 One of the best lens for portrait and low light photography |
| Review Date: October 11, 2006 |
| Reviewer: Sidarta Tanu, Richmond, VA USA |
I don't even know where to start. This lens produces sharp pictures and great color and contrast. This lens is perfect for low light and/or action/sport photography (as this lens is famous for being one of the fastest lens together with its brother 50mm f/1.8). This lens is also perfect for portrait and other general purposes (macro etc). This is definitely a very versatile lens.
However, I think you should really consider buying the f/1.8 first before thinking to buy this f/1.4 lens (mainly because it is more than twice the price of the f1/8 and most of the time the f/1.8 version is fast enough in my opinion). Some examples where the faster f/1.4 lens might make a difference: low light wedding/concert or indoor sports photography (where the light is often low from the camera perspective) such as hockey, track and field, skating, gymnastic, basketball etc.
As much as I want to encourage everyone to buy this lens right away, let me mention some of the limitation that you would see (which I think will be helpful to go over before deciding to buy this lens):
First, being a prime lens, you will need to move your feet a lot to compose your picture. If you are used to zoom lens, don't underestimate this limitation. It takes me a while to get used to it, and sometime I still find people looking at me wondering why I am moving forward and backwards. the good news is that most of the time, they don't think I'm weird, but they are actually wondering if I'm a professional photographer.
Secondly, the focal range of 50mm, which is considered the normal lens and great for portrait lens. but on many DSLRs which is not full frame (unless you have a full frame Nikon DSLR like the D700 or D3, then 50mm is 50mm), this lens become a 75mm equivalent which is in the border of a short tele lens. I actually like the 75mm equivalent though I often have to move backwards when taking picture of a group of people.
Sharpness increases as you stop down to f/2. I actually prefer to use the widest most of the time and the results are still nice. Personally (when shooting low light action/sport), I'd rather use f/1.4 aperture settings than stopped down (e.g to f/2.8) and compensate with higher ISO setting which often gives me grainy picture. But if your object is not moving (static) then it is better to stop down to f/2 or more.
If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR (Vibration Reduction), here's my take: In overall, VR does help a lot (as it will reduce camera shake) and will produce better/sharper picture than equivalent lens without VR (especially if the object is static). If the object is moving (sports/action) then VR feature alone might not help (depending on how fast the object is moving and how much light is available), and a fast lens often end up being a far better solution, even without VR feature as it will allow much faster shutter speed to freeze motion. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but if one can only get for one or the other, then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.
If you are wondering whether you will get the benefit of buying f/1.4 lens over a f/1.8 lens, just remember that the f/1.4 lens is about 60% faster than f/1.8 at its widest aperture setting. With this information, you can decide if the additional speed will justify the additional cost. The bokeh is nicer as well in f/1.4 lens but I think speed is usually the main factor in deciding whether to get the more expensive f/1.4 lens.
Here are the summary of pros and cons for this Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF lens:
Pros:
1. Very fast (f/1.4)
2. Very sharp pictures (especially when stopped down to f/2 or more. very sharp at f/2.8)
3. Great for sport/action photography
4. Great for indoor and low light situation
5. Great for portrait
6. Bokeh is almost as good as many expensive Nikon tele-lens
7. Fast autofocus
8. Perfect for wedding photography (or no-flash event). However, or try the 17-35mm f/2.8 or 28-70mm f/2.8 lens)
9. 75mm equivalent which can be considered a short tele lens (I actually like the fact that it's 75mm equivalent vs 50mm in DSLR. if you need more zoom, you can get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700), then this #9 pros is not applicable.
10. Sharper than its 50mm f/1.8 sibling (at equivalent aperture)
Cons:
1. Being prime lens, you need to move your feet a lot to adjust/compose
2. Some distortion at widest aperture
3. Plasticy build (though it has metal moount and internal part seems to be from metal)
4. Autofocus is not the most silent but very reasonable
5. 75mm equivalent with 1.5x multiplier on non full frame DSLR (many people find this is an odd range for normal lens. I actually like it). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700), then this #5 cons is not applicable.
6. Autofocus does not work with D40, D40x and D60. The newer 50mm f/1.4G AF-S lens will autofocus with those cameras.
Bottom line: This lens is so versatile that I think everyone should own (either the 50mm f/1.4 or the 50mm f/1.8) in addition to all the lenses that they already have. Being a very fast lens, it enables me to take pictures in low light (sport/action photography) that I otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
Again, I would recommend everyone to get this lens (or the 50mm f/1.8). In some ways I can say that this lens will make you a better photographer.
Happy Photographing!
Sidarta Tanu
|
1.4 50mm | Professional quality lens within the reach of every photographer
|
| Review Date: June 24, 2008 |
| Reviewer: David J. Roberts, Orange County, CA |
I agonized over the 1.8 and the 1.4 for a few months before I started to notice a pattern. Nearly all of the negative feedback about the 1.4 was coming from amateur to mid-level photographers while nearly all of the praise was coming from mid to pro level photographers. It seemed the lesser learned guys put it down because they couldn't make it perform and praised the 1.8 because it was 'easier' to use. All the pro's I talked to hands down had the 1.4 and not the 1.8.
So this summed it up for me. It may have a longer learning curve--but why buy a lens TWICE! That was something else I noticed. Guys were buying the 1.8 for price but then wishing they had the 1.4. Why buy 2 prime 50's?
I do everything from crawling through brush to photographing my baby daughter with this lens and it blows me away every time. I even sold my Tamron 18-200mm that I got with my D80 to get this so I could start from scratch with solid lenses and work my way up (if money isn't an issue I wouldn't necessarily recommend this move, the 18-200 isn't perfect but it's nice to travel with).
Hope my observations help you out. You won't be sorry you bought the 1.4, believe me.
Cheers, DR. |
Classic and fast lens, great for film bodies
|
| Review Date: February 8, 2005 |
| Reviewer: Gadgester, Mother Earth |
The legendary Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D lens is *the* normal lens to get for a film Nikon body. You just can't get faster than this, plus its superb optics has impressed photographers since 1962. (The D version came about in the 90s.) If you have a film body, this is pretty much a must-have.
Unfortunately for us digital shooters, the 50mm translates into a focal length of 75mm, beyond the normal focal range. While this is not bad for portraiture -- a little bit of telephoto often flatters the subject -- if you (like me) wanted a real normal lens, this is not it. You'd have to make do with the 35mm f/2 D lens, which is of course one full stop slower. |
Understand what you are buying and why and you will be happy!
|
| Review Date: February 8, 2010 |
| Reviewer: Rick V, IN |
Background you can skip
I realize a lot has been written everywhere about this lens. Just look at KenRockwell or DPReview and the sheer detailed reviews from fellow photographers around the internet. One thing is special about photo-ists: they are hardly fan-boys: if something is a-miss with a product then that get splattered out in gory detail, often with photo evidence... Why am I saying this? Because I think you can therefore trust the overall rating of this lens on the web. This one is often referred to as the model 1902, as well, by the way.
I wanted to add my 2 cents since I have bought several lenses in the last year that are all very similar. This review focuses on the 1.8 and 1.4 50mm lenses. The other 2 lenses are reviewed on their individual product pages. I thought some others might be trying to choose between these 2 lenses, but having a hard time determining the relatively steep price difference between the 1.4 and 1.8. I will not go into the technical differences between the 2 either as others that are more adept than me have done that and I am predominantly a person that focuses on the results and not the specs.
The primes I own:
85mm 1.8
35mm 1.8
50mm 1.8 ( http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1265596625&sr=8-2 )
50mm 1.4 (this one)
About this lens
I bought this lens especially for portraiture. I am a hobbyist but my camera is glued to me (a D90) and I tend to shoot lots of shots indoors, capturing casual moments of my kids, pets and so on. Probably very similar to any other proud dad and hubby.
