Fast fast lenses
Aug 23, 2022 09:18:07 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
Other than the obvious of shooting hand-held shots in "available dark", what advantage does a 1.2 have over a 1.4 or a 1.8? Considering the cost differential, it seems that a tripod and a slower lens would be the better solution.
Aug 23, 2022 09:24:44 #
olemikey
Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
Several thoughts;
cost
convenience
result
In my case it's usually a bit slower lens and stabilization (or tri/mono-pod).
cost
convenience
result
In my case it's usually a bit slower lens and stabilization (or tri/mono-pod).
Aug 23, 2022 09:31:51 #
gvarner wrote:
Other than the obvious of shooting hand-held shots in "available dark", what advantage does a 1.2 have over a 1.4 or a 1.8? Considering the cost differential, it seems that a tripod and a slower lens would be the better solution.
An f/1.2 or 1.4 lens isn't all that much advantage over the f/1.8 lens in term of shooting hand held in available darkness.
Aug 23, 2022 09:34:37 #
I opted for the Canon 50mm ƒ1.4, a little more light than the ƒ1.8.
I didn't think the price of the ƒ1.2 was worth it for my usage.
I didn't think the price of the ƒ1.2 was worth it for my usage.
Aug 23, 2022 09:35:37 #
BebuLamar wrote:
An f/1.2 or 1.4 lens isn't all that much advantage over the f/1.8 lens in term of shooting hand held in available darkness.
Aug 23, 2022 09:37:19 #
gvarner wrote:
Other than the obvious of shooting hand-held shots in "available dark", what advantage does a 1.2 have over a 1.4 or a 1.8? Considering the cost differential, it seems that a tripod and a slower lens would be the better solution.
f2.8 is fast enough for me 99% of the time. And, yeah, a monopod!
Aug 23, 2022 09:37:37 #
Longshadow wrote:
So I almost always bought the f/1.4 or f/2.0. Not f/1.8 or f/1.2 because I like the aperture right on the full stop.
Aug 23, 2022 09:38:20 #
BebuLamar wrote:
So I almost always bought the f/1.4 or f/2.0. Not f/1.8 or f/1.2 because I like the aperture right on the full stop.
Aug 23, 2022 09:41:27 #
gvarner wrote:
Other than the obvious of shooting hand-held shots in "available dark", what advantage does a 1.2 have over a 1.4 or a 1.8? Considering the cost differential, it seems that a tripod and a slower lens would be the better solution.
The difference is negligible, but magnified by marketing (and lemmings). No need to add a tripod for a 1/2 stop difference. Or if youre already using a tripod, gaining a 1/2 stop will not eliminate the tripod.
Aug 23, 2022 09:42:27 #
gvarner wrote:
Other than the obvious of shooting hand-held shots in "available dark", what advantage does a 1.2 have over a 1.4 or a 1.8? Considering the cost differential, it seems that a tripod and a slower lens would be the better solution.
The only reason I can think of is if a very shallow depth of field is needed. Something like industrial or mechanical photography where the isolation of a small part or section is desired.
Aug 23, 2022 09:46:01 #
Mac wrote:
The only reason I can think of is if a very shallow depth of field is needed. Something like industrial or mechanical photography where the isolation of a small part or section is desired.
That is azz backwards for industrial, or "mechanical", photography. Your reply suggests youre not in that bidnez. Silly lenses are not tools of the trade.
Aug 23, 2022 09:46:52 #
Fast lenses were more important when shooting film. With today's digital cameras, the convenience of adjusting the ISO negates the need for fast lenses.
--Bob
--Bob
gvarner wrote:
Other than the obvious of shooting hand-held shots in "available dark", what advantage does a 1.2 have over a 1.4 or a 1.8? Considering the cost differential, it seems that a tripod and a slower lens would be the better solution.
Aug 23, 2022 09:47:15 #
Aug 23, 2022 09:50:17 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
BebuLamar wrote:
So I almost always bought the f/1.4 or f/2.0. Not f/1.8 or f/1.2 because I like the aperture right on the full stop.
Can you tell me why the full stop has any significance
Aug 23, 2022 10:00:38 #
The f/stop is one of the two factors that determine the depth of field. By "faster lens", I presume that it is referring to shooting with the open aperture.
DOF = (0.0022*N*N*(m+1)*(m+1))/(m*m) , where N is the F-number and m is magnification. The resulting distance is measured in millimeters.
DOF = (0.0022*N*N*(m+1)*(m+1))/(m*m) , where N is the F-number and m is magnification. The resulting distance is measured in millimeters.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.