Do I still need 50mm f1.4 when I have 24-70mm f2.8

A

andephotographic

Suspended / Banned
Messages
400
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Cant decide if I should keep my 50mm f1.4 af-d prime.

I have a 24-70mm f2.8 af-s and I don't imagine that the extra 2 stops will really be that useful considering I have the D3 which can see in the dark at pretty much any aperture anyway and it's too long for a standard lens if I put it on the D200.

Wonder what's happening to the prices of used lenses right now anyway...
 
You may have enough light, but 1.4 has a different look to 2.8. If you like using lenses wide open, and employing selective focus to your advantage - keep it. I have a wild guess the prime is still sharper at the same apertures.
 
daugirdas said:
You may have enough light, but 1.4 has a different look to 2.8. If you like using lenses wide open, and employing selective focus to your advantage - keep it. I have a wild guess the prime is still sharper at the same apertures.
Click to expand...

Yeah it probably is sharper but I just dunno if I see myself getting enough use out of it.
With me having the 24-70mm sitting there on the camera I'd have to make the conscious decision to take the prime with me or put it on and I think I just overlook it/forget about it so much.
Just looked on ebay at the completed auctions and I reckon I could get back what I paid when I bought it new about 2 years ago which would be pretty useful right now.
 
:lol:

For me, the faster the better - if I could afford it I'd have silly-fast lenses. There's a f0.95 I'd quite like :eek:

If you don't really use 1.4 much or like silly-shallow DOF then you might as well sell it. HTH :)
 
I have a D700, 24-70mm and 50mm but would never consider getting rid of the 50mm for a few reasons. I do find the F1.4 useful at times when I'm trying to squeeze every drop out of a dark scene, there's only so far even the D3/D700's tremendous high iso can go. While the D3/D700 aren't very compact, I do like the D700+50mm as a slightly more compact, super low light package.

John
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I have a D700, 24-70mm and 50mm but would never consider getting rid of the 50mm for a few reasons. I do find the F1.4 useful at times when I'm trying to squeeze every drop out of a dark scene, there's only so far even the D3/D700's tremendous high iso can go. While the D3/D700 aren't very compact, I do like the D700+50mm as a slightly more compact, super low light package.

John
Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense. I got rid of my 50mm because I didn't use it. However I'm having second thoughts. It makes a very nice walkabout when you wanna travel as light as possible.(without just using your phone)!
 
I don't use my 50/1.4 as much as my 24-70/2.8, but when I do, they are used for totally different effects. I love the focus and shallow dof at 1.4, and use it when I am feeling a little creative. I wouldn't even consider comparing these two side by side as I use them so differently, so yes, I'd keep mine.

But, if you don't use yours and fancy putting the ££'s towards aomething you will use more, then surely there's little point in keeping it.
 
Its not just about speed, it has a totally different look. I've just gone the other way and not had my 24-70mm out of the bag for the last three weeks. I've got a documentary job on tomorrow,and though I know the 24-70mm will be easier to work with, I'll get nicer images shooting two bodies with 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. :)
 
I went the other way when I had my d700, sold my 24-70 and kept the 50mm 1.4g. I just wasn't using the 24-70. The 50mm was lighter and sharper. The only thing I missed with the 24-70 was at the wide angle . The 50mm in low light cannot be beat.
 
Hmm I'd not bother with the 50mm, get rid of it and get yourself a 85 1.4 or 1.8.

At 50mm the wide aperture stuff is all closeup, with the 85's thing start to get interesting.

If only Nikon would make a 135 f2 like the Canon one...
 
Do you need to sell it ?? Do you have to raise some money or do you have your eye on another lens / piece of equipment - if yes, then sell it on. If no, then why not keep hold of it for say 6 months or so and see if you use it, if you don't then sell it on.
 
TBH I find I use it very rarely, but on those occasions that I do, I remember that nothing else produces the same results.
If you're in complete control of the subject and lighting, then these fast primes can't be beat when used at the wider end. For everything else, fast zooms win...

I do also have an 85mm f/1.4 though - if the choice was over the 50 and the 85, I'd lose the 50...
 
Interesting to note that a lot of the people saying keep it are D700 or at least full frame camera users.
 
Not really "interesting".

The 50mm is a waste of time on DX, but the OP has FX.

Still not as good as a 85mm :)
 
Because its nearly always too long for just about everything (ie 75mm) and at 50mm you don't get the telephoto effect nearly enough.

Its just an awkward length IMHO.
 
where's the emoticon for "whatever"?
 
Well, my watch list on ebay consists purely of 50mm 1.4 lenses at the moment, so you can guess what my answer will be...

I have just bought a 24-70, but I'd still like a 1.4 lens, and the 85mm is to expensive.
 
50mm might be a bit long for some on a crop body but there was a famous war photographer (so famous that I forget his name...) who shot everything with a 85mm Nikon lens (35mm film) and as far as I remember he said that it was the best lens ever made and if a shot couldn't be taken with it he didn't want to take it.

Just goes to show that what we all shoot with is our own choice.

A 50mm f1.4 has been on my camera for about a month now.
 
woof woof said:
...but there was a famous war photographer...who shot everything with a 85mm Nikon lens (35mm film) and as far as I remember he said that it was the best lens ever made and if a shot couldn't be taken with it he didn't want to take it...
Click to expand...

Whereas I've found that even a 50mm is too restrictive for general journalistic use and prefer a 35mm f/2 (if forced to use a prime) and 135mm-ish for head-shots, a la McCullin (two bodies, 28mm and 135mm)...
 
To me some of his shots seemed a little oddly framed, peoples heads / legs cropped etc... but he's the famous photog and I'm not :)
 
I can't remember his name but if it helps he took a lot of Vietnam shots including one famous shot of a GI in full kit, gun and all, in a room, sat looking out of a window.

I'll see if I can find it but TBH I'm not hopeful. Soz.
 
You're probably best analysing the difference between "need" and "want" and then deciding.
 
Do I still need 50mm f1.4 when I have 24-70mm f2.8
Click to expand...

I am in the same situation and think if you can afford to have this lens sat around doing nothing most of the time then get it if you need it.

If the money would aid you getting something that will get used more often then dont bother.

If i can find a 80-200 AF-s :help: i am selling my 50 1.4G to buy a x1.7 converter as i will get more use from it.
I am happy with the 24-70 at 50mm and f2.8 obviously shallow depth and extra light will be missed but not something i do often.:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
I'd still keep it for when you want to go lightweight or discreet for subjects such as street shooting. As others have said the main advantages are 1 stop light increase, shallow depth of field, and lightweight/compact lens.
 
Luke it's two stops rather than one.
 
50mm @ 1.4 and 50mm @ 2.8 are very different.

The depth of field and level of background blur are noticeably different - and we're talking even at web sized previews, not when pixel peeping.

Not to mention that having a 50mm/1.4 allows you to do low-light stuff that you couldn't with a 2.8, AND it gives you an option to go small and light when required, and it will probably be a smidge sharper if you ever happen to shoot a landscape at 50mm and want to shave with the resultant image.
 
Well I've put the 50mm on eBay with a semi sensible start price and a silly BIN, if someone out there wants to give me what I'm asking then I'd be daft not to sell it.
Don't need to sell it to buy more kit, need to sell it to pay for what I've already bought!
Going small and light tomorrow, there's no screen on the back of it. :)
 
I often have my 50mm 1.4 on my D700 and would never consider getting rid of it. It is great for indoors, and has beautiful bokeh.

Dave.
 
andephotographic said:
Interesting to note that a lot of the people saying keep it are D700 or at least full frame camera users.
Click to expand...

Personally I find the 50mm is good on FX because the field of view is pretty flexible for a general purpose lens whereas 50mm for me on a crop is a bit long, also on a crop body there's smaller zoom options that aren't there on FX making the 50mm's size more of an advantage.

John
 
Funnily enough, I keep thinking about selling my Tamron 28-75 and my 50mm 1.4 and getting this lens. For most shots the 24-70 would be fine and wonderful - much of my shooting is around f4 or f8-f10 when using lights. But today I used my 50mm in a dark chapel, and loved the look and feel of the images. Shooting at 1.4 really can help in those situations and give some really different looks.

90% of time the 50mm would not be needed for me, but the other 10% of the time it just gives me something special.
 
daugirdas said:
I have a wild guess the prime is still sharper at the same apertures.
Click to expand...


Your wild guess would be wrong - they're pretty much the same for all common f stops.


I use my 50 alot. It just gives me something my 24-70 doesn't
 
Well someone met my silly BIN price so away it goes in the morning.
It has given me a kick to make use of my 35mm equipment with prime std lenses and that plus the money from selling my lens = I'm a happy guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top