# nikon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8



## Ejazzle (Jun 28, 2008)

is it worth it to buy the f/1.4 instead onf the f/1.8 

its a pretty large price difference. this is why i am asking. 

thanks everyone


ej


----------



## K_Pugh (Jun 28, 2008)

i think this has been discussed before. I, myself just bought the 1.8 as i can't justify buying the 1.4 at the moment with the hike in price over the 1.8. I'd rather spend the cash saved on buying things i needed, cokin filters, reflectors etc..

As far as i know the 1.4 is a better built lens, metal i think over the plastic 1.8, probably feels a lot nicer to use etc.. that and being faster i'm not entirely sure if the optics are any better?


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 28, 2008)

Well, there are other alternatives too... like a Sigma 30mm F/1.4 lens.  

Gives me what I want at a reasonable proce.


----------



## Peter_pan91 (Jun 28, 2008)

Correct me if i'm wrong but, as opposed to canon, i think (and i have read a number of reviews that confirm this) there is a minimal difference in the build quality of the nikon 1.4 and 1.8, and both have a metal mount and similar build materials.

Pete


----------



## RMThompson (Jun 28, 2008)

From a technical standpoint, I can say that the extra .4 in F-stops is handy, but far from worth it.

When I first got my 50mm 1.8 I thought it was ONLY to be used at 1.8, and left it wide open all the time - If my pictures were too bright, oh well. 

I later learned that the beauty of this lens is NOT the 1.8, but just option of going that low when needed.

I do keep it at 1.8 sometimes, but I change it just as often. Not once have I ever said "Dang I wish I could push this to 1.4". If it was a zoom or had macro, maybe to capture some tiny movement, but as it is the 1.8 can do enough.

That being said, I've HEARD the build quality of the 1.4 is better, but I think the 1.8 is mighty fine.

Put that money towards a nice flash, you'll be thankful!


----------



## tirediron (Jun 28, 2008)

Unless you need it probably not.  I bought the 1.4 only because I was able to get a bit of a deal on it.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jun 28, 2008)

thanks guys! i already have a flash (sb-800) 

i think i'll go for the 1.8

i want to get a good macro lens too.....


----------



## Early (Jun 28, 2008)

I don't know which is better used wide open, but I'd be willing to bet a six pack the 1.4 is sharper at f2, plus it's so much brighter when you have manual focus.

I had both in the AIs manual version, and although I never tested them side by side, I was of the opinion the 1.4 had it all over the 1.8.

Personally, I would go the extra $200 and get the 1.4.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jun 28, 2008)

good point early. 

anyone else?


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 28, 2008)

Peter_pan91 said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but, as opposed to canon, i think (and i have read a number of reviews that confirm this) there is a minimal difference in the build quality of the nikon 1.4 and 1.8, and both have a metal mount and similar build materials.



Unless there are several 50mm F/1.8's out there, I don't think so.  I have the 50mm F/1.8 and its all plastic in terms of casing.  The price also reflects this at under $110 (I found mine NIB for $105 shipped to Canada last year).


HERE is the F/1.4 at $300

HERE is the F/1.8 at under $110

There is a lot more to this than just the aperture differences.

I kinda also disagree with Early... manual focus has nothing to do with it being brighter. Assuming you can focus as accurately as automatic (which I highly doubt, especially when you are trying to catch something quick), the exposure will be identical with either picture.  In real life, manual focus is a PITA to get right... *especially* at F/1.4, and this I know from experience using my 30mm F/1.4 Sigma.  We're talking razor thin DOFs!  A hair off on the manual adjustment could easily mean blurred eyes... and this is not something you can tell using most modern digital camera viewfinders.  You'll see it when it's too late... after you bring the picture on your computer screen.

As far as the F/1.4 being sharper at F/2 than the F/1.8... I cannot say for sure.  To be fair about this, you would need to have the 2 lenses side by side and do your own tests... however, based on build quality, I would think that the chances are pretty good that the F/1.4 is sharper.  It is, after all, near 3 times the price.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 28, 2008)

Get the f/1.8 and a 28mm f/2.8 AFD (if you don't already have one that is).  

