File :-(, x, )
1.8 v 1.4 Anonymous
Is it worth the extra money to get an f/1.4 lens vs an f/1.8? I want to be able to shoot concerts where lighting is an issue with no problem. I'm new to photography, so I only have the kit lens that came with my d40 (18-55 f/3.5-5.6). I like shooting at the narrower end of the lens, which means my widest aperture is f/5.6 - way too dark to shoot anything at a concert.

I'm going to get a 50mm prime. The 1.8 is ~100 dollars, while the 1.4 is ~300. Be honest - is there a big difference? Am I going to be able to get a LOT more out of the 1.4 than I am out of the 1.8?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.4Focal Length (35mm Equiv)105 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2005:07:28 21:21:15Exposure Time1.3 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width340Image Height285
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
you get what you pay for, i shoot gigs with my 1.7 and i have no problem stopping down to 2.8 as the light is generally fine.

the difference isnt massive certianly not like the difference between your kit and the 50/1.8 so id advise you to get the cheaper once since otherwise you wouldnt have asked.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
in before "cant AF on D40"
i've got them both, the f/1.4 is nice, but the f/1.8 is faaaaaar better value for money.
I say get the f/1.8
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
If you are strapped for cash the 1.8 makes far more sense. You're not gaining much for spending a lot more for the 1.4. Diminishing returns.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>98424
is there a f/1.8 prime lens that can autofocus with the d40?

also up to how far away can the autofocus work?
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>98433

There isn't a Nikon one that will autofocus with it yet. You'd either have to wait until the line up is updated or stick with manual focusing for now.

There is a shortage of autofocusing primes for it as the system is newer. As an alternative you could try the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM (what a name!). It seems to be well thought of and it is fully compatible with the D40 and has a nice wide aperture. It will also work out close to a normal lens on a 35mm format. One I'd consider for my own use.
>> Anonymous
>>98433
sigma makes a 30mm f/1.4 HSM
>> OPFOR !8vKpfCqy8A
>>98424
I would stick with the 1.8 because I could care less about the 2/3 stop difference or any other factors for an extra 200 bucks. But if you want to compare lenses, check this out.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/coffeefromhell/sets/72057594124967506/
>> Anonymous
>>98435
Doesn't it cost like, 600 dollars?
>> des
the sigma is the only smart choice. it's a pain in the balls to reliably manually focus a 1.4 lens on modern AF cameras already, nevermind a bitty dslr.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>98441

I think so. The autofocusing lenses are a lot more expensive, sadly. It's part of the burn with the budget D40. The body is more expensive, but the lenses cost way more. It ends up not saving you anything in the long run if you want or need autofocusing.

>>98442

This is often true. Especially if it is action or uncontrollable and changing situations and subjects.
>> OPFOR !8vKpfCqy8A
>>98442
Completely forgot about the d40 can't AF.
>> Anonymous
>>98442
fuuu-uuuu-uuuu-uuuck. I'd pick up the sigma if I didn't know that it would be completely pointless once I got a nicer camera. :(
>> Anonymous
>>98447
i dont know the build quality on it or anything, but it could be far from useless
>> Anonymous
>>98449
Not useless, sorry. I just meant that I would have spent extra money on the HSM that is pointless on a better body.
>> Anonymous
>>98452
HSM is quieter and usually faster than screw driven though!
>> Anonymous
>>98442
Generally, when you have to shoot that wide open, autofocus is going to be messy, too.

And he said he wanted a lens for concert, something a little long.

OP, the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 probably isn't worth it, but they're two different lenses. Like someone else said or hinted at somewhere in the thread, take a look at the results they get besides their speed. Then compare that to your budgetary needs.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>98447
Don't know about that lens specifically, but I've seen very good reviews for a lot of sigma's primes.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>98453
quieter, yes, usually faster, not always... it depends on the body and lens.
My 50mm f/1.4 is lighting fast on my F5 than it is on my D70, even faster than my AFS lens
>> 1.4 1.4
1.4.

In my opinion it can't possibly hurt to have one lens in your bag that's as fast as possible, even if it's not always necessary. There's no question the 1.8 is the better VALUE. But for me, I can't imagine not having a lens that goes down to 1.4, regardless of price.

That being said, I don't know if the 1.4 is as different from the 1.8 from Nikon as is the case with Canon.
>> Anonymous
Should of went Canon, their 50mm f1.8 costs 80 bucks AND autofocuses on all EOS bodys, not to mention awesome optics.
>> Anonymous
>>98736
However the build quality on the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is terrible, whereas the Nikon one is quite decent for an AF lens. There is little difference between the f/1.8 and f/1.4 Nikon lenses, just that the f/1.4 has a window with focusing scale and DOF marks.

The autofocus issue is just a fuckup, they should have never produced an SLR body without an internal motor.
>> Anonymous
>>98746

You can expect a "trickle up" through the other models of that feature. A great way to push people on to their newer and more expensive lenses and remove or at least devalue a market of older ones for them.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>98746

>>just that the f/1.4 has a window with focusing scale and DOF marks.

only on the versions before the 1.4D, and not all of them either, cant rememebr which.

