File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Quick question /p/

What's the big difference between the the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 Nikkor Lenses?

The 1.8 is about $200 cheaper than the 1.4. What gives?
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
.4f
>> sage sage
lurk moar

1.4 its a faster lens, moar light goes through it in less time
>> Anonymous
yea but 1.4 is kind of useless anyways. The dof is too thin to be useful in real world applications where youd' need the light, so it comes down to bokeh. and if you care that much about bokeh you're an artsy faggot.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
Sigma 28mm 1.8 is a better lens on a crop sensor DSLR.

Prove me wrong.
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
     File :-(, x)
>>283102

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:27 20:57:15Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width703Image Height600
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283102
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>283108
>>283105

not seeing any proof here....

its a wider, more versatile lens, supports full frame, gives excellent low light capability and bokeh.

With a 28mm i dont have to stand 15 feet from the subject to get it all in shot.
>> Anonymous
>>283112

lol @ retard who thinks 50mm lenses won't work on FF.

Also, in order to GET bokeh with a 28mm lens, even on a crop sensor, you have to be inches from the subject, practically.
>> Anonymous
I KNOW it's bigger but why is the 1.4 so much more?

should I just get the 1.8 then?
>> Anonymous
>>283112its a wider, more versatile lens, supports full frame, gives excellent low light capability and bokeh.

jesus fucking christ, you're a retard
>> Anonymous
If you don't know the difference, then get the 1.8.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>283113

I dont remember saying it didnt support Full frame. I can get decent bokeh in full body portrait shots as well as sharp macro focus all the way up the lens hood.
>> Anonymous
>> Sigma 28mm 1.8 is a better lens on a crop sensor DSLR.
>>Prove me wrong.

I want 75mm equivalent. Any 50mm is better than a 28mm at this.

You're wrong. Stop posting now, you retard mongoloid.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>283121

well then learn how to write a distinct and incisive post you retard, you never said you wanted that. Im simply stating that the 28mm seems to have greater versatility, albeit at a higher price.
>> Anonymous
Rage.jpg.

The OP's posts are the least fail ITT, except for the first two posts (one of which is Meese, WTF?) and>>283117. Seriously. OP's cool, just new.

>What's the big difference between the the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 Nikkor Lenses?
They're different designs. One is f/1.4, the other is f/1.8, and while they're close they do look slightly different. The f/1.8 is, I understand, slightly sharper, but look into it for yourself.

F/1.4 also has better build quality.

This is all assuming you're talking about the AF 50/1.8 and 1.4, and not any of the MF lenses or the new AF-S 50/1.4.

>The 1.8 is about $200 cheaper than the 1.4. What gives?

Less glass needed to make the lens, lower build quality.
>> Anonymous
>>283158

>>283100
This, in its main thrust, but damn you, "bokeh" does not mean shallow depth of field. It refers to the subjective qualities of how the lens draws what's out of focus.

Bokeh is an important aspect of the lens, and you should care about it as much as you should care about it as much as any of the other qualities of the lens... i.e. find one with bokeh you like, absolutely, but don't sweat it if you somehow find yourself with not-your-favorite-lens-in-all-creation.

Also Nikkor fifties except for the fuckawesome 50/1.2 have mediocre-to-submediocre bokeh, IMsubjectiveO. Call for yourself.

>>283102
Burt, you're right a 28mm is much more versatile, but singling out the Sigma is stupid, not that it's a bad lens, but there's better ones and it's pretty big.

And despite being right, you're trolling; stop. "Prove me wrong?" and bringing it up in an unrelated thread?

>>283105

Meese back in Meese form. It's spelt "Afghan," and "Afghan Girl" was shot with the 105/2.5 Nikkor.

Beyond that, your post is just being silly/Meese.

>>283113
>Also, in order to GET bokeh with a 28mm lens, even on a crop sensor, you have to be inches from the subject, practically.

GFD no. See above, first of all. Second, you do get noticable out of focus blur at f/1.8 on crop sensors. Third, bokeh plays a role in how *every* image gets rendered; one plane is in focus, and moving away from that further and further the characteristics that determine bokeh will affect the rendering of the image.

>>283117
This. Spend the spare money on the proverbial "hookers and blow to photograph." (Except, you know, try to make it something less degrading and healthier.)
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>283159

damn did i just get bopped by the voice of reason?

> you're right a 28mm is much more versatile

thank you. Trolling ends.
>> Anonymous
OP here. Thanks for the all input.

I'm wondering now should I get a 35mm MF 1.4 Nikkor Lens for the same price as the 1.8 AF? What do you think?
>> Anonymous
>>283169
I'd go for it. Good lens, nice middle-normal for crop.

I'd buy it used, though, save yourself some money, and unless you need the extra stop/want specifically a 35, I'd also look at the 28/2.0, only available used. Pick one to taste if the two other things don't apply.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283158
FFFFFFFFFFFFF

>They're different designs. One is f/1.4, the other is f/1.8, and while they're close they do look slightly different. The f/1.8 is, I understand, slightly sharper, but look into it for yourself.

WTF!!! fuck this guy, looks like he's new too.

they might be of different design but the main thing is that f1:1.4 is FASTER than the f1:1.8, as a previous anon said moar light goes through it in less fuckin time, this allows you among other things to use faster shutterspeeds, but it is true that more glass is needed and shit in the f1.4, check some of the f1:1.2 and you'll se it even expensier.

if you are just starting just get the 1.8, but i would get the 1.4 cause Im an artsy faggot

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePaint.NET v3.22Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpi
>> Anonymous
>>283159
>Also Nikkor fifties except for the fuckawesome 50/1.2 have mediocre-to-submediocre bokeh, IMsubjectiveO. Call for yourself.
Truth. I don't even like the 1.2, my favourite is the f/2. Not sure if it's the six-blades or what.
>> Anonymous
>>283193
Got any samples? I haven't seen any from the 50/2.
>> film film lol Anonymous
>>283202
Don't have a slide scanner :/
They're cheap as chips now though, it's worth it!
>> Anonymous
>>283162> you're right a 28mm is much more versatile

You're a fucking idiot.
>> Anonymous
50mm is pretty useless. At any aperture.

/thread.
>> Anonymous
>>283419
>/thread
No.
>> Anonymous
>>283112
Foreshortening sucks and is not flattering

rather have the 50
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283419
This man would disagree.
>> Anonymous
>>284017
no he wouldn't

that man is dead
>> Anonymous
>>284019
That's why I said 'would'. He pretty much only used a 50mm.
>> Anonymous
>>284017
He'd also take a 28 or 35 if he was shooting 1.5x crop.

Normal lenses rock. Short teles (e.g. a 50mm on 1.5x crop) have their uses, but they're no where near as versatile.
>> OP
so, I should get the 35mm?
the sigma 28mm isn't in my budget.
>> Anonymous
>>284069
If you're a typical photographer shooting typical subjects, yes.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>283169
where would you find such a lens? i haven't even seen a used nikkor 50/1.8 around. then again, i don't really live in a place of abundant goods...
>> Anonymous
>>284546
If you can use 4chan you can use ebay.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
You're awfully optimistic.