File :-(, x, )
50 1.4 v. 1.8 noobsauce
I'm a nikonfag.

Which should I get- It's only like $100 between the two.
>> Anonymous
Do you need that extra stop? If yes, buy the 50/1.4. If you especially like the look of the 50/1.4, buy the 50/1.4

If you don't, I understand the 50/1.8 Nikkor is actually sharper than than the 50/1.4. Buy it and send the spare $100 to some AIDS orphans in Africa.
>> Anonymous
If you have to ask this question, then you don't need the 1.4.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Like was already said, if you have to ask, just get the 1.8.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
hey guys

what's going on in this thread lol
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>127342
'Cuse me?
>> Anonymous
>>127344

that thing is hardly worth the price
>> Anonymous
>>127346

Maybe if it was AF and about 1/3 the price.
>> Anonymous
>>127330

Do you need the extra 2/3 stops?

Are you going for DOF control or do you need the light?
>> Anonymous
>>127348
>Maybe if it was AF
*facepalm*
>> Anonymous
>>127330
depends what you shoot, if you shoot indoors, get the 1.4. If not, get the 1.8. Both lenses are great.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
i've got (had) both lenses.
if your on a budget, get the 1.8, if you want to spend $100 more, get the 1.4.
the f/1.4 does have better border sharpness than the f/1.8.
>> Rook !HRaWxBruFs
I just ordered the 1.4 this morning. Unfortunately I had to go from adorama since none of the stores nearby had any in stock. F that, I am not back-ordering something so I can wait an extra month or more to get it.
>> noobsauce
Thanks for the input-

I've been using a friend's 1.8, I just wasn't sure if there was more to the 1.4 than just the stops.

I'm a journofag, so indoor/outdoor, light portrait, whatever.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Grab the 1.4

Well worth it
>> Anonymous
>>127330
how much are those?
>> Anonymous
>>127580

If you're a journalist, shouldn't you be using something wider like a 35mm or even a 24mm? They're a bit slower but then again you can get a small flash unit like the SB-400
>> Anonymous
>>127624
I agree, with the 1.5 crop, 50 mm would zoom in too much; and with an area such as photojournalism, you have to shoot quickly...which means that you cannot zoom with your feet...
>> Anonymous
>>127624
>>127637
FFS, a 75mm-equivalent lens is not hard to handle. And journalists need reach or want compression sometimes, jus like everyone else.
>> Anonymous
>>127614
http://www.adorama.com/NK5014AFDU.html
http://www.adorama.com/NK5018AFDU.html
>> Anonymous
>>127330

f/1.4 is always going to be sharper than the f/1.8 at any given stop. Both are going to suck wide open (what a surprise!) but the f/1.4 is probably a good bit sharper at f/2.8 than its f/1.8 sibling. If this matters to you, get the f/1.4 (I recommend doing this anyways -- I have both a Canon f/1.8 -- got this earlier when I didn't have the cash -- and f/1.4 and the f/1.4 is more useful)
>> Anonymous
>>127805f/1.4 is always going to be sharper than the f/1.8 at any given stop.

lol

nikon's 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4, it's one of their sharpes lens.
>> Anonymous
>>127816

What the fuck are you smoking? I've owned both simultaneously and I can tell you that while the 1.8 is a very good lens, at all apertures the 1.4 is sharper, aside from maybe f/8 due to the 1.4 hitting the diffraction wall sooner.
>> Anonymous
>>127817

Uh, it's pretty widely acknowledged that the 1.8 is sharper wide open than the 1.4 is wide open. If we're going on lens test and MTF charts that is.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>127818

eh it's widely claimed, but not proven mate.

The 1.4 is a better lens since it's slightly better overall, by that i mean center + border in all apertures.

Both are great lenses, i don't see the point of arguing which is better blah blah. It's Trolling.
>> Anonymous
how else do you want to prove it, other than test charts

a lot of websites use the 1.8 exclusively when testing camera bodies for this reason
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>127825

are we looking at the same chart?

See how similar both lenses actually are?

the 1.4D has better border performance whilst the 1.8 has slightly better centre performance.

Photozone.de has great tests... but would you trust one test only?

As another person who've owned both lenses i have to say keeping the 1.4D was a wise choice.
>> Anonymous
>>127825
>how else do you want to prove it, other than test charts

Photographs. Anytime I'm deciding between two roughly equivalent lenses, I punch their names into Flickr, usually along with the keyword "portrait," since a human face shows how the lens draws the image really well, and most are shot relatively open so I can judge the bokeh.

Seeing a dozen or more photographs taken with a lens will tell one more about it than any chart. Lens choices are subjective; "corpulent" might be a "better" word than "fat," but a writer might choose the word "fat" because it works better with his story. Same with lenses and photography. At the extreme end, there's that photojournalist (I forget who) who sometimes opts for a Speed Graphic and other times opts for a Holga.
>> Anonymous
>>127844
You trust those heavily shooped peices of shits?
>> Anonymous
>>127846
If one looks at a bunch of them, from different people, the qualities of a lens become pretty obvious.

And if you find someone shooting shooting film with a constant look, it's easy.

Looking for a fast MF Nikkor? Besides being a great photographer, this guy has pretty much all of them:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luca_rubbi/
>> Anonymous
lens charts don't lie