Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: FD 50 f1.4 vs f1.8

  1. #1
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    FD 50 f1.4 vs f1.8

    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

  2. #2
    Senior Member JBurnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: FD 50 f1.4 vs f1.8

    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):

    Best regards,
    John.
    http://jburnett.ca

  3. #3
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: FD 50 f1.4 vs f1.8

    Hi John

    nice images

    Quote Originally Posted by JBurnett View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Senior Member JBurnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: FD 50 f1.4 vs f1.8

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    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.
    Best regards,
    John.
    http://jburnett.ca

  5. #5
    meilicke
    Guest

    Re: FD 50 f1.4 vs f1.8

    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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •