My sharpness quest, f1.8 or f.14
Discussion
So after some continued disappointing results at assorted focal lengths on my 18-70mm lens, I've started a hunt for a prime which will (I hope) be much sharper.
The 50mm f1.8D seems to be a very cheap lens and nice and fast - and at less than half the price of the 50mm f1.4D seems to be a bargain. Anybody got either of these lenses and care to comment on performance.
How about the impact of the 1.5x factor? This makes it effecively 75mm, is this not wide enough?
Trouble is going any wider such as 35mm increases the cost dramatically.
:scratchchin:
I dunno what to do. I think I just need a lens fix, and the 50mm f1.8 seems to be the one that will give me maximum satisfaction for minimum outlay!!
The 50mm f1.8D seems to be a very cheap lens and nice and fast - and at less than half the price of the 50mm f1.4D seems to be a bargain. Anybody got either of these lenses and care to comment on performance.
How about the impact of the 1.5x factor? This makes it effecively 75mm, is this not wide enough?
Trouble is going any wider such as 35mm increases the cost dramatically.
:scratchchin:
I dunno what to do. I think I just need a lens fix, and the 50mm f1.8 seems to be the one that will give me maximum satisfaction for minimum outlay!!
Don't know if you are talking about Canon or Nikon lenses but there is a good comparison of the Canon ones here:
www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
I have the Canon 50mm f1.8 MkI and it is a fantastic lens for the money.
www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
I have the Canon 50mm f1.8 MkI and it is a fantastic lens for the money.
I have the 50mm f1.8. Although bought in 1999, it's not marked as a D.
By all accounts it's a very good lens. I keep mine not for the length (my 18-70 seems fine to me) but for those times when I need a fast lens.
However the x1.5 makes a big difference - it's now a short telephoto and you'll have to step back more than you think. I suppose it would also have a place as a fast-ish 100mm lens with 2x T/C.
By all accounts it's a very good lens. I keep mine not for the length (my 18-70 seems fine to me) but for those times when I need a fast lens.
However the x1.5 makes a big difference - it's now a short telephoto and you'll have to step back more than you think. I suppose it would also have a place as a fast-ish 100mm lens with 2x T/C.
I've played with both.
If the price difference is insignificant, go for the 1.4. It is built better, opens wider and has better bokeh. Only downside is that it doesn't stop down as much as the 1.4 (I think f/16 vs f/22??).
However the 1.8 is an absolutely stunning lens for the money and is tack sharp. Reports differ on the net as to which of the two is sharper - I think it's academic and the bottom line is that they're both very very sharp. If you're set on either lens eBay is a good place to start.
I personally don't find myself using the primes very often simply because they are a lot more inconvienient unless you have plenty of room to physically move or if the focal length just happens to fit the composition perfectly. I only have one remaining prime, a Sigma 2.8 50mm macro, which I'm keeping just to have a macro lens in the bag. The only other prime I would get would be an ultra-wide and ultra-fast one, but I cannot justify paying so much money for one of those.
Ben if you want I can lend you the Sigma for a couple of weeks so you can see how you get on with a fixed 50mm length. Would be absolutely no trouble, because like me you may find that you don't get on with primes too well. I'd take a fast zoom any day.
If the price difference is insignificant, go for the 1.4. It is built better, opens wider and has better bokeh. Only downside is that it doesn't stop down as much as the 1.4 (I think f/16 vs f/22??).
However the 1.8 is an absolutely stunning lens for the money and is tack sharp. Reports differ on the net as to which of the two is sharper - I think it's academic and the bottom line is that they're both very very sharp. If you're set on either lens eBay is a good place to start.
I personally don't find myself using the primes very often simply because they are a lot more inconvienient unless you have plenty of room to physically move or if the focal length just happens to fit the composition perfectly. I only have one remaining prime, a Sigma 2.8 50mm macro, which I'm keeping just to have a macro lens in the bag. The only other prime I would get would be an ultra-wide and ultra-fast one, but I cannot justify paying so much money for one of those.
Ben if you want I can lend you the Sigma for a couple of weeks so you can see how you get on with a fixed 50mm length. Would be absolutely no trouble, because like me you may find that you don't get on with primes too well. I'd take a fast zoom any day.
And to add f/1.4 at many times is absolutely insane and nigh-on unusable when shooting close subjects. Depth-of-field is virtually 2D - which is great for physics demonstrations but in the majority of cases crap for photo taking. So in terms of day-to-day practicality you won't be losing out much with the 1.8 if DOF is a major concern.
i had the non-D 50mm f/1.8 nikkor which i got for 60 pounds (pound sign not working on keyboard!?) off ebay. when i moved to canon i splashed out and got the f/1.4. Even in the darkest places, I hardly ever use 1.4, it really is a bit on the illy side, but it is nice to know you have it if the need arises. Even on the f/1.8 i didn't normally go below f/2. by most accounts the 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 as well. i always recommend people now to go with the cheaper one, the 1.8.
28mm F1.4 
OK so I'll stop dreaming, for a moment. How about a 35mm F2?
Or isn't there a new Sigma out - 30mm F1.8 or something - getting good reviews.
As for a 50mm F1.8, if I didn't already have a 45mm, I'd definitely go for it unless you really need the extra photon-gathering. The added cost is barely justifiable and the build quality difference is only going to really notice under warzone conditions....
