What would I gain from an F1.4 or F1.2 Lens? (Page 9): LOL... I have a few including an old manual Pentax K mount 50/1.2. Not a lot of difference than shooting my old 50/1.4.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DaveO wrote:

Me too. Can't tell you how thrilled I am.

LOL... I have a few including an old manual Pentax K mount 50/1.2. Not a lot of difference than shooting my old 50/1.4.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Sweet spot is in the midrange f 11

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Take a look at PhotographyLife's comparison of the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8...
https://photographylife.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-vs-f1-4g

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Robby418 wrote:

Insightful info, thanks. My question to you is regarding your night photography. In general, I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, the sweet spot of the lens is ~ 2-3 stops to start past wide and fall off at smaller apertures. Would you benefit shooting the 2.8 lens at it's sweet spot or would the results be negligible?

It would be great to be able to shoot at f5.6 or so (focus would be a little less critical), but doing so would either require an ISO around 16,000 or an exposure of almost a minute and a half. Either of those choices would create much bigger problems than shooting as described. The other way to look at your question is that the results we get as night sky photographers sort of tend to dispel the truth of the statement about lenses not being sharp wide open...at least when it is dark. We have absolutely no problem resolving individual stars even when making large prints. It may simply be that the perceived drop in sharpness comes from all of that light bouncing around inside the lens. If that is true, it is possible that ND filters combined with large apertures might be feasible for those situations requiring minimal depth of field. (I don't know about this, though. I haven't used ND filters.)

Nicholas DeSciose

Buy a tripod

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Nicholas DeSciose wrote:

Buy a tripod

Not sure who your comment is directed to. If to me, be aware that this side conversation has to do with night sky photography. Exposure times are limited because of the movement of the stars. A 90 second exposure would be possible only with something like a 5mm lens. And yes...I do have a good tripod.

Yourstruly43

par4fore wrote:

Most lens tend to be sharpest at about 2 stops over wide open. Therefore if you need the light or prefer the blur of wide open the faster lens will preform better. I would shoot my 1.2 at f2, my 1.4 at f2.8 and my 1.8 at f4 to insure sharpness wide open.

This is pretty much on the money except I prefer even slower lenses so my sharpest apertures are f8 to F16. What is meant here when he says lens sharpness best 2 stops down is that edge sharpness approaches approaches center sharpness on any lens 2 stops down from the maximum aperture. Thus you get the greatest sharpness throughout your picture with or without focus stacking. That combined with greater depth of field is usually what you want with landscapes.

Yourstruly43

Yourstruly43 wrote:

This is pretty much on the money except I prefer even slower lenses so my sharpest apertures are f8 to F16. What is meant here when he says lens sharpness best 2 stops down is that edge sharpness approaches approaches center sharpness on any lens 2 stops down from the maximum aperture. Thus you get the greatest sharpness throughout your picture with or without focus stacking. That combined with greater depth of field is usually what you want with landscapes.

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

ronpier wrote:

It seems like you would still need to fine tune 10 lenses times 3 cameras or 30 total plus do variable focal lengths need fine tuned also?

That's pretty much my situation, 3 bodies and about a dozen lenses. The Xpeed5 processor in the D5, D500, D7500 and I think the D850 has an auto afft feature. So I use my D7500 to give me a starting point for my other two bodies. Only one fine tune value per lens which is all a Nikon 3x zoom requires. Superzooms are impossible to tune to both ends and aftermarket lenses also require different values at each focal length/distance so Tamron and sigma offer a tuning dock. My 150-600 had 18 values, 6 focal lengths at 3 distances. I sold all my after market lenses and superzooms.
If you're not a little OCD or a pixel peeper this probably sounds ridiculous.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

dgolfnut wrote:

I am an amateur enthusiast and shoot landscapes, ... (show quote)

Given what you describe as your uses, and the great low light performance of the D850, it seems to me that there is little reason for you to consider a faster lens.

I personally own a 50mm f0.95, three 1.2s and four or five f1.4s or 1.5s. I also have a 95mm f1.2 projection lens adapted to shooting. I would say that the only reason to have such fast lenses these days is exactly for the shallow DOF. If that is of no interest then you can happily exist with a f1.8 or f2 or even f2.8 50mm lens.

Let me post a few examples of what I use these fast lenses for. They do give a unique look, which is getting rarer and rarer as sensor sizes and lens focal lengths shrink.

Here are a few examples of what I use fast lenses for. The first three are 50mm f0.95, then three with 50mm f1.2, then two shot with a projection lens, 95mm f1.2. Obviously these lenses are not particularly sharp in the classic sense, but they are sharp enough wide open to create an atmosphere that I like to explore.

(Download)

tcthome Loc: NJ

For landscapes, probably don't need it. Might help with night sky pics. I shoot most landscapes at f8 thru f11.

Good luck.

Winslowe

RWR wrote:

... are you saying that you can see a sharp image on your focusing screen, but the image may be out of focus at the focal plane?

This happens all too often here. Catch someone with their foot in their mouth and they're too embarrassed to admit their ignorance and refuse to respond, hoping it will be forgotten. Those people aren’t worth your time!

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Winslowe wrote:

This happens all too often here. Catch someone with their foot in their mouth and they're too embarrassed to admit their ignorance and refuse to respond, hoping it will be forgotten. Those people aren’t worth your time!

Note that I did not pursue the issue - it was obvious that no sensible reply was to be expected.