How much of a difference between 1.4 and 1.8

[NateNLogansDad]

I was looking at a Nikon 35mm for my D5000. Cost is always a concern in my house so the 1.8 looks to be favorable to me. Is the 1.4 really worth the extra $400 compared to the 1.8?

[NateNLogansDad]

What I'm looking for is a nice DOF look, and something a little faster than my kit lens for indoors. Would I really be benefiting that much by waiting (indefinitely?) for the 1.4?

[annnewjerz]

What f/1.4 lens are you looking for?

I would be a liar if I said I didn't think the Sigma 30 f/1.4 was superior because I have it and I am obviously biased. Out of the lenses I have owned so far, it is hands down my favorite lens. It's fast, the color it produces it great, the shallow DOF is nice, it works fantastically on dark rides, the bokeh is nice and creamy looking---for me, it's just perfect. I could possibly own just this lens and be happy.

That being said, if you don't want to put out the extra money, I think the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 would be a GREAT alternative. The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 isn't going to be very noticable and just because you have a f/1.4 lens doesn't mean you will always be shooting at f/1.4.

I have seen loads of photos taken with the 35mm f/1.8 and it looks like a great lens for the money. If it's what you can afford now and you want a good prime lens for using in less than stellar lighting conditions (whether it be indoors or Pirates at Disney) I think you'd be happy with this lens.

If you need sample shots from people with each lens, let me know and I'd be more than happy to post some of mine with the Sigma.

Good luck!

[zackiedawg]

Well it's about a 2/3 stop difference as far as light gathering is concerned. That can make a difference in tight spots for sure - say being able to squeeze out a 1/60 shutter speed on a dark ride instead of falling into the 1/30 speed - just enough to avoid some blur.

But it's not huge. If you're looking at that much of a price difference, I'd say it's probably fine with the F1.8 for basic use. Note there may be some other differences, like build quality, manufl focus ring, etc.

I also agree with Anne's comment on the Sigma 30mm F1.4 as a very nice alternative to consider...it is silky smooth bokeh, has nice wide reach on crop sensor cams that is just about ideal (45mm), and is extremely sharp even wide open, but moreso at F2 and beyond. And for the money, might be worth consideration - the price difference should be a hundred or so cheaper than the Nikon 35 F1.4, sort of the middle ground price-wise between the two Nikon lenses.

[NateNLogansDad]

I could possibly own just this lens and be happy.

Ann, we are all freinds here, so NO FIBBING :lmao:


I've been looking at the Sigma for a while but I know I problably shouldn't until after my sweet and understanding wife graduates school and enters the workforce again. However, at $200 I might just get the OK without using the sad puppy dog eyes. Plus Best Buy in DE has it in stock so I could have it in my hands by tomorrow and play with it before we leave on the 1st.
I'm only just slightly smart enough to ask around before running out like a small child buying his own Christmas present, blindly buying the first shiny thing he can afford. If it's something that would go nice in my bag without regrets later, I think I'd like to hop on it. If I might regret it later on, I'll probably wait till next year. I guess I'm just throwing it out there to see if someone smacks me on the nose and tells me NO!:rotfl2:

Does that make any sense? :laughing:

[NateNLogansDad]

Well it's about a 2/3 stop difference as far as light gathering is concerned. That can make a difference in tight spots for sure - say being able to squeeze out a 1/60 shutter speed on a dark ride instead of falling into the 1/30 speed - just enough to avoid some blur.

But it's not huge. If you're looking at that much of a price difference, I'd say it's probably fine with the F1.8 for basic use. Note there may be some other differences, like build quality, manufl focus ring, etc.

I also agree with Anne's comment on the Sigma 30mm F1.4 as a very nice alternative to consider...it is silky smooth bokeh, has nice wide reach on crop sensor cams that is just about ideal (45mm), and is extremely sharp even wide open, but moreso at F2 and beyond. And for the money, might be worth consideration - the price difference should be a hundred or so cheaper than the Nikon 35 F1.4, sort of the middle ground price-wise between the two Nikon lenses.

Personally, if all you had was the 18-55 and 55-200VR kit lenses, would you wait a year and miss a Disney trip for the Sigma or go with the Nikon 1.8 now?

edit:
(I re-read that post and hope it doesn't sound sarcastic. I'm really looking for an honest answer)

[zackiedawg]

I wouldn't skip a Disney trip for anything! No, honestly, if it's that tight or close on money vs justifying the purchase, I'd probably either wait on the lens purchase and go to Disney without, or buy the F1.8 and enjoy. It's not that terribly expensive a purchase that you couldn't sell it for some change and upgrade later if you wanted to.

