Nikon 50mm

[Willy wombat]

50mm F1.8
or
50mm F1.4 (twice the price).

Given that both are in my price range which one should i get. Is the extra stop on the 1.4 the only difference between the two or are there quality issues. Has anyone used both?

Interested in your thoughts


Cheers
WW

[JerseyJay]

Steve,

I have 1.8 so I can't fully comment on differences but I don't see the need for 1.4 b/c of the price. I would rather put the difference toward something else ex. flash. Honestly, I haven't heard about that many 1.4 owners.

Here are some reviews
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/Nikon/PRD_83512_3111crx.aspx

[Obliviou$]

Listen to Jay, buy a flash.

[Willy wombat]

Listen to Jay, buy a flash.

Alex - the flash is on my MUST BUY list. I am looking forward to taking some fish shots when i get it. I wont tell anyone and I will suprise you all with some "no harsh flash" shots. :badgrin: I will have a few dollars left after buying the flash with my tax cheque, and I want to pick up a lense aswell.

Here is my wishlist (in order of affordability)

Nikon 50/1.4

Nikkor AF-D 105mm/2.8 Micro

Nikkor 70-180 Micro

Nikon 80-400VR

I am also thinking Nikon 50 F1.8 plus a 90mm tamron micro might a be cool (and cheaper) combination. I am still learning afterall. I need to cut my teeth on something.

[Willy wombat]

Steve,

I have 1.8 so I can't fully comment on differences but I don't see the need for 1.4 b/c of the price. I would rather put the difference toward something else ex. flash. Honestly, I haven't heard about that many 1.4 owners.

Here are some reviews
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/Nikon/PRD_83512_3111crx.aspx

Thanks Jay - Have read through the reviews (some of them anyway) and they seem a little bit mixed. So are you happy with the 1.8 then? Price wise it is very attractive.

[Schnauzer]

WW ,
I know nothing can come close to the Canon 50--1.8 for fish shots for the money . It is my understanding that the Nikon is the same . I think you would be very happy with the 1.8 .
When you get your flash you just won't believe how much easier it becomes to get fish pictures . I remember when Bobby , Rich , myself and Alex got ours it was like the difference between daylight and dark .

[phishphorphun]

Back in January, right after getting my D70, I posed the question of which should I get first. Macro lens or SB800? Well the advice from Ed, voiced in his retrospect, he would have gotten the speedflash before the macro 100mm lens. I heeded his advice, particuialarly after seeing other results here. My first purchase was the Nikkor 50mm 1.8d, which was the best investment I've made so far in this hobby. And after getting the SB800 speedflash, it only trumped the decision on getting 50mm 1.8d. That is a great and economical combo with your D70 for fish pix. For $400, less than any macro lens, I have no regrets.

With that said. My next purchase is going to be either the Tamron 90mm or Nikon 60mm macro lens. Not neccessarily for the fish shots, but for general closeup use.

A last thought about the 50mm 1.8d. It's so cheap that you'll never regret the purchase. It's not like going out and spending $450 for a Tamron 90mm and realizing you would rather have the $640 Nikon 105mm. It's a no brainer.

Buy the SB800 and the 50mm 1.8d. Please :exclaim: :-O

[hir0]

i've heard good things about the 1.4 - of course people are gonna be biased towards the 1.8 since about 99% of nikon users owns one. it's not much of a jump in terms of speed, but it's supposed to be built a little better. i own the 1.8 - i dunno, maybe if i used it more than once every 4 months or so i'd consider upgrading to the 1.4.

[Ibn]

I've heard great things about the 1.4 version of this lens and have the 1.8 version. As for difference between the two, there is a slight difference in the bokeh and you really pay a premium for it. I don't think it's worth the price however and if I was to take a look at a 1.4 lens, I would take a look at the 85mm instead of the 50mm.

I would go for the flash before I pick up the 50mm f/1.8 and see how that works with your current lens lineup first. I actually don't use my 50mm as much as my other lenses. I, however, use the flash more often than the 50mm. It sits in the bag and I've probably taken less than 100 pictures with it ever since picking it up, but that's about to change since I plan on using it indoors.

[alanhill]

Frankly I wouldn't buy either, unless I was going to do lots of low-light work (such as theatrical photography). I would save up and get the 60mm macro - it's only f/2.8 (which is why is not's so useful in low-light situations) but a macro lens is so much more versatile and it's a good focal length for aquarium work.
I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and order one soon. I look on it as a long term purchase, which will be part of my kit as long as I use Nikon cameras. Street price here is £370 now, but I look at it as just over £20 a year if I use it for 15 years :-)

Alan

[Bjarne]

I agree with you Alan. I've got a 50mm 1.4 and I don't use it for aquarium photography at all. It's a lense I got 15 years ago for outdoor use, specially for night-photography (nothern lights). If I in need of a "normal" lense I have the 18-70mm that is great and very sharp for a zoomlense. Save up for the 60mm! I love it :)

[phishphorphun]

After reading the suggestions for the 60mm, I would agree if you can wait and save up for it, do so. I know if I already had the 60mm macro lens, I would not be so vehiment (spelling?) about the 50mm 1.8d. But since I don't, I still think the cheap lens is the way to go for low light situations.

However, I still suggest getting the SB800 first. Then you will not necessarilly need the low light lens for aquatic photography.