Teh build quality of the 1.4D is better too, faster autofocus too on a juggernaut like the F6
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>98746
the f/1.4 seems to be made of a different plastic than the f/1.8
the f/1.4 uses the same plastic as all other "older/classic" AF lenses where as the f/1.8 is made from a different type, but still leaps and bounds over the canon equivalently.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>98749
the AF is even faster on a F5 ;)
the F5 AF motor is brutal.
but having owned both lenses, i say the AF speeds are the same between them, if different there is no possible way to tell.

the Current f/1.4D has window with focusing scale and DOF marks. where as the f/1.8D does not have the window, but does have DOF markings also
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>98753

oh yeah yuou're absolutely right, they're so small i completely forgot... the old 35-70mm which i had had much more obvious ones...

HA!
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>98753

i definitely noticed a differen in focusing speed with the 1.8 and 1.4... i didn't test them side by side cause i got rid of the 1.8 when i got the 1.4 but there difference was there for me.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>98760
maybe the F5 is so fast that its unnoticeable.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>98762

hahaha... well it's really noticeable on the D70s i'll tell you that much. I felt anyway, could be individual lens, as we both know, Nikon didn't exactly drop alot of money into those lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>98424

I own a Canon f/1.8 and just recently shot a concert using an f/1.4 . The extra 2/3 of a stop might not seem like much, but I was happy to have it. For non-flash photos, I was happy to have every last bit of light that I could.

However, the price difference is pretty big. If you'll be shooting in this sort of lighting a lot, get the 1.4. If this difficult a setup is rare, get the 1.8.

Autofocus was still very difficult in the dark, but the external flash I was using had a subtle focus assist light that I used while still not firing the flash.
>> Anonymous
f/1.8 best non-zoom lens out there. Sharpest quality pictures. cheap. small. perfect.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>98775

the 50mm 1.8? i wouldnt go that far.

28 f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
105mm f/2.8
200mm f/2

just the ones i'd rather have,
>> else !L6xabslN96
but remember guys,
OP(and I) have D40s which means we cant autofocus. i dont know about you guys, but im as blind as a bat when shooting at night (and the viewfinder is really small and dark on the D40) so 90% of pics i manually focus are wrong.

Is the sigma the only prime lens that can autofocus on the D40 right now?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>98800

i can think of any WIDE prime lenses by either Canon or Nikon with AF-S

there are plenty with AF-S beyond thoguh

105mm
200mm
300mm

a the other load of telephotos

Also, manual focusing at night is difficult for anyone... regardless of viewfinder since current ones don't use a prism mechanism and man even AUTOFOCUS at night is difficult.
>> Anonymous
>>98801

Canon don't use the term "af-s".

Canon have plenty normal to wide primes that autofocus on the budget Rebels or their other cameras.

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 USM L
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM L
Canon EF 35mm f/2
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 USM L
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

Probably some others too, also many third party and some others above 50, like the 85 that the D40 also lacks.
>> Anonymous
>>98812

You also forgot a bunch of older lenses like the 50mm 1.0.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>98812
I don't believe the TS lenses autofocus.
>> Anonymous
>>98851

That's true. Still an awful lot of autofocus lenses for Canon.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>98854
thats because canon's MF lenses, FD mount, wont mount natively onto EOS bodies. Hence the large amount of AF lenses
>> Anonymous
>>98870

And? How is that a bad thing or what as that got to do with anything?
>> Anonymous
>>98873

I think it's a bad thing. The availability of inexpensive, great quality manual focus lenses was one of the main reasons I choose Nikon over Canon in the first place. I happen to almost exclusively use manual focus and usually prefer prime lenses, so it makes sense to use lenses that were designed for it. If the manual focusing rings on most AF lenses weren't so crappy, I might not care, but alas they are and they just keep getting worse.

I also think it's a crappy decision as a company to tell their customers that they will have to throw away all they're current lenses if they want to use the newest body. That is why I didn't support Canon's decision to drop the FD mount fifteen years ago, and why I don't support Nikon's decision to phase in G lenses and introduce low-end DSLRs that don't meter with MF lenses.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>98907
*says nothing about sonyminolta mount*
>> Anonymous
>>98937

*says nothing about the total lack of sony lenses*
>> Anonymous
>>98907
Whole post QFT, although I wouldn't pick a camera system just on that. Adapter rings supposedly work really well with Canon cameras; I understand that using Leica R lenses on Canon EOS bodies is extremely popular in some well-heeled circles, and there's this guy on Flickr (lost the link, I'll see if I can find it) who uses a bunch of old lenses on a 5D and makes his own filters for them to get the looks he wants.
>> Anonymous
>>99756
if thats what you wanna do, get the 35mm f/.9 nikkor or the canon 50mm f/.95
>> Anonymous
>>99762
>35mm f/.9 nikkor

Such a thing exists? More information, please.

>the canon 50mm f/.95
I understand it's a downright awful lens, though.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>98937
I'm confused. You sound like you're implying that Sony/Minolta is better than Canon because you can still use the old Minolta lenses on modern Sony bodies, but when Minolta went to the autofocus mount on the Maxxum line, they did the same thing to all of the manual-focus Minolta users. And they did it about the same time as Canon did. And Minolta was never as big, so there aren't as many old Maxxum lenses floating around as there are old Canon lenses.

Although, granted, the Minolta autofocus lenses are probably cheaper since they're less in demand...
>> Anonymous
>>99764
http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/tv.html

theres also that carl zeiss 50mm f/.7 made for nasa or whatever.
>> Half-Eye !Ir.x8Zkt3c
>>98736
Should HAVE. ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Also, 50mm 1.8 II from Canon is the rox for your monies.
Also, yes, i notice, but the difference between internetspeak and bad english is a big one.