No, hashes generally require twice as many bits in order to avoid birthday attacks — that's why one uses SHA-256 for 128-bit security.
98 bits is still plenty, of course, but it's not 128 bits.
98 bits is still plenty, of course, but it's not 128 bits.
There's simply no excuse to choose to use SHA1 in 2016. It's not completely broken, it's probably good enough, but why not just truncate SHA2?
The same principle applies to checksums that are sometimes published for binaries - many still use MD5 or SHA-1 - and that's fine too, as (second) preimage resistance is what counts here, rather than collision-resistance.