the answer
    because of the DoF problem.

    Face it, there is a limit (currently) where the abilities of a camera do
    not match the abilities of the human eye. If it is "technical", fine,
    but that is where the effort must be made. Currently we do not know how
    the camera differs from the human eye, so perhaps the efforts needs to
    be made in that area.

    To fool around with that difference is just going to frustrate you.

    Good luck!!!!
    Ockham's Razor, Feb 24, 2007
  16. DeanB

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Really, there's not a DOF problem, or at least not an insurmountable
    one, or else people would not use these lenses.
    The differences are pretty well understood.
    Paul Rubin, Feb 24, 2007
  17. DeanB

    dj_nme Guest

    Canon made a 50mm f1:0.95 M39 rangefinder lens.
    There was a second version that used a bayonet because of how thin the
    metal was on the mounting thread, the bayonet on the camera was outside
    the normal m39 lensmount.
    These are the cameras the lens was designed for (or perhaps the camera
    for the lens?):
    Cameraquest has an article about a converted Fed camera, which shows the
    unusual lensmount:
    dj_nme, Feb 24, 2007
  18. I find the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT quite useful on 1.5x crop factor cameras. Or
    even on film, I bought it when I was using film.
    You exaggerate.

    Here's an example at ISO 800, f/1.4:
    <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/...6/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb 20061027 010-178>

    And here's one at f/1.2:
    <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/...6/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb 20061027 010-169>

    As you can see, the DOF is not in fact so shallow as to be useless.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 24, 2007
  19. Yep, exactly. The examples I just posted were from a wake for a very
    good friend of lots of us. The late-night music session was not a time
    for dragging out the flash.

    I use a 58/1.2, 135/2, and 24/2 when the lights are down (on 1.5x digital).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 24, 2007
  20. Actually, I think we've reached the point where, if you're a good
    photographer and a good printer and have good equipment, you pretty much
    *can* photograph anything you can see. *I* can't perfectly achieve it
    yet, but some of the backstage Flying Karamazov photos Ctein showed me
    were getting *right* down to that limit (those were on 6x4.5 film
    originally I believe; exposed with the intention of scanning and heavy
    digital processing).
    That's what makes it interesting! I've been fighting this issue since
    highschool, and I've made *huge* strides in the last 4 years largely due
    to tech improvements.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.