But is 50mm what you want? On a D-series, the short telephoto of 85mm makes for a great all rounder including portraits, also comes in 1.8 and 1.4 flavours, although again the big jump in price!
For low light and generalsnapperypointyshooty I have an 85mm F1.8. Focus is acceptably quick most of the time. Use it primarily in the 1.8-4 range. Rarely go further down the aperture range until it's on an extension tube and it really calls for the extra DoF. Particularly like the limited DoF in normal use, as in this at F4, lovely bokeh...
Or close up use...(plus PK13)...which I think was down at F5.6
OK so I'll stop dreaming, for a moment. How about a 35mm F2?
Or isn't there a new Sigma out - 30mm F1.8 or something - getting good reviews.
As for a 50mm F1.8, if I didn't already have a 45mm, I'd definitely go for it unless you really need the extra photon-gathering. The added cost is barely justifiable and the build quality difference is only going to really notice under warzone conditions....
But is 50mm what you want? On a D-series, the short telephoto of 85mm makes for a great all rounder including portraits, also comes in 1.8 and 1.4 flavours, although again the big jump in price!
For low light and generalsnapperypointyshooty I have an 85mm F1.8. Focus is acceptably quick most of the time. Use it primarily in the 1.8-4 range. Rarely go further down the aperture range until it's on an extension tube and it really calls for the extra DoF. Particularly like the limited DoF in normal use, as in this at F4, lovely bokeh...
Or close up use...(plus PK13)...which I think was down at F5.6
I have the 1.4
(as mentioned - stops down to only f16)
Stunning quality, razor sharp, built like an Audi (drives like a 911), but DOF is an issue. I use it for medium close and Infrared.
I've heard the 1.8 is a fine lens, so unless you have cash to burn...
But I just wonder how often you'll use either...?
...it's the prime lens thing again - I doubt anybody that views/buys my stuff ever could tell if it was taken with a prime (but then I'm not in the centre page Sunday suppliment clud).
Steve
edited to add... URGG.. grey squirrel!
>> Edited by GetCarter on Friday 8th July 14:46
(as mentioned - stops down to only f16)
Stunning quality, razor sharp, built like an Audi (drives like a 911), but DOF is an issue. I use it for medium close and Infrared.
I've heard the 1.8 is a fine lens, so unless you have cash to burn...
But I just wonder how often you'll use either...?
...it's the prime lens thing again - I doubt anybody that views/buys my stuff ever could tell if it was taken with a prime (but then I'm not in the centre page Sunday suppliment clud).
Steve
edited to add... URGG.. grey squirrel!
>> Edited by GetCarter on Friday 8th July 14:46
Basically I've had a couple of occasions where I'm shooting stuff for high(ish) quality printing. In both cases, despite using a tripod and being very careful, I've not got the desired sharpness.
As such I wanted a lens I could rely on at (say) f7 to give me sharpness every time, and avoid the apparent vagaries of my 18-70. When it comes down to it I guess I have no faith in 18-70 to get me the shot I need - and it's at these times another lens would go on - it's here the 50mm 1.8D fits the bill.
I don't want it as a walkabout lens, just for the above and for low light stuff. Is it worth the money based on that? I guess only I can answer that, and I might get it wrong.
As such I wanted a lens I could rely on at (say) f7 to give me sharpness every time, and avoid the apparent vagaries of my 18-70. When it comes down to it I guess I have no faith in 18-70 to get me the shot I need - and it's at these times another lens would go on - it's here the 50mm 1.8D fits the bill.
I don't want it as a walkabout lens, just for the above and for low light stuff. Is it worth the money based on that? I guess only I can answer that, and I might get it wrong.
_dobbo_ said:My sentiments exactly.
When it comes down to it I guess I have no faith in 18-70 to get me the shot I need.
Trouble is the focal range is just perfect, physical size and build is spot-on, focusing speed is sensational and when it gets it right it gets it SO right.
But it doesn't always get it right.
>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Friday 8th July 15:12
-DeaDLocK- said:
When it comes down to it I guess I have no faith in 18-70 to get me the shot I need.
My sentiments exactly.
Trouble is the focal range is just perfect, physical size and build is spot-on, focusing speed is sensational and when it gets it right it gets it SO right.
But it doesn't always get it right.
It's such a fantastic lens in other respects that I have no plans to replace it - there are only certain very specific times that I can think of when I would want a gaurantee of sharpness.
As simpo says, not sure why I'm farting around, I'll just go and buy it!
I'd go for a 50mm 1.8. It'd be a good all round lens and probably very good for portraits with the multiplication factor. It'd work well with a 1.4x or a 2x convertor if you wanted a greater focal length, or extension tubes for macro stuff.
I've hung a 1.8 and a 1.4 off the front of my EOS's for macro photography and couldn't really tell much difference between the two as far as brightness was concerned. As for image quality, well I think we might be splitting hairs, you'd really have to blow the images up enormously to see any difference.
I've hung a 1.8 and a 1.4 off the front of my EOS's for macro photography and couldn't really tell much difference between the two as far as brightness was concerned. As for image quality, well I think we might be splitting hairs, you'd really have to blow the images up enormously to see any difference.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff