Adorama posted an interesting article comparing 50mm lenses of differing apertures. ; Both Nikon and Canon lenses were tested. ; Too bad they didn't include the Sigma as well. ; http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx ... f18-or-f14
That's interesting. A friend of mine and I have been talking over this topic for some time. He has both a 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, and he swears he gets better picts with the 1.8. He can't put a finger on it - just that to him, it looks better. I've been oogling the f/1.2 for some time, knowing that I sometimes have to work in very dark situations where a flash is not an option. Even at f/2.8 I need more light. I would think that the bigger glass would give me better images but my friend states this isn't true. The article may explain why.
Tom, wait. ; Nikon is supposedly working on an AF-S 50/1.2. ; Granted it will be $2k+, but you can always rent it first!
I once heard that there is a limit on how fast Nikon can make a lens, due to the diameter of the mount. ; I think that means we'll never see anything faster than f/1.2. ; An Roger, here are the test results for the current 50mm 1.4G lens: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Len ... 0mm-f-1.4G
Thanks Dennis. ; Well, even Canon didn't update their 50/1.0! ; There is a reason for it, other than I think it uses leaded glass or actual fluorite, and as such the costs of manufacturing would result in them not being able to recoup the development costs....
DxOMark has posted a review of 50mm lenses. ; This one shows results for all 50mm lenses for Nikon and Canon (each tested on four different bodies) as well as lenses for other brands of camera. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our ... -my-camera
But then again, with ISO numbers pushing 12k on the D3 bodies and even higher ones just around the corner, should I take that extra $1.8k that is the difference between the f/1.8 and f/1.2 and upgrade my next body up to a camera that can handle these high isos and make ALL my lenses faster? Then again, the DOF isn't that tight, but if a cheaper lens can deliver the color and sharpness with no distortion then you really have to ask why even spend that much? It's a different world we're living in to even think about this. (It's been only a dream, now the dreams are coming true...)
I recently heard on a podcast (TWIP?) that the paradigm has shifted: ; Lenses are now a long-term investment and bodies are the disposable item, replaced every few years. For a pro, maybe!
It kind of depends on how you treat your equipment... Nikon has gotten the point and is re-releasing a lot of their lenses - even some with major improvements. ; : ; I'm a big believer in buying stuff when I need it, not when their marketing thinks it's a good idea. (Can I hear an amen to that?) With my lenses, I'm now into my 2nd body so I can see their point. But they're still electro/mechanical devices that will (not may) wear out and die. Just not in the same time frame as a body.
