Not because of the nominal apertures, but because of the quality of the glass. I keep hearing that a 50mm f/1.4 looks terrible when it's open all the way anyways.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 make a 50mm f/1.4 prime superfluous?
- Thread starter Shacklebolt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No.
After being in Florida over the holidays and taking a lot of night shots, I've decided to buy a 50mm 1.4. While on vacation, my son and I had a lot of lens between the two of us. We borrowed a 50mm 1.4 from a friend to take and we ended up doing a lot of shots with both the 50mm and my 20mm 2.8 on a D200 and D300.
FWIW, the 50 was the lens we ended up using the most.
After being in Florida over the holidays and taking a lot of night shots, I've decided to buy a 50mm 1.4. While on vacation, my son and I had a lot of lens between the two of us. We borrowed a 50mm 1.4 from a friend to take and we ended up doing a lot of shots with both the 50mm and my 20mm 2.8 on a D200 and D300.
FWIW, the 50 was the lens we ended up using the most.
Absolutely not! The 50mm f/1.4 is an excellent lens and has its own role to play in one's photographic repertoire. The glass quality is not all that bad and this lens does quite well for shooting in extremely low light and at night. There's room for both in your camera bag....
No, f/1.4 is clearly much better than an f/2.8 - but then if I had a 50mm f/1.4 and the option to sell it and get the 24-70mm f/2.8 I would