dgolfnut wrote:
I am an amateur enthusiast and shoot landscapes, nature - still and in-flight, night scenes and family events with a Nikon D850.
I have 24 & 50mm F1.8 primes. I've thought about a 1.4 or 1.2 for better low light performance but am concerned about DOF. As I've thought more about it, I realize I rarely even use the 1.8 wide open. I have gotten some nice night night shots handheld or minimally braced with the 1.8.
Maybe I just don't know enough about what tool to use in what situation.
So the question is - in what situations is an f1.4 or 1.2 the right tool for the job and what will it give you that a much less expensive 1.8 will not?
I am an amateur enthusiast and shoot landscapes, ... (
show quote)
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.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
dgolfnut wrote:
I am an amateur enthusiast and shoot landscapes, nature - still and in-flight, night scenes and family events with a Nikon D850.
I have 24 & 50mm F1.8 primes. I've thought about a 1.4 or 1.2 for better low light performance but am concerned about DOF. As I've thought more about it, I realize I rarely even use the 1.8 wide open. I have gotten some nice night night shots handheld or minimally braced with the 1.8.
Maybe I just don't know enough about what tool to use in what situation.
So the question is - in what situations is an f1.4 or 1.2 the right tool for the job and what will it give you that a much less expensive 1.8 will not?
I am an amateur enthusiast and shoot landscapes, ... (
show quote)
The 1.2 would add weight and cost but not sharpness.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3382309
Lens reviews at TheDigitalPicture.com may be of interest. Play with a DOF calculator to see just how small DOF is at wide apertures at the distances you typically shoot your subjects. A f/1.2 lens can have one eye sharp and the other eye not ...
Generally speaking, the more light a lens lets in, the larger, heavier, and more expensive it is. Also, don't expect the image quality to be better. Comparisons between f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses usually favor the f/1.4. Back in film days, the 50mm f/1.4 was the standard lens.
Bigmike1
Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.
The only advantage I can see is you would feed your ego. I remember on a trip up to Yellowstone Park a couple came up beside me with a very impressive outfit. The lens was about a foot long or even longer. I remember that it was huge. I remember thinking, "How do they hold that thing?" I'll bet that they didn't get any better photos than I did except that they were able to get closer shots.
Bigmike1 wrote:
The only advantage I can see is you would feed your ego. I remember on a trip up to Yellowstone Park a couple came up beside me with a very impressive outfit. The lens was about a foot long or even longer. I remember that it was huge. I remember thinking, "How do they hold that thing?" I'll bet that they didn't get any better photos than I did except that they were able to get closer shots.
There is much more to owning quality lenses than simply feeding one’s ego.
Another thing to consider is the slightly better image resolution you might get at other apertures with 1.4 or 1.2 lenses, which are generally better constructed by the manufacturer.
Save your money!!!!!. Not worth it IMHO.
47greyfox
Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range
I don’t have one and feel I’m lost in a dark and lonely place. I must’ve missed Henry Kissinger’s light at the end of the tunnel. Time to move on, I guess. Back to the OP’s dilemma..... rent if you must. If the WOW factor lifts you and satisfies a need, go for it. If not, your question is answered until next time you get the urge.
Do you have VR on your lenses? I think there are few situations where a 1.4 or 1.2 would be necessary. These days the digitals have so many ways to compensate. My first Nikon was an F and it came with a 2.0 and I've never had anything wider than that. On the other hand, even as a self-described amateur, if you've got lots of money to burn a 1.2 would be fun to play with.
dgolfnut wrote:
I am an amateur enthusiast and shoot landscapes, nature - still and in-flight, night scenes and family events with a Nikon D850.
I have 24 & 50mm F1.8 primes. I've thought about a 1.4 or 1.2 for better low light performance but am concerned about DOF. As I've thought more about it, I realize I rarely even use the 1.8 wide open. I have gotten some nice night night shots handheld or minimally braced with the 1.8.
Maybe I just don't know enough about what tool to use in what situation.
So the question is - in what situations is an f1.4 or 1.2 the right tool for the job and what will it give you that a much less expensive 1.8 will not?
I am an amateur enthusiast and shoot landscapes, ... (
show quote)
If I had the $$$ to spend on those babies , I would but Auto ISO helps to ease my desires and I take what I can get and celebrate that. I am just happy to have a DSLR or two around and so many choices to make after so many years of struggling to make a go of it. We amateurs have a lot to be thankful for these days and maybe I'll hit the lotery and my perspetives will change.......?
Well, I admit that I am pleasantly surprised learning that a f1.2 lens is very sharp even in the corners.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.