Lens comparison question about 2.8f vs. 1.4f: I shoot in low light interiors. Real estate photography. Currently using a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 19mm 2.8f fixed lens. Pretty good...

MontanaTrace

I shoot in low light interiors. Real estate photography.

Currently using a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 19mm 2.8f fixed lens. Pretty good results.
How much advantage would I gain if I buy a Sigma 16mm 1.4f fixed?

Shutterbug57

It’s 2 stops more light and a bit wider. Trade off is shallower DOF.

MontanaTrace

Thanks. I guess I'm wondering how much more low light performance should be expected when moving from a 2.8f to a 1.4f. Is it enough to warrant spending $449 for the new lens?

mgoldfield

MontanaTrace wrote:

Thanks. I guess I'm wondering how much more low light performance should be expected when moving from a 2.8f to a 1.4f. Is it enough to warrant spending $449 for the new lens?

Two stops can make a big difference; however, at f/1.4 your DOF will be dramatically reduced. Also, most lenses don't perform at their best when you use the largest aperture.

MontanaTrace

I'm shooting at infinite. Large rooms. Subject at min. 15 feet away. No background. DOF should be fine. However, would this make a decent lens for portraits? Nice bokeh?

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

MontanaTrace wrote:

I'm shooting at infinite. Large rooms. Subject at min. 15 feet away. No background. DOF should be fine. However, would this make a decent lens for portraits? Nice bokeh?

16mm focal length for portraits??? Expect to get a lot of facial distortion.

Shutterbug57

MontanaTrace wrote:

Thanks. I guess I'm wondering how much more low light performance should be expected when moving from a 2.8f to a 1.4f. Is it enough to warrant spending $449 for the new lens?

If you want/need to be able to get the same EV in 1/4 the light, then 2 stops will get you that. Is that worth $450 to you? I have no idea.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

mgoldfield wrote:

Two stops can make a big difference; however, at f/1.4 your DOF will be dramatically reduced. Also, most lenses don't perform at their best when you use the largest aperture.

I've heard this story before from professional photographers. Any f1.4 lens is most likely an expensive one. I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8G. Would I prefer the 50mm f1.4? Yes. But, I am satisfied with my f1.8 nifty fifty. And I can save for my next anticipated lens. One advantage of f1.4 in portrait lenses, especially the 85mm, is that it does take in more light, if needed, has superior glass. And you get a good blurry background.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

MontanaTrace wrote:

I shoot in low light interiors. Real estate photography.

Currently using a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 19mm 2.8f fixed lens. Pretty good results.
How much advantage would I gain if I buy a Sigma 16mm 1.4f fixed?

You are shooting RE - an F2.8 lens is fine. Besides you should be using smaller apertures for greater depth of field, unless you are focus stacking. And I think you will find, that just like most fast lenses, results are never optimal at maximum aperture. Here is a quick article that describes wide open performance on this lens:

https://www.cajungrocer.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA7briBRD7ARIsABhX8aC_hhNp6rDbQpHbWgYN3ivms-osOzriq35qbj1vdzngJO7wGrpZLWIaAjbOEALw_wcB

You're probably better off getting a solid tripod and head and using longer shutter speeds.

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

MontanaTrace wrote:

I shoot in low light interiors. Real estate photography.

Currently using a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 19mm 2.8f fixed lens. Pretty good results.
How much advantage would I gain if I buy a Sigma 16mm 1.4f fixed?

3 mm and 3 stops

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

MontanaTrace wrote:

I shoot in low light interiors. Real estate photography.

Currently using a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 19mm 2.8f fixed lens. Pretty good results.
How much advantage would I gain if I buy a Sigma 16mm 1.4f fixed?

A larger aperture generally comes at the expense of size, weight, and cost.

Try some lens comparison sites.
http://lensvslens.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.diyphotography.net/this-website-helps-you-choose-your-next-lens-based-on-the-photos-you-like/
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

In addition to it being a faster lens, if digital cameras are like film cameras for optics, the best aperture of the lens will be lower. Generally the faster lens will have a faster 'sweet spot'.

Dik

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

How are you shooting your shots? Hand held in low light limits your options. On the other hand, manual settings and a tripod makes aperture settings irrelevant except for DOF, plus, you can shoot at a low ISO for better IQ. If you can shoot in that manner then your current lens will do fine.

MontanaTrace

Pablo8 wrote:

16mm focal length for portraits??? Expect to get a lot of facial distortion.

Roger on that. Was thinking about the bokeh. Just curious. I seldom shoot portraits. When I do, I use the 55mm - 200mm kit lens in daylight. Results are good but not my major area of work. Usually done as a favor.

My 19mm 2.8f is my work horse outside and in. Existing light only. Sometimes it's pretty low light inside. I'm wondering how much advantage I'll get with by going to a 1.4f. Other writers here, make me think I'll enjoy the extra aperture. Focal lengths are not an issue.

Thanks.

BebuLamar

MontanaTrace wrote:

I shoot in low light interiors. Real estate photography.

Currently using a Sony A6000 with a Sigma 19mm 2.8f fixed lens. Pretty good results.
How much advantage would I gain if I buy a Sigma 16mm 1.4f fixed?

I think the gain is 16mm vs 19mm. As for the f/1.4 vs f/2.8 the gain is none. I don't know how to should a house interior at f/1.4 or f/2.0.