Initially I did not want to shell out for the 50mm 1.4 and decided to get the well respected 50mm 1.8. I loved the 1.8 from the start. It was great indoors and even at the 1.8 f-stop it was sharp (with the softness that one can expect). The color rendering is beautiful and I love what it does to skin tones combined with the softness wide open. Since the 1.8 became my most beloved portrait lens I decided that it would be worth looking at upgrading to the 1.4. So I took the leap.
Of course the extra light is great but do the photos come out magically better? No, not for the pro-mateur like myself. The AF is a little faster it seems and perhaps, but I am not sure, the colors come out a little more vibrant. Softness wise at wide open I think they are equally soft but the 1.4 gets tack sharp at f2 whereas the 1.8 needs to get closer to f4. I happen to shoot mostly in the f2 to f4 range so this is acceptable for both.
The bokeh (the out of focus texture of the background that can make the subject look like it was placed in front of a wonderful milky pastel) is impressive on both lenses. I cannot say that there is a visibly distinguishable edge for either.
Ofcourse the depth of field with the 1.4 is more pronouced than with the 1.8 at wide open.
My simple conclusion
I am not trying to compare a 100 dollar lens to a 300 dollar lens because the 300 dollar one is the better lens when you read all the reviews and I *think* I agree. However, when you are looking for value for money, the 1.8 wins hands down. You get so close to the 1.4 results and if you're a photoholic amateur like myself you will be deliriously happy with the 1.8. Once you have exhausted its capabilities (which will take most of us 20 years of learning) or you become enamored with sports photography (or your kids play ice hockey and you do not want to flash) then the 1.4 becomes more realistic.
I recommend that if you are on a budget then you start with the 1.8. Once you are ready to upgrade you simply sell it, you will always get 80% of value back if well treated, and substitute with the much more expensive 1.4.
Al the serious pros would simply jump straight to the 1.4 but that is not the audience this review is meant for. Hope this helps.
A humble non-technical amateur photographer |
Just what I needed.
|
| Review Date: June 15, 2007 |
| Reviewer: Kate Stokes, Atlanta, GA |
If you are looking at this then you have probably looked at the 50mm f/1.8 lens as well--for one third the price of this one. That lens is a great value to be sure, but don't buy the hype about the f/1.8 being enough. I shoot indoors a lot and can't always use a flash, and I don't like using flashes anyway.
Much more often than not, my camera automatically goes straight to f/1.4 when in autofocus mode shooting indoors. That being the case, then obviously the f/1.8 would not be quite fast enough. It might seem like a small difference to some, but small differences in lighting can make or break a picture.
Let me also just say that it is not doing this lens justice to merely say that you can shoot without a flash with this lens. It is better than that. I am not a fan of flashes. This is just a personal preference of course, but I think flashes add a certain staged look to pictures, and also they tend to give that "flash-y" look to the picture where everything is saturated in brilliant light. With this lens, it is better than having a flash because the lighting is full, bright, and adequate without looking like there is a spotlight on everyone. I wish I could show you guys the pictures this thing takes indoors in low light without a flash. It is really amazing. Even one of my friends who knows nothing about this stuff commented on how amazing the pictures looked--in a lighting sense--knowing that a flash was not used.
In addition, I am several situations where flashes would be distracting or annoying to other people in the room. People tend to get more nervous when they see a $400 flash going off every minute or two in the corner of their eye because they think you might zero in on them next. With this lens, and not having to use a flash because it is so fast, I can be much more in "stealth" mode and much more likely to get a great unscripted and natural photo. Again this is just a personal preference of mine based on the types of situations I find myself in. if I was big into outdoor photography, I doubt any of this would matter much.
This is a high quality, ultra-fast lens that in my opinion is a must if you do a lot of indoor photography and portrait work like I do, and especially if like me you hate flash photography. |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