(you'll thank me later)


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 28, 2008)

I think I would base my decision off of:

A - How experienced are you?
B- What kind of camera do you have?
c - How do you shoot?  Can you REALLY justify the cost of the F/1.4 to yourself?
d - what's your budget, can you easily afford the F/1.4?

In the end, the only person that can answer that... is you.


----------



## theadamsociety (Jun 28, 2008)

Peter_pan91 said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong but, as opposed to canon, i think (and i have read a number of reviews that confirm this) there is a minimal difference in the build quality of the nikon 1.4 and 1.8, and both have a metal mount and similar build materials.
> 
> Pete




Nikon 50mm 1.4 is a way better build than the 1.8.
1.4 weighs twice as much.


----------



## Joves (Jun 28, 2008)

Yes but the 1.8 is a more than adequate lense. It has a metal mount and, mine has taken some fairly good abuse. And it still keeps working.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 28, 2008)

Build quality wise the f/1.8 is pretty good. Much better than the canon equivalent.

However the real selling point of the f/1.4 is just as early mentioned. Unlike the canon the Nikon f/1.8 is just plain shocking at f/1.8. Soft doesn't being to describe this effect which makes it almost useless at that aperture. All of Nikon's 50mm are like that even my old Nikkor 50mm f/1.2. 

The key is if you're going to get an f/1.8 expect to shoot at f/2.8 if you want a decent picture out of it. Although you can get away with f/1.8 in low contrast or portrait situations where a bit of softness may actually be preferred.

The f/1.4 on the other hand is well controlled and matches the build quality of other Nikkor pro lenses. As said before the f/1.8 is not bad, but the f/1.4 definitely is nicer to handle. Also as early said at f/2 it's quite sharp. Wide open again it suffers all the same extreme problems that the f/1.8 does wide open.

The choice is ultimately yours. I have used the f/1.4 and wished that I spent the extra money over the f/1.8.


----------



## McQueen278 (Jun 28, 2008)

1.8 stats.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...kor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report?start=1

1.4 stats.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...af-50mm-f14-d-review--lab-test-report?start=1

To sum it up, the 1.8 is sharper, but has more CA to worry about.

30mm 1.4 just for fun.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...0mm-f14-ex-hsm-dc-test-report--review?start=1


----------



## Ejazzle (Jun 29, 2008)

Mcqueen, what is CA?

so its really easy to over expose images with the 1.4? and 1.8? 

Mike E, justify your statement please.


----------



## taracor (Jun 29, 2008)

Personally I would go with the 1.8  It is still a great lens, and if you buy it you will still have like 100$ to put towards something else.

If you can EASILY afford the 1.4, then sure, but since you are having hesitations, I would go with the 1.8, you won't regret it.


----------



## Tinstafl (Jun 29, 2008)

I used to have a 1.4 and well it was lost along with other stuff in the move. Where and why I do not know but someone has a nice lens.  I replaced it with a 1.8 it works ok too. Not a nice as the 1.4 imho but not really much of a difference in most situations and it was cheaper.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 29, 2008)

CA = Chromatic Aberration. Often present in cyan / red or green / purple colour shift around a high contrast subject. Can also be used to describe purple fringing seen on photos when you photograph the sun reflecting in water for instance.

McQueen's links show what I was saying. At f/1.8 the f/1.8 lens is quite poor indeed at the borders, and sharp in the centre. This is clearly visible if you photo has details. But the f/1.4 at f/2 (within 1/3rd of a stop of f/1.8) has twice the border sharpness and nearly identical centre sharpness. At f/2.8 the f/1.4 outperforms the f/1.8. Wow there are numbers everywhere!

Over exposure has nothing to do with the lens. You get 1/3rd of a stop more light out of a 1.4 than a 1.8, so if depth of field isn't a concern but shutter speed is it may allow you to shoot at 1/80th instead of 1/60th which could make all the difference for handheld shooting at the very limits.

I will say what Mike_E is probably referring to is that a 50mm lens on an APS body like most digital SLRs does not approximate the perspective distortion of human vision like it used to on film. A 28-35mm lens better approximates this, and I know quite a few people are much happier with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4  lens linked above than their 50mm lenses, despite it's astonishingly crap performance at f/1.4.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 1, 2008)

this is so tuff.......


----------



## Garbz (Jul 1, 2008)

Simplification:

f/1.4 advantage: Higher quality, better build, potential to use at f/1.4 giving you better depth of field, and a potential 1/3rd stop increase in shutter speed.

disadvantage: double the price.

Food for thought: If you have the money you will hate yourself less later when your hobby kicks off and you want to start testing the limits. If you have the money you will hate yourself now for a few weeks because you spent $200 more than you can justifiably figure out you needed to. If you don't have the money you have no option anyway.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 1, 2008)

Exactly right.

You know U rite!

That the way it is.

That how it be.

For sure man.

Copy that.

And, ahem, other expressions of agreement.


----------



## Mav (Jul 1, 2008)

If you have to ask, just get the 1.8.  If you realize you want or need the 1.4 later, just sell your 1.8 for the same price you paid for it if you bought used (or $10-20 less if buying new) and then put that towards the 1.4.  You'll be out very little money.

Edit: BTW 1.8 vs 1.4 is two-thirds of a stop, not one-third.


----------



## Samriel (Jul 2, 2008)

I'm in a similar dilemma, so I'm going to (kinda) hijack the thread and put in another competitor:
Lets say I was stuck between the 50mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 and I was going to get the 50mm 1.4 for about USD260. But than I see the 85mm 1.8 for about USD290. The 85mm is 2/3 stops slower, and because of the 35mm (on my D80 ~50mm) difference, I'll need more working distance. On the other hand, the 85mm is better build, and has better lab performance then the 50mm 1.4. 
Now lets say I shoot mostly portraits and nudes, outdoors as well as in environments where I can control the light (quasi-studio), and lets say I have enough working space to use both lenses - which one would you recommend? 
If I get the 85mm 1.8, I was thinking of getting the 35mm f/2 one day instead of getting the 50mm ones. I have a  Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and a Tokina 100 Macro 2.8 (and an 80s Nikkon kit tele-zoom 70-200mm) at the moment.


----------



## Mav (Jul 2, 2008)

I don't care what lab tests say.  The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 has much creamier and smoother bokeh than the 85mm f/1.8 does, which is actually on the harsh and ugly side with respect to bokeh.  I wouldn't be surprised if the 85/1.8 was a little sharper, but there's far more to lenses than sharpness and lab tets.  I sold my Nikkor 85/1.8 mainly because of the ugly bokeh rendering.  In a studio or if you can control your background this won't matter as much, but I had one too many outdoor portraits ruined with the ugly bokeh of the 85/1.8, which is why I'm just sticking with the 50/1.4 for now.  If you really want a nice lens for portrait work, the 85mm f/1.4 is outstanding, has the same creamy background rendering, and does great with skin tones.  You have to really love the working distance that the 85mm FL gives you though.  I didn't.  Eventually I'm going to pickup either a 105 or 135mm f/2 DC lens.


----------



## Samriel (Jul 2, 2008)

I agree that lab test are not everything, but I'd appreciate some samples of the bad bokeh of the 85mm 1.8, and maybe some more of the good bokeh of the 50mm 1.4. I'm really new to bokeh, and some general guidelines would be helpful.The reason why I ask this is that at the moment, your opinion contradicts photozone's: 
_"Besides the lab results the lens shows a beautiful bokeh (out-of-focus blur)."
_Looking at his sample shots  I'm not sure if that is good or bad, creamy or not bokeh.

EDIT: One more thing - when you mentioned you have to love the FL, you meant on a APS-C camera, right?


----------



## Mav (Jul 2, 2008)

100% crop of ugly and distracting Nikon 85mm f/1.8 bokeh.  This is what can happen if you're not careful enough with your backgrounds with this lens.








Because of harshness like this, I sold this lens and just shoot portraits with my 18-135 kit lens now, which is actually extremely sharp in the 105-135mm range which I prefer more, and the bokeh is much more neutral and pleasing believe it or not.  And yes this is on an APS-C DSLR.  Both the 50 and 85mm Nikon f/1.4 lenses have much creamier and smooth looking bokeh.  I don't have any samples handy of the 50mm f/1.4, but it's definitely a lot smoother than the 50mm f/1.8.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 3, 2008)

Not true at wide open. It suffers the same ring effect. However at least the rings are the right colour and the lens is free from CA.





Stopped down however it becomes very nice except for the lack of curved aperture blades:





Source webpage: http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/50mmf14d/50mmf14d.shtml


----------



## Mav (Jul 3, 2008)

I've never seen any ugliness like that on mine or from any other samples I've seen from the f/1.4, but saw it all time on the 1.8 so :shrug:


----------



## Garbz (Jul 4, 2008)

Given that this is something that is hard to get right it may also be something that varies during manufacture. Not unheard of. 

I actually have only borrowed that lens and then only shot at f/2 so I am relying on the hope that the original site was right, they could be at fault for the discrepancy too


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 7, 2008)

can the f/1.4 do some semi macro shots? i love shooting macro!!

i was going to buy the lense at adorama and one was " grey market" and it was 20 bucks cheaper. whats the difference. quality? or is it the same exact lense with no warranty?


----------



## Mav (Jul 7, 2008)

No.  None of the Nikon 50mm lenses focus very closely.  They're in the 1:7.2 or 1:7.4 range which is a loooong ways away from even the 18-55 kit lens, which does 1:3.2 (which is actually quite good).  You can use these for macro photography if you get something like the Kenko extenstion tubes.  I hear the 12mm tube works pretty well with the 50mm although I've never tried it myself.  Close-up filters will also work.  Nikon discontinued theirs, but a Canon 250D will work in 52mm size, although I'm not sure how close it would get you.  For really cheap, (like $10) you can get the BR-2A reversing ring and actually reverse mount the lens to your body and get insanely close.  But you have no focusing ability, no metering, no aperture control besides manual, and any photo you get is gonna require a lot of skill!   The reversing ring is pretty much a tripod only poor man's macro setup.  Forget about it handheld.

I'd stick with USA versions of lenses, or if you want to save a few bucks just buy a used USA version from somewhere.  Used 50mm prime lenses are easy to find.  I commonly see them on another (nikon specific) forum for $225 for the f/1.4 version or $90-100 for the f/1.8.  You'll have no warranty with a grey market version, and apparently Nikon won't even work on them if they need servicing either.

I'm not into Macro, so for my own macro setup I have the following:

My 18-55VR kit lens gets down to 1:3.2 which is pretty darned close.
My 28-105 lens has a handy macro mode that gets down to 1:2
My 70-300VR + Canon 500D filter gets down to 1:1.1 which is practically 1:1.

I'm pleased enough with the 1:2 on my 28-105, so I might sell my Canon 500D close-up filter (77mm size).  I think that thing cost me more than the whole 28-105 lens did!


----------



## manaheim (Jul 7, 2008)

We should setup a frequently asked questions thread or something.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121100&highlight=1.4+1.8

^^ that's the link to a previous post.

EDIT: Here is a more extensive discussion:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111381&highlight=50mm


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 7, 2008)

thanks everyone! i think most likely gonna go with the f/ 1.4 and get the 60 mm macro later on!


----------



## AndrewG (Jul 7, 2008)

I can't believe we've got to the point where we're discussing the quality of an out of focus background! If the subject is interesting and arresting then surely that must be the focus of attention and not the background which has been shot out of focus so as not to be a distraction?
I really, really hate the word 'bokeh'!


----------



## McQueen278 (Jul 7, 2008)

AndrewG said:


> I can't believe we've got to the point where we're discussing the quality of an out of focus background! If the subject is interesting and arresting then surely that must be the focus of attention and not the background which has been shot out of focus so as not to be a distraction?
> I really, really hate the word 'bokeh'!



But that is what bokeh is about, not being distracting.  If your background is blurred in an unattractive way it is distracting.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 8, 2008)

one last quick question i can buy the f/1.4 in kint condidtion but its from the late 80's (1988) is it the same exact lens as the brand new ones that are out now?


