The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

FD 50 f1.4 vs f1.8

pellicle

New member
Hi

well I just got my FD 50 f1.4 today ... I just couldn't help myself I had to actually try it.

Firstly its bigger, secondly its heavier.

As expected it performs about the same as the f1.8 does at one click in but seems to be a bit better image quality over all.

did I mention its heavier?

The brightness difference (as I expected) makes nearly no difference

I'll wait for some sunny days to test it and probably sell it, but right now, I'd say that if I had the opportunity to try it without buying it ... I would probably not have it
 

JBurnett

Well-known member
I don't use the FD 50mm f/1.4 as often since I found a Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 (about 1/2 the weight and size). I've kept it (so far), however, because it focuses closer than the M-Rokker, and I find its rendering generally pleasing. Stopped down, I like it a lot, (but, then, there are MANY nice lenses for that).

I don't have the FD 50mm f/1.8 to compare. I originally purchased the f/1.4 based on my experience with the current (EOS) versions, and the fact that I was able to find one at a good price.

The 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2:



@ f/5.6 (I think):

 

pellicle

New member
Hi John

nice images

I don't use the FD 50mm f/1.4 as often since I found a Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 (about 1/2 the weight and size). I've kept it (so far), however, because it focuses closer than the M-Rokker,
well, in my case the 1.8 and the 1.4 focus more or less the same distance. I use a 10mm extension tube to get a bit closer.

On the the subject of f2's I've actually hear that the Nikon E series f2 works out well on the 4/3

but I notice that on both your images you weren't using f1.4 either
The 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2:

@ f/5.6 (I think):
unless the subject is a a greater distance the dof of the 50 @ f1.4 is just way to shallow for much
 

JBurnett

Well-known member
but I notice that on both your images you weren't using f1.4 either
I find a bit too much "haze" at f/1.4 to shoot wide open often. I'm quite comfortable using the lens at f/2, though. For the first photo (f/2) I wanted a reasonably narrow depth of field. For the second shot (f/5.6), I was looking for edge to edge sharpness.
 
M

meilicke

Guest
Pellicle, glad you finally got a 1.4 to test. Interesting about the size difference. I did not think the 1.4 was too big. I will keep the 1.8 in mind if I find myself looking for something a bit smaller. But then again, there are so many interesting options for these cameras.

-Scott
 
Top