The Faster 50mm

I've just been browsing AI-S lenses for my FE2 - and I just ordered a f/1.4 in mint condition - and the 1.2 comes up a lot, as well as the 1.8. I figured the 1.4 was a good compromise between cost and quality. I'm sure the 1.2 is a better lens, but I don't want to spend $500 right now.

Could someone explain the differences between the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 lenses? I know it's all about light, but how much better is the 1.2 than the 1.4? And why will I be so happy I spent $200 instead of $60?

I know. You get what you pay for. I'm quite surprised by the price of the 58mm. What's up with that???

I think my next lens will be a 28mm f/2. And I need to choose my first zoom.

Lunatic said:

I've just been browsing AI-S lenses for my FE2 - and I just ordered a f/1.4 in mint condition - and the 1.2 comes up a lot, as well as the 1.8. I figured the 1.4 was a good compromise between cost and quality. I'm sure the 1.2 is a better lens, but I don't want to spend $500 right now.

Could someone explain the differences between the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 lenses? I know it's all about light, but how much better is the 1.2 than the 1.4? And why will I be so happy I spent $200 instead of $60?

I know. You get what you pay for. I'm quite surprised by the price of the 58mm. What's up with that???

I think my next lens will be a 28mm f/2. And I need to choose my first zoom.

Click to expand...

An aperture of 1.4 is double the light of 2.0 is double the light of 2.8. It makes quite the difference during low light shooting. It also allows you to shoot with a very shallow DoF.

Faster lenses also focus faster, but for some reason that is unclear to me, that only works up to f/2.8.

So it's obvious that a faster lens has advantages over slower ones. Do slower lenses have any advantages over faster ones, such as better macro, eg. (other than cheaper price)? If you have a faster lens, would you also want a slower lens of the same FL in your kit?

Lunatic said:

Do slower lenses have any advantages over faster ones, such as better macro, eg. (other than cheaper price)?

Click to expand...

Besides price I wouldn't know if there are any advantages. The main difference is only the widest aperture and quality which is in most cases (but not all) higher in the widest lenses.

The slower lenses are a compromise to either get less weight/size or to sell them cheaper. Not everyone is willing to sell their grandmother to afford some lenses.

It makes more difference for the long lenses you shoot wildlife or birding. Then it is all about focus speed and low light performance.

J-see said:

Besides price I wouldn't know if there are any advantages. The main difference is only the widest aperture and quality which is in most cases (but not all) higher in the widest lenses.

The slower lenses are a compromise to either get less weight/size or to sell them cheaper. Not everyone is willing to sell their grandmother to afford some lenses.

It makes more difference for the long lenses you shoot wildlife or birding. Then it is all about focus speed and low light performance.

Click to expand...

So buying a f/1.4 is just a matter of wanting a 50mm now, but not wanting to spend $500, but also not being willing to compromise just to get one at the cheapest possible price, eg., $60 instead of $200.

Lunatic said:

So buying a f/1.4 is just a matter of wanting a 50mm now, but not wanting to spend $500, but also not being willing to compromise just to get one at the cheapest possible price, eg., $60 instead of $200.

Click to expand...

You have to answer the question "Will I use it?" to yourself.

For a 50mm focus speed isn't very important in most cases and then it is only about low light or heavy use of shallow DoF. If you 90% of the time not need f/1.4, you could wonder if you'd not better invest that extra money in something else.

I have a 50mm f/1.8 and that's good enough for what I need. For you it might be different. I first look at sharpness when it comes to lenses and only consider aperture if that will be a constant factor when shooting those lenses.

But again, none can answer if a lens is the right choice but you yourself.

J-see said:

You have to answer the question "Will I use it?" to yourself.

For a 50mm focus speed isn't very important in most cases and then it is only about low light or heavy use of shallow DoF. If you 90% of the time not need f/1.4, you could wonder if you'd not better invest that extra money in something else.

I have a 50mm f/1.8 and that's good enough for what I need. For you it might be different. I first look at sharpness when it comes to lenses and only consider aperture if that will be a constant factor when shooting those lenses.

But again, none can answer if a lens is the right choice but you yourself.

Click to expand...

Okay. I think the lack of DoF in the photo I posted of James is cool, but I would also like to shoot a similar portrait with infinite DoF. I also want to frequently be able to shoot a full body portrait indoors without a flash. The less light I can work with and still get a great shot indoors, the better, so that is a priority I would be willing to spend $500 on. But doing so would mean waiting longer to get my first lens, and I want to start using my FE2 now. I can't wait a month or two to start using it. If spending $60+shipping were the only way I could start using it now, I would have done so.

Lunatic said:

I'm sure the 1.2 is a better lens, but I don't want to spend $500 right now.

Could someone explain the differences between the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 lenses? I know it's all about light, but how much better is the 1.2 than the 1.4? And why will I be so happy I spent $200 instead of $60?

Click to expand...

Firstly, ~300 if you ebay like a sniper. Differences are simple as well - 1.2 is magic and 1/2 sheet of paper focusing plane; 1.4 and onwards is 2-sheets of paper focusing plane without the magic. In all honesty, besides being tack-sharp around f/2, 1.2 is all about the extremely creamy bokeh it offers. Specialty lens given modern ISO capabilities.

In my current arsenal, it's my BEST sub-70mm lens and thus it surprisingly gets quite a bit of use, but for more standard applications. Lack of AF is a sad song, but to me the bling factor of it is worth it since I generally don't shoot fast-moving subjects with primes.

Lunatic said:

I've just been browsing AI-S lenses for my FE2 - and I just ordered a f/1.4 in mint condition - and the 1.2 comes up a lot, as well as the 1.8. I figured the 1.4 was a good compromise between cost and quality. I'm sure the 1.2 is a better lens, but I don't want to spend $500 right now.

Could someone explain the differences between the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 lenses? I know it's all about light, but how much better is the 1.2 than the 1.4? And why will I be so happy I spent $200 instead of $60?.

Click to expand...

People who have higher interest with the f1.2 lenses have already done their home work and knows exactly that they want one. Primes are specialty lenses and have their own lens character such as the bokeh of a 9 or 7 bladed diaphragm. Owners of the f1.4 and f1.2 lenses are willing to pay the extra price tag (for the most part) because they are optically somewhat superior and don't mind paying the extra price tag.

It sounds to me that the 50mm f1.8D will be the one for you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Nikon F1.2 is an excellent 50mm. As per reviews it is one of the sharpest Nikons 50mm F2 onwards. Then you get the excellent OOF at F1.2. Here are the must read reviews of the lens

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-50mm-f1-2-ai-s
https://luminous-landscape.com/nikons-jewel/
Nikon 50mm f 1.2 AI-S Review – Taken on a D800 and F100 » Che Birch-Hayes Photography

Now if you do not want that OOF look, and like every thing tack sharp and shoot at F6 or more, then the 50mm F1.8 is a much cheaper option.

I've already purchased the 1.4, so I'm just waiting for it to arrive from Japan. I want to concentrate a lot on wide angle photography (always rectilinear), but I would consider 'normal' an important part of that interest (I was going to say focus).

I don't know all the terms for types of photography, but one that I really like, and want to do a lot of is where there is a foreground subject and a background, and the main subject is in between those, and is the only thing in focus. An example would be a crowd of people, where one in the middle is in focus and all others are not.

I doubt that I will buy a 1.8 to add to my 1.4, unless the 1.8 is good for applications a 1.4 can't do.

One lens I really, really want is an 18mm AI-S. It comes to around $750cdn, with shipping from Japan. The listing just ended on eBay, but the seller is waiting for me to say if I am going to buy it or not. I guess I should read some reviews before I decide. I know I won't get the peripheral sharpness and quality (lack of distortion) of the Holy Grail, but that's an unreasonable standard. Maybe my daughter will one day enjoy the quality of the 13mm in a wide angle lens.... when I'm 80 and can no longer use an SLR.

Lunatic said:

I doubt that I will buy a 1.8 to add to my 1.4, unless the 1.8 is good for applications a 1.4 can't do.

Click to expand...

A 1.4 is a 1.8 too.

j-see said:

a 1.4 is a 1.8 too.

Click to expand...

*head explodes*
....

J-see said:

A 1.4 is a 1.8 too.

Click to expand...

I assumed that all faster lenses include the properties of the slower lenses, but there's always one photographer who says "I prefer this lens because I can do that with it." One of the reasons for my OP was to ask "is lower cost the only advantage of a slower lens?"

As far as I know a fast lens can do everything a slow lens does... and more but the opposite is not true. That doesn't imply the only difference between two 50mm will be the aperture since they can both differ at about every level just as much as two 1.4 lenses can differ. And they'll behave different too depending upon which cam used.

But personally I see no reason to buy a 1.8 if I already have a 1.4. Maybe a specific lens can have other qualities someone prefers for certain shots. That I would not know. But I doubt they buy it because it performs just a bit less during low light.

I love my 50mm f/1.4.. The 1.8 was about half as much, but a $300 vs $500 full-frame "up buy" is something I'd do any day for the two extra stops. It gets harder to justify (for me) when you start looking at a $500, $1500, $5000 difference.

I imagine I'd really love the 1.2 but I'd miss the auto-focus. I'm lazy that way... Unless money is really tight, you won't be upset withe the 1.4. As others have mentioned, every lens has its own characteristics, but the optical quality of a 1.4 is likely going to be better than a 1.8 if they're from the same manufacturer.

Also note that the aperture marking (f/1.4) is the most open aperture the lens will support. You can always stop down from an an f/1.4 (like, to f/1.8) but you can't stop an f/1.8 up to f/1.4

Perhaps the 20/2.8D would be something to consider next. It's not super wide, but wide enough with AF and fraction of a cost of any wide zooms or even wider primes. I'm still debating that one myself, despite the fact that a zoom would do much better for me.

I've been looking at a 35mm f/2, a 28mm f/2, a 24mm f/2, a 20mm f/2.8, and an 18mm f/3.5 on eBay the last couple of weeks. I'm surprised at the amount of lenses available for my FE2 in near mint condition. I've only seen 3 or 4 in bad condition. Even in this digital age, it is quite easy for a newbie to get into film photography and learn as if we were still in 1985. A worker at the local Black's recently told me they were getting the equipment for color development soon. For the last 10 or 15 years, film had to go to Toronto, but development will get easier for us around here this year.

As soon as my 50mm arrives I'll be back in the game.