Nikkor 50mm f1.8d vs f1.8g is there really a difference?
- Thread starter jayradio
- Start date
How does the D handle when compared to the G concerning DOF? Is there a difference?
The depth of field being the distance of an object that is in focus in a picture depends on the distance of the subject to the lens, the focal length of the lens used and, the aperture used. With this definition, I would say that the depth of field is the same distance with the D or the G. What is different is how the out of focus in front and back of the "in focus" object/person is rendered. This is what we call "BOKEH". From what I've read and seen from test, the bokeh seems to be nicer with the new G lenses. How better and is is worth it is another story all together and depends on personal taste as well. But, yes Jeff, some lenses are better then others. But it's difficult to quantify better. So let's say they have different rendering of out of focus subjects.
Not to digress from the subject at hand but it seems as if like everything I have been reading about all of the G lenses eg. the 85/1.4g and 85/1.8g the 35/1.8g and now the 50/1.8g seem to focus a little closer and have more pleasing bokeh than their counterparts...what is very interesting to me is the fact that Nikon is FINALLY leaving behind the old MF film cameras after all of this time with the g series...what a run!
This is so much help. I don't mind standing a little further back to get what I need/want. Now my other main concern is the lack of aperture ring on the g. Is this a major factor or not? I am barely getting into photography and slowly building my collection and intellect on the field. The bokeh effect is a major concern. I really enjoy such shots and would like to have a lens that I can produce such shots with.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is my personal opinion on this. Both the Ds and G lenses are good and the results with them are subtly different.
Since I own the 50 and 85 Ds, I don't find I'd get enough benefits to replace them with the Gs. But, if I was to buy my first ones, I'd surely get the Gs since they would probably hold their value more and would focus with all newer Nikon cameras from the 3100 up. Don't forget that the Ds auto focus functions don't work with some.
Since I own the 50 and 85 Ds, I don't find I'd get enough benefits to replace them with the Gs. But, if I was to buy my first ones, I'd surely get the Gs since they would probably hold their value more and would focus with all newer Nikon cameras from the 3100 up. Don't forget that the Ds auto focus functions don't work with some.
Just get both…
It all depends on what are your subjects preferences. If you want to do portrait a little tighter, the 50, if you want to do people waist up portraits or groups then 35. The 1.8 should be just fine since I don't see the point of getting the 1.4s unless you want to use it professionally.
Jeff, I've got two pictures here, stripped of their exif infos. Both share the same iso (500), both at 1/50 f5.6. One was done with an FX and a 28-80 3.3-5.6G and the other 50 1.8 D on DX. They were done from the same distance (nothing scientific here, not measured in mm…
)Do you see that much difference between them? I'll post the info as to which is which later.
Couldn't I just stand back with the 50 and take waste up portraits? My main purpose would be the Bokeh effect, portraits, and landscape. I wish I could get both. I thought of it.
If it's the BOKEH you're after, the 50 will give you more. So maybe start with that one.
But I'm pretty sure you'll end up with both one of these days. Believe me.
The 50 mm g, correct? I am slowly adding to my collection. I buy something new every month or so to add to my equipment. Last month was my speed flash 700) I don't want to over do it either so I do my research, ask questions and think hard about it. As I learn more about photography and what I actually want to capture, I figure out my next purchase. Every one here is so much help. Thank you.
Yes there is a difference in them that would be way more apparent if you were shooting a face! Just look at the pictures on the wall...they are very different upon closer inspection! Look at the glass walls or whatever...top picture they are much wider than in the lower picture...huge differences sir!
Top pic is I am gonna guess is the 50 on DX...bottom pic is the 28mm zoom shot FX...
Soon I am going to do the same test on a face!
Top pic is I am gonna guess is the 50 on DX...bottom pic is the 28mm zoom shot FX...
Soon I am going to do the same test on a face!
![Untitled-1[1].jpg](https://nikonites.com/forum/data/attachments/7/7639-6d1252b872058e6024d71105e6eae551.jpg "Untitled-1[1].jpg")
![Untitled-2[1].jpg](https://nikonites.com/forum/data/attachments/7/7640-91dd6cdefe4527046705da2d6427eae7.jpg "Untitled-2[1].jpg")
Jeff, I've got two pictures here, stripped of their exif infos. Both share the same iso (500), both at 1/50 f5.6. One was done with an FX and a 28-80 3.3-5.6G and the other 50 1.8 D on DX. They were done from the same distance (nothing scientific here, not measured in mm…
Do you see that much difference between them? I'll post the info as to which is which later.
#1 is allot sharper!
bluenoser
Banned
x2 - if #1 is not the 50 1.8 (shot at f/5.6 at that!) then I'll be a monkey's uncle (or at least a distant cousin).
Ok, time for truth.
Shot #1 was done with the 50 1.8 @5.6 and #2 with the 28-80 @75mm. I did the shot hand held and the 28-80 is a lens that I paid only 50$ and it was at it's larger aperture. So the sharpness part does not surprise me. But, besides sharpness and distortion, I just wanted to show that a 75mm lens on Fx renders a scene "almost" the same as a 50 on DX.
I might redo the experience with better lenses, a tripod and a face shot.
Shot #1 was done with the 50 1.8 @5.6 and #2 with the 28-80 @75mm. I did the shot hand held and the 28-80 is a lens that I paid only 50$ and it was at it's larger aperture. So the sharpness part does not surprise me. But, besides sharpness and distortion, I just wanted to show that a 75mm lens on Fx renders a scene "almost" the same as a 50 on DX.
I might redo the experience with better lenses, a tripod and a face shot.