And then there's the used option...I noticed one on EBay selling from KEH:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290372379632&rvr_id=&crlp=1_263602_263622&UA=WXI7&GUID=ef2a07c71240a0268251bfc1fff39c01&itemid=290372379632&ff4=263602_263622

I have bought from KEH plenty - and find them very solid and reliable. Used might be worth a look for any of the lenses you are considering!

[Corey10112]

I'm finding myself in a similar situation. I am looking for a prime lens but wondering which will be the best for my money. I have a Canon 300D so I need the most out of a lens that I can get since I find the pictures barely usable at all at ISO 1600. I've been leaning towards the Sigma 50 1.4 but am wondering if I'm better getting the Canon 50 1.8 for "quick fix" and then getting a better 30mm lens later on down the road. The only "nice" thing is I don't have the pressure of a trip coming up until 2011, but waiting that long isn't nice in actuality.

[ssanders79]

I just got the Nikon 35mm AF-S f/1.8 a few weeks ago and have no regrets. In fact, it has not left my camera.

[NateNLogansDad]

I wouldn't skip a Disney trip for anything! No, honestly, if it's that tight or close on money vs justifying the purchase, I'd probably either wait on the lens purchase and go to Disney without, or buy the F1.8 and enjoy. It's not that terribly expensive a purchase that you couldn't sell it for some change and upgrade later if you wanted to.

And then there's the used option...I noticed one on EBay selling from KEH:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290372379632&rvr_id=&crlp=1_263602_263622&UA=WXI7&GUID=ef2a07c71240a0268251bfc1fff39c01&itemid=290372379632&ff4=263602_263622

I have bought from KEH plenty - and find them very solid and reliable. Used might be worth a look for any of the lenses you are considering!


:rotfl2: I think I may have worded that poorly. I meant skip a trip with a prime lens or go get the 1.8 now:lmao: I'm on the wrong boards if I were asking someone about NOT taking a trip!

[NateNLogansDad]

I'm finding myself in a similar situation. I am looking for a prime lens but wondering which will be the best for my money. I have a Canon 300D so I need the most out of a lens that I can get since I find the pictures barely usable at all at ISO 1600. I've been leaning towards the Sigma 50 1.4 but am wondering if I'm better getting the Canon 50 1.8 for "quick fix" and then getting a better 30mm lens later on down the road. The only "nice" thing is I don't have the pressure of a trip coming up until 2011, but waiting that long isn't nice in actuality.

Or, what I'm thinking is keep the 1.8 in excellent condition and sell it later on. Lenses in general seem to have a decent resale value.

[NLD]

I have the Nikon 35mm 1.8 also and really enjoyed it at Disney.

On the D60 with that lens I was able to get usable shots in Small World, indoors at character meals without flash, and in Festival of the Lion King.

Haunted Mansion and Peter Pan were a no-go, but I don't think a 1.4 lens would have helped that... I needed a better sensor/better ISO capabilities (and more skill). The D5000 has the same sensor as the D90, doesn't it? So with the 1.8 and that sensor it would be possible to get usable shots there, too.

[NateNLogansDad]

I just got the Nikon 35mm AF-S f/1.8 a few weeks ago and have no regrets. In fact, it has not left my camera.

I'm wondering if you are the reason I'm even looking at the 1.8. Yesterday I didn't know it existed, this morning I did a search of disboards.com and Nikon D5000. Someone had posted that they loved the 35mm 1.8 and haven't taken it off of their camera yet!

[racreel]

I have the Nikon 35mm 1.8 (my wife gave it to me on our last Disney trip as an anniversary gift). :banana:

Having never used the Sigma, I can't give a comparison, but I really like the 35mm 1.8.

<---- My avatar was taken with the 35mm in the Haunted Mansion.

Here are a few photos from MNSSHP taken with the 35mm:
(click an image to go to the flickr page to see exif data)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/4120134948_8f4d3dda61_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/creelimaging/4120134948/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2715/4078130579_e56f4f04b4_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/creelimaging/4078130579/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2474/4077250277_36651a0714_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/creelimaging/4077250277/)

[NateNLogansDad]

I have the Nikon 35mm 1.8 also and really enjoyed it at Disney.

