It seems that I'm quite chatty tonight, so here goes another question: (that came to my mind since I'm in the search for a good AF 50mm, to substitute the MF one I have) I was wondering why all "pro's" use or wish to have the 50mm 1.4 and 24 2.8. What I mean is, why pay more than twice the price for = F stop, what's wrong with the 1.8?

About the 24, I have a 28 2.8, but it costs less than half of the 24, and all for a few millimeters that ain't real anyway (a lens is never 28 or 24, usually its something like 29.2 or 25), is the 24 so much better regarding optical quality?

Or is it all due to the commercial capabilities of the manufactures? I have the 50 1.8 and 28 2.8 and every time I meet a fellow photographer with the "good" ones I feel kind of funny like I'm not pro enough, its a stupid thing, but I'm interested to know if the 1.4 is so much better.

thanks.

-- Digeo K. (heuristica@yahoo.com), February 19, 2000

Answers

The difference between f1.8 and 1.4 is 2/3 of a stop. I get 1.4s because, after 20 years, I've found that it's the difference between having and not having a hand holdable speed. The only other difference is that 1.4's are usually more rugged. If you don't need the speed don't worry about it.

The difference in view between a 24 and a 28 is bigger than you think, and most maker's primes are quite close to their marked focal length. Good wide and long lenses are expensive to make, and that's where the price difference shows. A 24 won't be any sharper than your 28.

-- Bruce Rubenstein (b_rubenstein@yahoo.com), February 19, 2000.

Troll?

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), February 19, 2000.

A 24 won't be any sharper than your 28.

I wonder what is the source of this information since all the reviews of the AF 24/2.8 are generally much better that those about the AF 28/2.8.

lp

-- Louis-Philippe Masse (phisa@generation.net), February 19, 2000.

"I have the 50 1.8 and 28 2.8 and every time I meet a fellow photographer with the "good" ones I feel kind of funny like I'm not pro enough, its a stupid thing, but I'm interested to know if the 1.4 is so much better."

Purchasing equipment because of what other photographers will think of you is not the right reason! Cameras and lenses are tools, so buy the equipment that will help you create the type of photographs you like. A sturdy tripod, cable release will make you "appear" more like a pro than using a new 50/1.4 lens.

-- Jim Bridges (jcbejb@worldnet.att.net), February 20, 2000.

Hey that's not what I ment, its not because the other guy has it. I want to understand why a lot of people, generally all "pros" spend more than twice the money on this lenses, I'm into photography for almost 7 years now and still haven't got into a situation that I would NEED the 1.4 to shoot low light, when I need speed I use the 1.8 and thats it. with te 28 its the same thing, there might have been times when I would have wanted a 20 or 18, but a 24 insted of 28? not really.

for exmaple a 24 2.8 and 50 1.4 in BH are listed for 289.95 and 249.95 total of 539.9 U$D, while the 50 1.8 and 28 2.8 are listed for 96.95 and 219.95 total of 316.9 a little over half of that.

I trust that people dont spend this cash only because the name of it, I saw a lot of photographers use the 1.4 has standart, and dont do anything actually related with low light, on the contrary I have a friend who does theather photos, so he actually NEEDS this.

So what is the reason for this 200$ diference, and being paid by so much people (note that here in Spain the 24 2.8 costs more than twice than the 28, like 500$)

Os let my leave this clear: Im not intrested in te lenses because other people has them!!!!! it just sparcked up my curiosty to see these lenses to be so popular.

-- Diego k. (heuristica@yahoo.com), February 20, 2000.

$300 might be one day's budget for film and processing, so that much extra on lenses is trivial. If it lets the photographer do something better, it is worth it.

I use a couple of f/1.2 lenses, and one of them cost a really stupid amount, but it gives me results that I couldn't otherwise get.

I also have a 15, 20, 24, 28, 35, ... and these are very different lenses. Only a few millimetres, but a big difference. (Before anyone jumps, I believe I could get away with just one lens.)

-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), February 20, 2000.

Nobody seems to have mentioned the fact that focussing is a darned sight "snappier" with an f/1.4 than f/1.8, and some professionals rely on those few milliseconds less time spent focussing. Personally, I'm glad I'm not a member of their scrum, but I do appreciate the more positive focussing of my f/1.4, and f/1.2 lenses.

As for the difference between 24 and 28mm, the 24 has nearly 10degrees more horizontal angle-of-view, not insignificant by any means; in fact the same difference as between a 35mm and 28mm lens.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), February 21, 2000.

To amplify a couple of points others have made: at least with Canon autofocus, the 50/1.4 is a much sturdier built lens than the 50/1.8. 24mm is 15% shorter than 28mm, quite significant. I used to have a 28mm lens and found it almost useless but I love my 24mm. I'm sure others feel just the opposite. Don't feel bad about having a slower lens. A certain 50/2 Leica M lens is highly regarded.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), February 25, 2000.

In Canon EF-line there is still one minor point to choose 1,4/50 over 1,8: 1,4 has better "bokeh", and there is some extra feeling in some situations compared with 1,8 version. In Japan they have it one of the major point's in their advertising... (bokeh= how out-of-fokus areas appear in picture).

-- Tuukka Jylhd (tuukkac@hotmail.com), February 26, 2000.