Nifty-fifty for low light: 1.8 or 1.4?

Nethawk

Nethawk

Messages
259
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all. I'll be shooting portraits in available light and sometimes in dimly lit areas. Just wondering if the 1.4 makes that much more of a difference. I'd sooner get the 1.8 for cost of course, but hey - I'd also like the higher end lenses in all categories as well. Anyone have much experience comparing the two? I won't be shooting any action in low light - just stills and portraits.
 
It depends on what your camera can manage, ISO-wise.

I've been into available-light photography for a few years now. To give you an idea of the sort of settings you'll be working with, the pic below was shot in a dimly-lit wine cellar with overhead bulbs, Canon 5D, ISO 800, f/1.4, 1/50 sec:

2548804126_8e46d24bec.jpg


f/1.8 is half a stop smaller than f/1.4, so you'd need to shoot at ISO 1250 to keep your shutter speed of 1/50 sec, which is probably as low as you'd want to go hand-held (although I've got away with 1/15 sec beore now!)

One thing to bear in mind is that working with a 50mm lens wide open will give you a tiny depth-of-field. Careful focusing is critical - focus on the eyes!

Have fun - available light photography is a fascinating world, and with the high ISOs now possible with digital SLRs, you'll get pics that others wouldn't think possible.

A.
 
The 1.4 is a better lens than the 1.8 but whether you would notice or not? Are you sure you need a 50mm on a crop sensor? I do quite a bit of street portraiture and often find I am shooting around 35mm. The 35mm f1.8 is a good lens too.
 
Nethawk said:
My unit's a D90, so I guess I'll have to do some research. Thanks - I appreciate the input. That cellar shot looks great!
Click to expand...

A D90 is more than happy at ISO1600 - as posted though, a 50mm lens on a cropped-sensor camera can seem a little long at times. On the D90, I preferred using the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
 
Anorakus said:
It depends on what your camera can manage, ISO-wise.

I've been into available-light photography for a few years now. To give you an idea of the sort of settings you'll be working with, the pic below was shot in a dimly-lit wine cellar with overhead bulbs, Canon 5D, ISO 800, f/1.4, 1/50 sec:

2548804126_8e46d24bec.jpg


f/1.8 is half a stop smaller than f/1.4, so you'd need to shoot at ISO 1250 to keep your shutter speed of 1/50 sec, which is probably as low as you'd want to go hand-held (although I've got away with 1/15 sec beore now!)

One thing to bear in mind is that working with a 50mm lens wide open will give you a tiny depth-of-field. Careful focusing is critical - focus on the eyes!

Have fun - available light photography is a fascinating world, and with the high ISOs now possible with digital SLRs, you'll get pics that others wouldn't think possible.

A.
Click to expand...

cracking photo! im thinking of adding the 1.4 to my 5d as well
 
love my 1.4 for pure sharpness. I always liked my 40D but didn't realise how good it really was for detail until I shot with the 50mm 1.4 in decent light

did this for a club portrait
IMG_8631 500px.jpg

monster brows on a 100% crop even after a trim
eyebrows.jpg

The 5D should do it even more justice
 
The other thing with a 50mm 1.4 is the real shallow depth of field. Sometimes you focus on the eys and the tip of the nose can be out of focus!

But I've just used it to great effect photographing a guitar for a product shoot.
 
what a great shot


James

I'm getting my 50mm back out this weekend for some low light church shots
I would like to get a shot of bride and maids in a similar shot. have done in the past with a 70 -200mm zoom
 
Regardless of ISO performance, the f/1.4 wins hands down if you can afford it / are willing to pay the extra.
 
A friend who has recently upgraded from the 1.8 to the 1.4 has noted that it is the difference between a hand-holdable speed and a camera-shakey speed at iso 800 in most pubs & artificially lit places. I suspect he's right. when I'm in a dim place I'm usually at f1.8, struggling quite badly to keep myself steady.
 
I've owned both, and I sold my f1.4 and kept the f/1.8 on the basis that the f/1.4 was not worth 6 times the cost of the f/1.8. It is a better built lens yes technically with better focus and bokeh, but purely based on image quality I was having to pixel peep to tell the difference in sharpness. To me that does not warrant the extra cost. So I sold it and went back to my plastic fantastic. I think a lot of people on here don't like doing comparisons between the two as they don't want to have to justify the extra cost of the f/1.4 and just want to assume it is better based on cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top