On the D60 with that lens I was able to get usable shots in Small World, indoors at character meals without flash, and in Festival of the Lion King.

Haunted Mansion and Peter Pan were a no-go, but I don't think a 1.4 lens would have helped that... I needed a better sensor/better ISO capabilities (and more skill). The D5000 has the same sensor as the D90, doesn't it? So with the 1.8 and that sensor it would be possible to get usable shots there, too.

Yea, it has the same sensor as the D90. The biggest difference between the D90 and my personal camera is that the D90 usually has a good photographer behind it. Mine has to deal with me. Poor thing.

[NateNLogansDad]

I have the Nikon 35mm 1.8 (my wife gave it to me on our last Disney trip as an anniversary gift). :banana:

Having never used the Sigma, I can't give a comparison, but I really like the 35mm 1.8.

That so sweet! I'd be afraid of my wife picking up something for my camera!

[GrillMouster]

The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is .4
:)

Get the 1.8 now and enjoy Disney.

[NLD]

Yea, it has the same sensor as the D90. The biggest difference between the D90 and my personal camera is that the D90 usually has a good photographer behind it. Mine has to deal with me. Poor thing.

:lmao:

Seriously though, don't short-change yourself... seen some of your pics and you've taken some nice ones!



Totally agree with Grillmouster. Get the 1.8 and enjoy your trip. If it's that or no fast lens, GET IT. You'll kick yoursel for not having a fast lens otherwise once you're on those dark rides....

[racreel]

That so sweet! I'd be afraid of my wife picking up something for my camera!

She was buying from a very specific list I had given her. ;)

[NateNLogansDad]

can't talk....going to best buy right NOW!

[NLD]

can't talk....going to best buy right NOW!


:cool1::cool1::cool1:

Woohoo! Enjoy... and post some photos once you take some!

[mill4023]

I haven't used a 1.4, but I love my 1.8.
I can't post them right now, but I got some great shots of my kids on the playground at Fort Wilderness when the sun had just set and it was getting dark. Those were shots I could never have gotten with my kit lens or my 70-300 VR.

[JoeDif]

can't talk....going to best buy right NOW!


:thumbsup2

[ssanders79]

I'm wondering if you are the reason I'm even looking at the 1.8. Yesterday I didn't know it existed, this morning I did a search of disboards.com and Nikon D5000. Someone had posted that they loved the 35mm 1.8 and haven't taken it off of their camera yet!

Not me, this is the first time I've made that statement plus I am using it on a D40 not a D5000.

[NateNLogansDad]

We have a new eddition in the house!

It's a Prime!

I'm going to call it Optimus :lmao: (sorry, that's the geek in me!)

I snapped a few pics in the store (just to make sure it would auto focus for me) and they seem REALLY sweet. I pulled over on the NJ Turnpike to try to get a shot of the coolest sunset I'd ever seen behind me, but I stopped about 1/2 ahead of where I should have been. I did like what I saw but I can't wait to see what I get next.

Thanks everybody for chiming in today. When my wife came home from school, she could see it in my face that I was getting it today. She was just happy I wasn't spending the money on the 1.4, when I told her it was "only" 200 there was a sigh of relief :lmao:

[NateNLogansDad]

How long does it take before you stop trying to zoom in or out with this thing? :rotfl2:

[NateNLogansDad]

Just took a few pics of the tree with the new lens, no edits, just out of the camera........

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/natenlogansdad/tree/DSC_3172.jpg


http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/natenlogansdad/tree/DSC_3174.jpg


http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/natenlogansdad/tree/DSC_3178.jpg


http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/natenlogansdad/tree/DSC_3180.jpg

[NateNLogansDad]

The lights were on inside the tree but the house was black. I should have bumped the ISO up a little but I think I'm going to like this lens.

[WillowBelle]

How long does it take before you stop trying to zoom in or out with this thing? :rotfl2:

I've had my 50mm for a few years and STILL reach up and twist at it. I thought I was the only one :rotfl:. Congrats on getting your new lens!

[seashoreCM]

f/1.4 lets in 66% more light than f/1.8 and twice the light that f/2.0 does.
(f/1.8 lets in 2/3 the light that f/1.4 does; f/2.0 lets in half the light f/1.4 does.)

I would actually feel free to pretend that f/1.4 is a whole stop more (twice the light admittance) of f/1.8, namely set the shutter twice as fast or cut the ISO in half.