AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D compared AF Nikkor 60mm micro f/2.4D to advice please.

Hey Nikonites.. I could do with some advice.

Thinking about a little Christmas present for myself... a Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D lens.

But I'm not entirely sure, money is tight (but my folks are asking me what i want for Christmas and was considering a contribution towards a new lens).. and i own a AF Nikkor 60mm micro f/2.4D

My question is how different are these lenses? I would appreciate the extra f stop but not sure if the difference between these lenses justifies the money. Many seem to swear by a good 50mm.. and i feel like i am missing out!

I'd really appreciate some advice regarding a comparison between these lenses.

Thanks

Watoh said:

Hey Nikonites.. I could do with some advice.

Thinking about a little Christmas present for myself... a Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D lens.

But I'm not entirely sure, money is tight (but my folks are asking me what i want for Christmas and was considering a contribution towards a new lens).. and i own a AF Nikkor 60mm micro f/2.4D

My question is how different are these lenses? I would appreciate the extra f stop but not sure if the difference between these lenses justifies the money. Many seem to swear by a good 50mm.. and i feel like i am missing out!

I'd really appreciate some advice regarding a comparison between these lenses.

Thanks

Click to expand...

60 mm is f/2.8, this 50 mm is f/1.4 (which is two stops difference)
60 mm is telephoto on DX, 50mm is slightly less telephoto.
60 mm can focus to a couple of inches for 1:1 magnification. 50mm cannot get that close.

Do you have a FX camera? 50 mm was considered the "normal" lens on 35mm film cameras (FX). Normal width of view (on FX), deemed important because its view sort of matched the view the human eye thinks it sees there (on FX). On DX, it is a telephoto view.

50mm is mild telephoto on a DX camera. Indoors, imagine you wanted a picture of four people on a couch. Being telephoto, your room size may not permit you to back away far enough to get all four in the picture view. Try this with your zoom lens set to 50mm, to see the effect. Often, dim views are indoor views (limited space).

Anyway, 50mm is deemed important for a couple of reasons.
It was a normal lens on FX, however it is telephoto on DX. "Normal" was a concept in the old days, before zoom lenses. It was the one you needed most. Zoom lenses cover many more situations.
One version is f/1.8, which zoom lenses are not.
And the f/1.8 was about the least expensive lens, for a long time not much more than $100 US.
The f/1.4 is much more pricey, and is only 2/3 stop wider.
The depth of field will be very small at such apertures.
But the f/1.8 is a very sharp lens at more nominal f/stops. It just cannot zoom for other situations.

The 35mm f/1.8 lens would be considered more of a "normal" lens for DX.

Yes. FX D600.. Taking this all in..

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk

I've known many to be disappointed at f/1.4, being too soft. But it is a great light gatherer.

Rent the lens and see what you think.

I've owned this lens for almost a decade and it's awesome. Shooting wide open and at ISO 6400 on the D600, you can almost shoot in the dark! For the price of renting it, you can buy it, use it for a year and sell it for $50 less than what you paid for it (or maybe the same as what you paid). Check out the flickr group - Flickr: The Nikon AF 50mm F/1.4D Pool
​

Cheers lads,

Renting doesn't seem to be an option for me from a quick search.

I can't say I'm sure regards buying a 50mm f/1.4D when I already have a 60mm f/2.8D..... I love my 60mm... I'll do some more rooting about.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

If you do low light photography the 50 would help, if not the 60 I feel would be a good multi purpose lens...Macro, Portrait and landscape...

WayneF said:

And the f/1.8 was about the least expensive lens, for a long time not much more than $100 US.

Click to expand...

Wow.. Yes the 1.8 is damn cheap.. More like £100 here, hmmmm but tempting. Thanks for the heads up.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Get the 50mm 1.8g...($220) Great lens...Sharper then the 35mm...
This was taken with the 50mm 1.8g on my D7100(75mm focal length)
Click on pic to see sharpness

I have the 1.4 and it is sort of soft. I have visions of getting the 1.8 with the money if I sell it to be frank. Its a beautiful, dreamy lens for portraiture at 1.4 however, and the bokeh is better than the 1.8 because of its softness. I'm still on the fence, but I think it boils down to two questions. 1, how sharp do you *really* need a lens to be, and 2, do you need that extra 2/3 stop to get the job done.

imho, a 60 doesn't give you enough distance for a macro. Sell the 60, get a 105 (or 100 knockoff) and buy the 50 1.4 or 1.8. Nobody has a 60 as their nifty 50.

Nah, not gonna sell the 60mm, too fond of it

Reading some reviews I'm thinking of the 50mm f/1.8 G, seems to be quicker and cheaper, and paired with the D600 would be great for low light.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I have the 60mm D and the 105mm VR. I do more tabletop than macro, and if one of them had to go, it would be the 105. I almost have to stand in the next room with the 105, but it is nice for 1:1 macro.

Watoh said:

Reading some reviews I'm thinking of the 50mm f/1.8 G, seems to be quicker and cheaper, and paired with the D600 would be great for low light.

Click to expand...

The f/1.8 lens was very important in the old film days, when ISO 400 was rather high (esp in regard to color).

But today, ISO 3200 is possible, giving 3 more stops in itself, suffering maybe, but not from depth of field.

I have both, I use the 60mm for travel if I don't want to bring a larger heavier macro. I use the 50mm f1.4 a lot. I do a lot of night, street photography, although not as much as my 35mm f1.4. Both lenses you consider are great lenses. Would you use a low light lens more, are one that doubles as macro? JD

If you want to shoot in low light (and get the best sharpness at f2.0), get the manual focus 50mm f1.2. It is a gem of a lens and has beautiful bokeh.

singlerosa said:

imho, a 60 doesn't give you enough distance for a macro.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but can you explain what you mean here?

How much distance is all relative to what you are going to be shooting. So what kind of macro shots are you referencing? If you are talking about taking pictures of bugs and outdoor wildlife, then I would have to agree that you would need to get fairly close. If you are referencing table top macro, then a 60mm would be more than enough.

Well i got the 50mm 1.8G... the main differences i have immediatly noticed are, on the positive is how amazingly light the 50mm is, it must be a tenth of the weight of the 60mm Micro, it works well be feels so cheap and light! I'm very much enjoying it, however the one thing i dislike about it is it's minimum focus distance. I often find myself trying to take photos of subjects that are too close to focus on, which is annoying, but something to get used to.

eurotrash said:

I have the 1.4 and it is sort of soft. I have visions of getting the 1.8 with the money if I sell it to be frank. Its a beautiful, dreamy lens for portraiture at 1.4 however, and the bokeh is better than the 1.8 because of its softness. I'm still on the fence, but I think it boils down to two questions. 1, how sharp do you *really* need a lens to be, and 2, do you need that extra 2/3 stop to get the job done.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I asked around if anything could replace the 50mm but still with f/1.4, but nothing really gotten my attention yet. Although, I must admit, some of my best portraits are done with the 50mm.

Watoh said:

Well i got the 50mm 1.8G... the main differences i have immediatly noticed are, on the positive is how amazingly light the 50mm is, it must be a tenth of the weight of the 60mm Micro, it works well be feels so cheap and light! I'm very much enjoying it, however the one thing i dislike about it is it's minimum focus distance. I often find myself trying to take photos of subjects that are too close to focus on, which is annoying, but something to get used to.

Click to expand...

Yeah if you wanna fill your picture, you have to crop a bit. Maybe you just needs to get used to it. Glad to hear you like it though