Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
1.2/ 1.4 /1.8
Jun 2, 2014 21:19:06 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Right. It will also be bigger, heavier, and maybe not quite as sharp. Comparisons often show that the fastest lens available is not usually the sharpest. It gives you a stop or two of exposure, but there is a price to pay in price, size, weight, and sharpness.
Depends on the system. Some of the sharpest lenses in the m4/3 system are the fastest:
Nocticron 42.5 f1.2
Panasonic Leica 25 f1.4
Nokton 17.5 f.95
Jun 2, 2014 21:19:52 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Very true. That's why you never have enough lenses. :D
Amen!
Jun 2, 2014 21:46:47 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
SharpShooter wrote:
Nim, yes, though you are 100% correct, what is not intuitive, especially to a beginner, is what a whole f-stop munber even is!
It's difficult for many to know that 5.6 is a whole stop, but why in the world is f8 the next whole stop?
Unlike ISO and Shutter Speed which are neat whole numbers.
I'm willing to bet that many experienced photographers can not from memory write down all the whole stops from f1.0 to f16, without looking on the inside of the film box cheat-sheet! :lol:
SS
It's difficult for many to know that 5.6 is a whole stop, but why in the world is f8 the next whole stop?
Unlike ISO and Shutter Speed which are neat whole numbers.
I'm willing to bet that many experienced photographers can not from memory write down all the whole stops from f1.0 to f16, without looking on the inside of the film box cheat-sheet! :lol:
SS
Delete :oops:
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Jun 2, 2014 21:50:57 #
lukan wrote:
No, that IS the accident victim, as is evidenced by the blood that has run down his head. ;)
I've seen responders get that bloody. Hope he's OK.
Jun 2, 2014 22:22:04 #
lukan
Loc: Chicago, IL
rocketride wrote:
I've seen responders get that bloody. Hope he's OK.
Wow. I'm with you on that...hope he's OK too.
Jun 2, 2014 22:32:16 #
redhogbill wrote:
what is the difference and what is the math? {if any] what is fastest? and when to use each?
any help would be appreciated!!
any help would be appreciated!!
An acquaintance has a canon 50 1.2 - - Real pricey ! It can be managed to blow away the background or foreground ! The 1.4 works pretty well and is not so cost restrictive ~ ~ and love it !!
Jun 2, 2014 22:48:56 #
redhogbill wrote:
To answer your question without sidetracking, either one. The 1.4 is more then double the price of the 1.8 and what you get is only 2/3 stop more wide open. Both are quite sharp but IF you have to pull out the microscope (I hate that crap) the 1.8 is marginally sharper wide open and down to about f5.6. Choose one and forget about it as you won't miss anything about the other in the real world....I see 1.4/1.8 on Nikon lenses, was wondering which was better? of course I could go by price , just was not sure what the different is!!
thanks for the help so far
thanks for the help so far
Forget about what some people "think". I have three 50mm's from my film cameras two Nikkors, an f2.0, an f1.4 and a Nikon 1.8 Series E which was a "budget" lens. Guess which one is sharpest? Yeah, the cheap one, though sometimes it's not the only factor in making a choice.
Jun 2, 2014 22:54:44 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Blasthoff wrote:
To answer your question without sidetracking, eith... (show quote)
Yes, I know what you are saying, but that 2/3 stop could be the difference between 1/15th sec and 1/25th sec which could be the difference between an acceptable shot and a throwaway.
Also the shallowness in DOF available with a 1.4 over the 1.8 , (no matter how small) could be the final determining factor.
Jun 2, 2014 23:25:28 #
lighthouse wrote:
Yes, I know what you are saying, but that 2/3 stop could be the difference between 1/15th sec and 1/25th sec which could be the difference between an acceptable shot and a throwaway.
Also the shallowness in DOF available with a 1.4 over the 1.8 , (no matter how small) could be the final determining factor.
Also the shallowness in DOF available with a 1.4 over the 1.8 , (no matter how small) could be the final determining factor.
In theory, yes. I used the f1.4 for a long time and the more I used it the more often then not I would be trying to stop down some which I found more fitting to the shots I would use a 50mm for. To isolate, I'd use an 85mm f2.0 (I loved this lens) or 100 f2.8. Of course, this was 35mm and my fast speed was limited to ISO 400 which you can easily gain at least a stop or two on today.
Jun 3, 2014 02:08:33 #
nicksr1125 wrote:
Canon had an f/.95 50mm lens when they were still using the old breech lock mount.
In 1975, Stanley Kubick adapted a Zeiss 50mm, f/0.7 lens to shoot candle-lit scenes in his movie Barry Lyndon. I know this takes us off on another tangent, but I thought it was interesting in the f/stop discussion.
Jun 3, 2014 14:21:13 #
Michael O'
Loc: Midwest right now
PAR4DCR wrote:
1.2 would be the fastest, used in very low light situations.
Would probably be expensive. 1.2 more expensive than 1.4 than 1.8.
Wide open all used in low light or when you want to blur back ground.
Would probably be expensive. 1.2 more expensive than 1.4 than 1.8.
Wide open all used in low light or when you want to blur back ground.
The 1.2 is an L series Canon lens, and is a beautiful short tele. It provides crystal clear and fine resolution. Because of its "big glass" it is very flexible; good from high noon to low light situations. I use mine for virtually all of my portraiture, which I do only outdoors with greenery as background, because I am virtually addicted to natural light, and artificial light I do not care for. It is also a good "walk around lens for street photography.
CIO.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.