50mm f/1.8 vs f/1.4

That's interesting. A friend of mine and I have been talking over this topic for some time. He has both a 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, and he swears he gets better picts with the 1.8. He can't put a finger on it - just that to him, it looks better.

I've been oogling the f/1.2 for some time, knowing that I sometimes have to work in very dark situations where a flash is not an option. Even at f/2.8 I need more light. I would think that the bigger glass would give me better images but my friend states this isn't true. The article may explain why.
 
Tom, wait. ; Nikon is supposedly working on an AF-S 50/1.2. ; Granted it will be $2k+, but you can always rent it first!
 
"ddindy" said:
I once heard that there is a limit on how fast Nikon can make a lens, due to the diameter of the mount. ; I think that means we'll never see anything faster than f/1.2. ; :(

An Roger, here are the test results for the current 50mm 1.4G lens: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Len ... 0mm-f-1.4G
Click to expand...

Thanks Dennis. ; Well, even Canon didn't update their 50/1.0! ; There is a reason for it, other than I think it uses leaded glass or actual fluorite, and as such the costs of manufacturing would result in them not being able to recoup the development costs....
 
"Roger" said:
Tom, wait. ; Nikon is supposedly working on an AF-S 50/1.2. ; Granted it will be $2k+, but you can always rent it first!
Click to expand...
But then again, with ISO numbers pushing 12k on the D3 bodies and even higher ones just around the corner, should I take that extra $1.8k that is the difference between the f/1.8 and f/1.2 and upgrade my next body up to a camera that can handle these high isos and make ALL my lenses faster? Then again, the DOF isn't that tight, but if a cheaper lens can deliver the color and sharpness with no distortion then you really have to ask why even spend that much?

It's a different world we're living in to even think about this. (It's been only a dream, now the dreams are coming true...)
 
I recently heard on a podcast (TWIP?) that the paradigm has shifted: ; Lenses are now a long-term investment and bodies are the disposable item, replaced every few years.

For a pro, maybe!
 
It kind of depends on how you treat your equipment...

Nikon has gotten the point and is re-releasing a lot of their lenses - even some with major improvements. ; ::) ; I'm a big believer in buying stuff when I need it, not when their marketing thinks it's a good idea. (Can I hear an amen to that?)

With my lenses, I'm now into my 2nd body so I can see their point. But they're still electro/mechanical devices that will (not may) wear out and die. Just not in the same time frame as a body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top