Buying a 1.4 vs. 2.8 lens (Page 2): Good point, but, not always valid in the light of Post Processing. And, many Sony, Canon, and Nikon professional 2.8 glass are vary sharp wide open.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

par4fore wrote:

For the purpose of discussion; Let’s say you would be happy to buy a f2.8 lens and think you will want to shoot at f2.8 shouldn’t you still consider a faster lens since most tend to shoot sharper two or so stops over open?

Good point, but, not always valid in the light of Post Processing. And, many Sony, Canon, and Nikon professional 2.8 glass are vary sharp wide open.

waltonksm

If you want a super sharp 50mm Nikkor, buy the F2.0 version for $50 of so. Second best is F1.8. Then the 1.4. (costliest.) It takes "more lens" (more glass, more curves, tougher to produce, etc.) You buy a very fast lens for special needs, like indoor shots, no flash, low light, and so on. So you get the ability to shoot in lower light. You DO NOT necessarily get sharper or better images, you get FASTER lenses, and the ability to shoot in lower light.

I do own a 500mm F4.0 P lens. Great wide open. Not as sharp as you stop it down. It cost me $2700 (used) about ten years ago.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

DOF is also a factor...the longer the focal length and faster the lens aperture the less DOF.

pshuster72

I guess it all depends on what you are going to use it for and how much you want to spend. You will use them for different reasons and you should focus on what your purpose is. Several other of the posts have gone into other factors. Personally, I have a f/1.8 50mm which is great for low light and portraits, but also have a f/2.8 70-200mm for sports... much different uses.

clickety

Longshadow wrote:

If a 2.8 lens has a 1.4 option, wouldn't it be a 1.4 lens???

👍👍

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That may have been a consideration at some time in the past. But, with digital and the ability to change ISO on the fly, one stop considering the increase in price may not be worth it. As for sharper, would it actually be visible, or are we discussing lab test data that is finer than human eye resolution?
--Bob

par4fore wrote:

For the purpose of discussion; Let’s say you would be happy to buy a f2.8 lens and think you will want to shoot at f2.8 shouldn’t you still consider a faster lens since most tend to shoot sharper two or so stops over open?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rmalarz wrote:

That may have been a consideration at some time in the past. But, with digital and the ability to change ISO on the fly, one stop considering the increase in price may not be worth it. As for sharper, would it actually be visible, or are we discussing lab test data that is finer than human eye resolution?
--Bob

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Fotoartist wrote:

In this example the difference in sharpness would be so minuscule that your shooting technique or post processing technique would completely override it. This applies to most discussions about minute differences of sharpness in general, IMO. Theoretical but not very practical.

An excellent way to look at it. I'd throw in artistic vision as a major factor too. Our photo club rated photos on impact, composition, and technical ability. No one ever thought to raise the issue of equipment quality or the virtue of this sensor over that or this lens over that.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Longshadow wrote:

If a 2.8 lens has a 1.4 option, wouldn't it be a 1.4 lens???

Silly me .... I read that as meaning 'alternative' - you could purchase an f/2.8 lens or you could purchase an f/1.4 lens, the two being essentially the same but the latter being much more bulky and expensive

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Longshadow wrote:

If a 2.8 lens has a 1.4 option, wouldn't it be a 1.4 lens???

Longshadow,
Isn't it possible that he is exactly correct? And his examples prove it. the 70-200 2.8 does not come in a 1.4 option, nor does the 24-70 2.8. Therefore it is only something to consider when a lens you are interested in purchasing comes as 1.4. And, most of these lenses are primes.
Of course you knew what he meant.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

It's simple financial choice. If the difference in price is of no concern go with 1.4. If the money matters to you--2.8. If I had all the money in the world I would have a 1DX11 and a boat load of L glass, or the nikon equivilents. And maybe a Sony A9 back up. But I don't so I can't.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

jbk224 wrote:

Longshadow,
Isn't it possible that he is exactly correct? And his examples prove it. the 70-200 2.8 does not come in a 1.4 option, nor does the 24-70 2.8. Therefore it is only something to consider when a lens you are interested in purchasing comes as 1.4. And, most of these lenses are primes.
Of course you knew what he meant.

Don't think so. Wording in error?
I know of no 2.8 that has a 1.4 option...
The 70-200 2.8 doesn't come with a 1.4 option because the largest aperture is 2.8.
If it went to 1.4 it would be called a 1.4. We are talking largest aperture, not stops. At least I am.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

Please excuse the ignorance, but what is an OP? (I'm a new user)

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

DAN Phillips wrote:

Please excuse the ignorance, but what is an OP? (I'm a new user)

Opinion Poster

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

DAN Phillips wrote:

Please excuse the ignorance, but what is an OP? (I'm a new user)

Depending on context it is either Original Post or Original Poster.