Lens comparison question about 2.8f vs. 1.4f (Page 4): I hr. for a real estate shoot? Our local (on island) real-estate photographer dedicates about 10 hours on site time over several...

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

I hr. for a real estate shoot? Our local (on island) real-estate photographer dedicates about 10 hours on site time over several days per assignment, gets exterior shots at both golden /blue hours (AM & PM) and spends additional time rearranging furniture etc to "clean up the scene" and balancing and evening out indoor vs. outdoor lighting for each shot. He is not cheap but the additional effort he takes sells houses at prices that are increased much more than his fees. He is well worth the money if you can break into his packed schedule.

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

I hr. for a real estate shoot? Our local (on island) real-estate photographer dedicates about 10 hours on site time over several days per assignment, gets exterior shots at both golden /blue hours (AM & PM) and spends additional time rearranging furniture etc to "clean up the scene" and balancing and evening out indoor vs. outdoor lighting for each shot. He is not cheap but the additional effort he takes sells houses at prices that are increased much more than his fees. He is well worth the money if you can break into his packed schedule.

AlexAAA

Shoot both and see which one comes better

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

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?

Really, you found a Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for $449? Where? Last I looked they were on sale for $900 and used at $750.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

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?

Two stops difference.

Two additional stops allows in 4X more light.

Or, another way of looking at it, f/1.4 might let you use ISO 400 instead of ISO 1600... or ISO 1600 instead of ISO 6400.

Or, yet another way of looking at it, f/1.4 may allow you to use 1/200 shutter speed instead of 1/50.... or 1/60 instead of 1/15.

It would be an AWFUL lens to use for portraits. It will exaggerate and strongly distort facial features, plus it won't render particularly strong background blur. Use a short telephoto instead. Unless you are going for some sort of humorous effects, for portraits get a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 (if space allows).

Shooting interiors you should be able to use a tripod and are more likely to stop a lens down to a middle aperture for added DoF, rather than use one wide open. I just don't see the "need" for a 16mm f/1.4. Photojournalists... maybe. It might be nice for astrophotogrpahy, too... a brighter viewfinder to shoot at night. But for the rest of us, I just don't see the need.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Blurryeyed wrote:

Really, you found a Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for $449? Where? Last I looked they were on sale for $900 and used at $750.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=sigma%2016mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

amfoto1 wrote:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=sigma%2016mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

My mistake, I did not know that they sold both a Contemporary and an Art at that focal length. Maybe I can be of better help, my suggestion requires a bit of learning but the results are very professional, with Yougnuo and others flash is very inexpensive. There are a lot of YouTube videos on the subject as well as a flickr group.....

https://photographyforrealestate.net/2016/06/07/how-do-you-use-a-flash-to-light-interiors/

Silverman Loc: Michigan

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?

Seems to me, you will gain more light and a wider angle shot in your composition.😊

gwilliams6

Blurryeyed wrote:

My mistake, I did not know that they sold both a Contemporary and an Art at that focal length. Maybe I can be of better help, my suggestion requires a bit of learning but the results are very professional, with Yougnuo and others flash is very inexpensive. There are a lot of YouTube videos on the subject as well as a flickr group.....

https://photographyforrealestate.net/2016/06/07/how-do-you-use-a-flash-to-light-interiors/

The 16mm f1.4 Contemporary for Sony E-Mount is an APS-C lens made for APS-C camera sensors. There is NO Sigma ART version of this lens. All Sigma ART lenses are for fullframe cameras, but can be used on APS-C Sony cameras also.

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

I do not shoot real estate, however I do own a Sigma 16mm f/1.4 lens that I use on the micro 4/3 version for a Panasonic G9 so for me I’m shooting at a 32mm equiv. I use it hand held when traveling and shoot exterior and interior low light situations with it and I can confirm it is an excellent lens. I was surprised that a $450 lens could be this good plus it weighs very little. I have a Panasonic/Leica 8-16mm 2.8-4 that is also excellent but the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 will outperform the f/2.8 end of the 8-16mm by far for hand held low light situations. The 3mm difference between 24mm and 27mm does make a difference in many shooting interiors. Good luck!

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

billnikon wrote:

3 mm and 3 stops

3mm, yes; but, only 2 stops, eh ?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

gwilliams6 wrote:

The 16mm f1.4 Contemporary for Sony E-Mount is an APS-C lens made for APS-C camera sensors. There is NO Sigma ART version of this lens. All Sigma ART lenses are for fullframe cameras, but can be used on APS-C Sony cameras also.

Yes, I had confused it with the 20mm f/1.4 A, again, my mistake.

User ID

billnikon wrote:

3 mm and 3 stops

.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

MontanaTrace wrote:

Thank you. I'm starting to believe my 2.8f is fine in lower light, as long as I use my tripod. The 1.4f will be better for hand held but I need to use my tripod and save the money. Thank you.

If you CAN use a tripod then that certainly is the way to go. You don't need shallower depth of focus for your purposes, and a tripod solves any low light/slow shutter speed problem that faster lenses are also chosen to fix (a fix which brings with it shallower depth of focus, which, again, you don't need.)

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I was the culprit who posted about micro contrast or called 3D pop last week.
It appears that a lot to the 1.4 lens are the great contrast lens. For the gentlemen shooting
with the a6000 (I have one) I would go with the the Sony a7s II full frame with a 1.8 lens.
It is the low light king (I have one). And I have the 16 70 zeiss for my a6300 but only f4.
Do think the 16mm for real estate would help.