Beginner 50mm f1.8/f1.4

S

snooks

Suspended / Banned
Messages
114
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening everyone

I want a 50mm prime to use as a walkabout lens for street portraiture . I currently have a Nikon d3200 and if/when I upgrade it will be still be a crop sensor camera ( probably d7200). What I am unsure of is whether to get the f1.8 or the f1.4. Also would the Nikon 16-80 f2.8 be wasted on my current camera. Thanks
 
By all means splash out on a f/1.4 if you can afford it but to be perfectly honest a f/1.8 will do you just as well at this stage. As to the 16-80, it depends on whether you can justify it to yourself. Do you need it or do you just want it?
 
Last edited:
snooks said:
Evening everyone

I want a 50mm prime to use as a walkabout lens for street portraiture . I currently have a Nikon d3200 and if/when I upgrade it will be still be a crop sensor camera ( probably d7200). What I am unsure of is whether to get the f1.8 or the f1.4. Also would the Nikon 16-80 f2.8 be wasted on my current camera. Thanks
Click to expand...

Hi Gary,
I currently have the 50mm 1.4 Nikon which I use for street portraiture.
Only a few times in a couple of 100 portraits for my project(s) have I shot with it wide open. The majority of portraits have been shot in the f2 - f3.2 range to add a little leeway on focussing. If I'm being honest, I don't really need the 1.4 but it's nice to have. It depends on your budget too.

I'm not familiar with the 16-80 lens but I'm guessing it's a solid performer being a 2.8 so I wouldn't say it'd be wasted on your current camera.
 
blakester said:
I'm not familiar with the 16-80 lens but I'm guessing it's a solid performer being a 2.8 so I wouldn't say it'd be wasted on your current camera.
Click to expand...

It isn't actually constant f/2.8, it's f/2.8-4.0, but still it's good for what it is and wouldn't be wasted on a D3200, balance might take some getting used to though.
 
Nawty said:
It isn't actually constant f/2.8, it's f/2.8-4.0, but still it's good for what it is and wouldn't be wasted on a D3200, balance might take some getting used to though.
Click to expand...

Cheers Ned, as I said,not familiar with the lens but at those specs, I would guess it's still not a 'bad' lens.
 
Thanks for the replies.
I will think I will go with f1.8 going off Stuart's comment, I don't mind paying the extra for the f1.4 but I don't want to spend more just for the sake of it.
I knew the 16-80 was f4 at the long end and there are third party lenses that are a constant f2.8 but the Nikon seemed to get good reviews.
I was thinking of the 16-80 to replace my kit lens which is ok but compared to the 35f1.8 which I have the two lenses seem quite different in terms of IQ.
Do I need it, not really. Do I want it, yes. GAS I believe it's called but I have to spend my money on something.
 
If you can afford the 1.4 then it's probably worth it. If you don't need the extra wide aperture then consider a 2.8 macro lens for higher levels of sharpness.

16-80 is a really great range on crop, and there will be few occasions you'll wish for longer or wider when travelling.
 
Might be a daft question this but if say 50mm f1.4 and a f1.8 were both stopped down to the same aperture say f3.2 would you expect the same IQ. My thinking is that lenses don't perform at there best at there widest aperture (or so I believe), so f3.2 on a lens with a bigger widest aperture should perform better than a lens with a smaller widest aperture. Hope this makes sense.
 
There's probably not a lot in it, TBH.
 
I believe the f/1.8 version is considered better that the 1.4 in pretty much every respect other than the ability to go to 1.4.

Certainly the AF on the 1.4 it pretty damn slow by modern standards.
 
Nawty said:
I believe the f/1.8 version is considered better that the 1.4 in pretty much every respect other than the ability to go to 1.4.

Certainly the AF on the 1.4 it pretty damn slow by modern standards.
Click to expand...

I've had both and I'm not sure I'd say the 1.8 is better but it's certainly about the same. I find it hard to recommend the 1.4 in light of that because it costs about double. 1.4 is nice to have from time to time but it's a big price to pay.
 
Another idea is...why not look at the older lens 'D' rather than 'G' - as long as it is AF-S the older lenses 1.4-1.8 should be just as good. I have the 1.4G which is good, but also the Pentax FA50 1.4 and F50 1.7 - it's the F50 1.7 that seems to have the mojo.

As for the 16-80 I have heard good things - I didn't go for one when I bought my D500 as I have the focal length covered anyway - but depends on how good the 18-55 (I assume that's what you have) is given that these kit lenses are known for the variability in their quality.
 
I have had both, kept the 1.8g. Its faster to focus and found it sharper. I rarely used the other at 1.4 so the 1.8g was a no brainer.
 
welshwizard645 said:
Another idea is...why not look at the older lens 'D' rather than 'G' - as long as it is AF-S the older lenses 1.4-1.8 should be just as good. I have the 1.4G which is good, but also the Pentax FA50 1.4 and F50 1.7 - it's the F50 1.7 that seems to have the mojo.

As for the 16-80 I have heard good things - I didn't go for one when I bought my D500 as I have the focal length covered anyway - but depends on how good the 18-55 (I assume that's what you have) is given that these kit lenses are known for the variability in their quality.
Click to expand...

I don't think there are any 50mm AF-S lenses that aren't G.
 
gad-westy said:
I don't think there are any 50mm AF-S lenses that aren't G.
Click to expand...

Correct.

All the older ones are AF-D (or before that AF).

Edit: not to say they are bad, they're very good but won't AF on the D3200.
 
Last edited:
I prefered the 1.8 when I used Nikon, the 1.4 just wasn't as sharp for my money, and to be honest how often do you really need the extra light with todays cameras. Remember on a crop sensor thats a short telephoto, you've got very little depth of field at 1.4.
 
Nawty said:
Correct.

All the older ones are AF-D (or before that AF).

Edit: not to say they are bad, they're very good but won't AF on the D3200.
Click to expand...

Even though I have a lot of the newer stuff plus the odd AF-D lens I forget that sometimes that some of the newer low-cost bodies use AF-S only, so much for backwards compatability eh?
 
welshwizard645 said:
Even though I have a lot of the newer stuff plus the odd AF-D lens I forget that sometimes that some of the newer low-cost bodies use AF-S only, so much for backwards compatability eh?
Click to expand...

They will still manually focus with focus-assist in the viewfinder. The band shots I posted in projects were all taken with an AFD used this way because the D610 I was using couldn't focus reliably in the conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top