DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

Thanks! I thought it meant Original Photographer.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Original Poster.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Thank you. Offhand I cannot think of any 2.8 lens that has a 1.4 option.

Dennis

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Logically yes, assuming the statement is always true.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

There are only two reasons to prefer a f/1.4 lens over an f/2.8 lens with the same focal length or range of focal lengths: 1) Shallower depth of field, and 2) improved low light performance. If you aren't buying the f/1.4 lens for one of these reasons, you are wasting your money.

Not all f/1.4 lenses are "sharper two or so stops over open." f/1.4 lenses are often designed to be very sharp wide open or very close to wide open--one of the reasons they are much more expensive.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

I would consider cost and weight as well as your low-light needs as more important. Much ado about sharpness when most of today’s fixed lenses are pretty darn good throughout their entire ranch.

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

At my age, sharpness is fast becoming a dead issue. ;)

Kuzano

Really depends on the lens. I shoot and shot a lot of Olympus Zuiko lenses and country of manufacture is important to know.

Essentially the basic 50mm f1.8 "B&B" lens is sharper than both the f1.2 and f1.4 (depending on COM) The most readily available 1.4 matches sharpness of the standard 50mm when it hits f2.8.

Frankly, my goals on lenses has more to do with Bokeh, and the only reason I would pay more for that fast if if the bokeh was very good (smooth). However, best bokeh is achieved when the aperture is large f1.2 and one lens has more aperture blades. For instance, the highlights on a 5 bladed aperture are not nearly as good (soft) as the same focal length lens with 7, or better yet, 9 aperture blade lens. Those lenses with more blades are not as readily found unless high priced glass.

There is some mythology to the point of a lens being sharper one or two stops in and higher. Frankly, after all my searching for bokeh reasons, I have tested enough lenses to consider the freakishy high prices for f1.2 and f1.4 lenses, unless it meets a bokeh requirement. Spending that money is a gamble, but as long as people step up in the belief that their fancy (fast) lens is better if they don't use the first two stops, the purveyors of such lenses are not going squelch the notion.

Kuzano

Original poster..... everybody has an opinion and that does not make them OP. (It often does make the Opinion Poster an A_Ho.)

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Simple answer, yes.

But there is not a lot of variety at 1:1.4. Sure, I own several 50mm and 55mm f/1.4, f/1.7, f/1.8, f/2 Prime lenses. These are all vintage "film" lenses. I actually do wish I also had really fast WA and Short Teles, but I don't. There I'm at f/2.8 or slower. It is mainly for viewing and manual focusing that super fast lenses are useful. I rarely shoot at f/2.

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

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

You should judge each lens on its own merits. With today's computer designed lens, a faster lens wide open can be as sharp or sharper than a stopped down slower lens of the same focal length. Today, each lens design, even from the same manufacturer, is different and you can't generalize with the certainty that you could years ago when lens correction wasn't as advanced as it is today.

jbmauser Loc: Roanoke, VA

I read an article recently discussing a 50mm f1.4 vs buying a f1.8 lens. A point was made and I can't question it, was that a f1.4 will be manufactured to a much higher quality all the way around as reflected in it's much higher price. Glass and Mechanical tolerances and overall performance will be at the highest quality. Personally I love having f1.4 bokeh available when I want it.

jdedmonds

I don't know the extent to which different copies of Nikon lenses vary in sharpness. If they do, then the 85mm f1.4 I bought fifteen years ago is one of the really good ones. It is my preferred lens, sharp as my eyes will detect, and at f2.8 is considerably sharper than my Nikon 80-200 f2.8, which Rockwell describes as the sharpest lens he's ever used. Note that we're talking about 85mm lenses here, not 50mm lenses.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

"since most tend to shoot". for those of us not in the most category, faster would be nice, but for some or "one" (me) there IS a budget to think about. for conversation, point for me is I'm saving up for new lens to take with me on Oct. trip to Italy. Nikon 18-300 f3.5-6.3/ $700 vs f3.5-5.6/ $1,000. for the pro that i am not, the .7 difference i can live with and keep the extra $300+tx in my pocket for a pizza in Pisa after shooting the leaning tower, lol.