Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

50mm 1.4 or 1.8?

Apr 28, 2012 12:57PM PDT

Is the 1.4 worth it for the image quality? Is the image quality a lot more better on the 1.4?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
No
Apr 28, 2012 2:33PM PDT

The only real difference between the two is the aperture. The f/1.4 gathers 2/3rds of a stop more light, and has an even more unforgiving depth of field wide open.

Judging by your question, you maybe shouldn't even buy another lens yet. You should only buy a lens if you know what you want it for and what it can do.

- Collapse -
Bokeh
Apr 29, 2012 7:25AM PDT

I was also wondering if the 1.4 gives a lot more better bokeh than the 1.8, is it just a little or a big difference? Worth it?

Another question since newer cameras like the d3200 has 24mp sensor is this a bad thing or a good thing? will it cause gainer images?

- Collapse -
What Is and Ins't Bokeh
Apr 29, 2012 9:18AM PDT

You are confusing depth of field with bokeh. A larger aperture provides a shallower depth of field; compared to a smaller aperture, there will be more out of focus. Bokeh on the other hand is just a description of what the out of focus elements look like. A lens can have good creamy bokeh, or bad nervous bokeh, but a lens cannot have more or less bokeh.

So...a f/1.4 lens has a shallower depth of field. That isn't necessarily a good thing, especially for a new photographer. If your focus is off by just a few millimeters, your image will be ruined. An f/1.8 is more forgiving of a missed focus (but it is still not easy either). I personally think it is a mistake to rush in an buy a 50mm lens just because people have told you it's cheap and good, and that you need a wide aperture to create blurred backgrounds. You don't. A blurred background is created with not just aperture, but also focal length, distance to the subject, and the distance of the background.

As for the D3200, preliminary tests looks pretty good. But a new-to-market camera always costs a lot more than the outgoing camera. Unless you have to have the latest product, the older D3100 will be hundreds less in price and probably near as good. You could also buy the better D5100 for the same price as the D3200.

- Collapse -
f1.8, f1.4
Apr 29, 2012 9:19AM PDT

You have not said for sure.
I am going to assume you are asking about Nikon lenses.

Here are reviews of both lenses:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/216-nikkor-af-50mm-f14-d-review--lab-test-report

There should be little difference in bokeh.
Both lenses have 7 blades in the aperture device and the number of blades will usually make the most differences in bokeh (more is better).

In regards to grain (noise), when using a DSLR camera, 24 MP should make little difference because of the large size of the sensor assembly.
Remember a 24 MP picture file will be quite large and you can not get as many pictures on a memory card.
The extra MPs come in handy if you are doing lots of cropping.
If you are printing 4 x 6 inch pictures, 24 MP is total overkill.
If you are making slide shows with lots of pan and zoom, 24 MP gives you a chance to make some dramatic effects. You can make the slide show look like a movie.

..