----------



## Mav (Jul 8, 2008)

AndrewG said:


> I can't believe we've got to the point where we're discussing the quality of an out of focus background! If the subject is interesting and arresting then surely that must be the focus of attention and not the background which has been shot out of focus so as not to be a distraction?
> I really, really hate the word 'bokeh'!


Well like I mentioned above, I've had potentially great portrait shots totally ruined by poor bokeh and a resultant distracting background.  All of the ugliness and harshness draws your attention _away_ from the beautiful subject and towards the ugly background.  I've also seen (on the 50mm f/1.8) the bokeh get so distracting near a model's hair that you almost couldn't tell where her hair ended and the background began.  That's not what you want.  If the lens had smooth bokeh characteristics that wouldn't have been a problem.


----------



## Mav (Jul 8, 2008)

Ejazzle said:


> one last quick question i can buy the f/1.4 in kint condidtion but its from the late 80's (1988) is it the same exact lens as the brand new ones that are out now?


If it's 1988 it's probably just regular AF instead of AF-D.  The only difference is that the D version will relay distance data back to the camera for more accurate flash exposure.  Most think it's more a gimmick than anything else, because nobody has ever been able to tell any difference.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 8, 2008)

well i can get it for pretty cheap so i might just get it. but i guess i'll have to figure out the flash exposure stuff if i do purchase it....


----------



## Easy_Target (Jul 8, 2008)

I've used both the 1.4 and 1.8 and to be honest, I just absolutely LOVE the f1.4 because I frequently shoot in low light/night settings, so it helps reduce exposure time a good deal. I frequently shoot in less than comfortable weather so the less time I need to get all my shots, the better. 

Optically, I didn't really notice much difference between the two.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 9, 2008)

Mav said:


> If it's 1988 it's probably just regular AF instead of AF-D.  The only difference is that the D version will relay distance data back to the camera for more accurate flash exposure.  Most think it's more a gimmick than anything else, because nobody has ever been able to tell any difference.



The on board algorithms can be troublesome if you don't have distance information. It's the difference between the older style matrix metering system, and the "3D Matrix Metering". This causes problems when using teleconverters which don't relay an updated aperture as well. In theory it still has distance and light, but these fancy new algorithms need all the info or their results are sometimes unexpected, which is to say unexpected for the finely trained eye of someone who spends their life knowing exactly how matrix metering works.

Mounting the AF lens will cause the camera either to default to the older Matrix Metering, or default to centre weighted average. Neither of these are a problem if you realise that the camera is just guessing at what your picture looks like anyway, and know where the exposure compensation / manual control buttons lie on the camera. Heck I use old AI-S lenses quite a lot, they don't even have electronics let alone a microchip telling the camera the subject distance.


----------



## Mav (Jul 9, 2008)

I've not seen one person ever admit to ever being able to see or tell the difference between D and non-D though.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 9, 2008)

i use manual everything usually all the time (ont focus) manual always seem to give me my most desireable shot. so the light meter might just use spot metering or something? i dont even look at the meter that much anymore.... but your saying i could have the aperture all they way open to 1.4 and the signal may be interrupted and the camera could say i am still at 2.8?


----------



## andrew99 (Jul 9, 2008)

This thread is perfect timing for me, I just ordered the 1.8 version.  The store didn't have either, so they had to order it (I guess from their warehouse)... I haven't paid yet, so I could cancel the order and go with the 1.4.  I went with the 1.8 since it is cheap enough to buy just for fun.. I have a D40 so I don't know if the manual focus is going to be too much hassle for me.  I'm hoping the image quality will make it worth while.   I didn't want to spring for the 1.4, since I would rather pay a bit more and get the Sigma version with the internal focus motor, or wait to see if Nikon will come out with an AS-F version of their 50 mm prime.  Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of this rambling post is, but I am curious to know how sharp the 1.8 is when stopped down a few stops?  Some of the comments above about softness when shooting wide open have scared me a bit!


----------



## Mav (Jul 9, 2008)

andrew99 said:


> but I am curious to know how sharp the 1.8 is when stopped down a few stops?  Some of the comments above about softness when shooting wide open have scared me a bit!


Stopped down they're both NUTTY sharp.  Any softness wide open is more likely due to focusing errors or razor thin depth of field issues than actual lens softness.  So technique is probably the biggest limiting factor to sharpness especially at f/2 or larger apertures.  My particular f/1.8 sample was probably a bit sharper than my f/1.4 sample, but both are still sharp.  Another issue on my f/1.4 besides focusing or depth of field issues is contrast loss from shooting into bright light sources or having stray light leak into the lens.  That brings about a "perceived" softness, but it's really contrast loss.  I got a hood for it now and am getting better results.  This is a common characteristic of f/1.4 lenses.  For general photography the f/1.8 is the better lens, and also a ton cheaper.


----------



## andrew99 (Jul 9, 2008)

Cool, thanks Mav.  I've read that the 1.8 has slightly better image quality than the 1.4, which makes sense since the 1.8 would use less glass and be easier to manufacture.  Also you're probably right about the DOF -- even shooting 2.8 on my zoom lens is tricky, you can get a person's nose in focus but the eyes out of focus, so 1.8 doesn't leave much room for error!   Anyway, my 1.8 should be in on Friday, can't wait!


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 9, 2008)

i used the 1.4 on my d300 today in the store, and i liked it alot. the quality in the low light was nutssss!! i still dont know if its worth the 200 dollar difference though. its a sweet lens! and which ever one i decide to get i know i will love.


----------



## andrew99 (Jul 11, 2008)

Well my 50 f1.8 arrived a day early!  Here is a sample, there is a slight curves adjustment, slight sharpening and crop done in post.  From my Nikon D40.






(1/60sec, f3.2, ISO 200, 50mm)

I haven't much time to take many test shots, but so far I'm loving this lens!  The manual focus was tricky with the dog (he thinks it's play time when you get down on the floor to take a photo), but focusing on still objects is fairly easy.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 11, 2008)

Cute mutt.

Manual focusing gets a lot easier with time, hang in there.


----------



## K_Pugh (Jul 11, 2008)

nice shot,  would be great without the chair leg.

yup it's a good lens but i haven't tried using manual focus with it too much yet. I have to use manual focus with my tamron 20-40mm as it back focuses on auto but i do find that manual focus is great with fast moving subjects.. so yeah manual focus ain't so bad.


----------



## Ejazzle (Jul 11, 2008)

you focused that picture very well!


----------



## zandman (Jul 12, 2008)

i got the 1.8 but can't get a REALLY good macro shots, it can but it doesn't meet what i want.


----------



## McQueen278 (Jul 13, 2008)

Get the 100mm macro then.  It is a pretty nice lens.


----------



## zandman (Jul 13, 2008)

McQueen278 said:


> Get the 100mm macro then. It is a pretty nice lens.


 is it better than the 60mm macro?


----------



## McQueen278 (Jul 13, 2008)

Here is a nice review of the 105mm(sorry I typed 100 before, I had Canon on the mind)
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...nikkor-af-105mm-f28-d-review--lab-test-report

and the same review of the 60mm
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...icro-nikkor-af-60mm-f28-d-review--test-report

It appears that the 60mm is the superior lens, I haven't used it myself.  I had an opportunity to play with the 105mm that a friend of mine had and I liked it.  I think they can be had pretty cheaply now used because they have been replaced with a VR version.  The VR review is here.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...-af-s-105mm-f28g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report

According to the numbers, the 105mm VR is the end all.  If money is no object, this is the way to go.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 14, 2008)

McQueen278 said:


> According to the numbers, the 105mm VR is the end all.  If money is no object, this is the way to go.



You'd think so but the guy who sold me his 105mm MicroNikkor when he upgraded to the VR is constantly complaining that he shouldn't have. Apparently some of them have real focus hunting issues. This is second hand info though I haven't used the VR enough to give a real opinion.

The old 105mm is great though


----------



## YoMoe (Feb 10, 2010)

I am considering a 50 mm lens for indoor sports (basketball and wrestling). The gyms are usually poorly lit. I was thinking of the 1.4 because it will allow for faster shutter? Is that right? I really want to stop the action. 

I have the Nikon D90 and a used Sigma 2.8 70-210 lens (paid $250). It is *huge* and I really can't get a good angle because I have to stand pretty far away. Do you think a 50mm would be best for these sports. Does the 1.4 v 1.8 matter more for sports?

Any advice greatly appreciated.


----------



## YoMoe (Feb 10, 2010)

This thread has been so helpful. I was considering a zoom lens but I think maybe a prime would be better for my needs. If you are shooting indoor sports (basketball and wrestling) in poorly  lit gyms would it be worth it to get the 50mm 1.4? The 1.8 is about $200  cheaper. I don't want to spend more than I need to but I want to be able to stop a ball in midair - any thoughts? I  have the nikon d90.


----------



## dhilberg (Feb 10, 2010)

I shoot my son's indoor basketball every Saturday with a D90 and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D. If the gyms you will be shooting in are lit anything like the crappy gyms my son plays in, you'll need the extra speed offered by a prime lens, unless you can shoot clean ISO 6400, which the D90 can't. 3200 is not a problem though, cleans up very nice in Noise Ninja, provided you expose right, which helps to minimize noise.

I tried shooting one of his games with my Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and even at ISO 3200 the best I could get was 1/125, although occasionally depending on their orientation to the lights I could get 1/250. But that's only fast enough to stop the slowest action.

However, that gym is lit much worse than normal. There's about five burnt out lamps...it's like a dungeon, and unfortunately most of his games are played there. Another gym he played in I was using my 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2, ISO 1600 and was easily able to get 1/500 shutter, with most being 1/500-1/1000. That's about the shutter speeds you want to stop action; 1/500 will stop most everything, except the fastest action. Next time he plays there I will shoot ISO 3200, because some of the best shots I got had some slight motion blur on the ball (at 1/500).

I would absolutely recommend the lens. Don't use it wider than f/2 though, unless it's an absolute necessity. It get's pretty soft and the depth of field is really shallow. Even at  f/2 the face will be crisp but the ball in front of them will be  slightly out of focus. Up your ISO instead. Don't be afraid to shoot at ISO 3200, the D90 can handle it. If you don't have noise reduction software (Noise Ninja, Noiseware, etc.) then shoot JPEG and use the Normal in-camera noise reduction, it's actually pretty good, much better than the D80 was.


----------



## YoMoe (Feb 12, 2010)

dhilberg said:


> I shoot my son's indoor basketball every Saturday with a D90 and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D. If the gyms you will be shooting in are lit anything like the crappy gyms my son plays in, you'll need the extra speed offered by a prime lens, unless you can shoot clean ISO 6400, which the D90 can't. 3200 is not a problem though, cleans up very nice in Noise Ninja, provided you expose right, which helps to minimize noise.
> 
> I tried shooting one of his games with my Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and even at ISO 3200 the best I could get was 1/125, although occasionally depending on their orientation to the lights I could get 1/250. But that's only fast enough to stop the slowest action.
> 
> ...



I ended up with the 55mm 1.8, I got a good deal on it and just couldn't come up with the extra cash right now. I can't believe how small and light it is compared to my 70-200 monster. 

One of the gyms my kids play in has large stained glass windows near the roof line and they cast all kinds of crazy colors on the gym. It is really dark otherwise. 

Thanks for the info. I have not shot with such a high ISO but I'll give it a try. I recently upgraded from photoshop elements 4 to element 8 and I got noiseware as a plugin. I'm still learning how to put it all together. I'm going to a Photoshop class on Monday.


----------



## dhilberg (Feb 12, 2010)

I think you'll get good results with that lens. I use my 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2 for basketball anyway, so I'm sure you'll get good results.

Make sure you're exposing properly when you shoot high ISO, it will help with the noise. Expose Right


----------



## Ejazzle (Feb 18, 2010)

looking back on this thread. I am sooo happy I went with the 1.4


----------

