1.8, 1.4, 1.2 etc

jamiebonline

jamiebonline

Messages
194
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone,

How important for you how fast your lens is?

I have been thinking about this and I am not convinced it is worth paying often so much extra money to get 1.4 over 1.8. It is only one stop of light, the depth of field becomes so shallow that it is often impractical especially when doing street photography or landscapes, even portraits sometimes. Yes, the bokeh becomes more intense although many factors influence bokeh such as focal length and distance of subject from background.
So I am curious to know your thoughts and could someone explain the usefulness of a 24mm 1.4 lens? It strikes me as really odd.
Basically I think gaining one stop is not worth the money. You can increase ISO for example, in many cases. Also a lot of working pros are using zoom lenses that don't go faster than 2.8 and they seem to do OK.
It is true, one could argue that 1.8 is sharper on a 1.4 lens than 1.8 on a 1.8 lens. If the lens is basically sharp, I wonder how visible that even is when looking at a picture, especially on the internet, where most of us post.
Am I missing something huge here? How many of you would pay the two or three times more for a one-stop faster lens?
 
Last edited:
Im happy with f4 for most lenses then its nice to have a faster general purpose prime say a 35 f2.8. I dont really need anything larger than that.
 
from a creative side: I rarely go wider than 2.8 and most the time will be at f4, I have had both 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 and did see a better image at 1.8 on the 1.4 but not by huge amounts..

from an extra stops in low light side: with ISO capabilities on modern cameras nowadays I think this is less of an issue than it was 5 odd years ago.
 
Very low f/numbers like f/1.4 are mostly used for shallow depth-of-field effects, especially on full-frame - highly desirable for many subjects. The low-light benefit is less of an upside these days, given the high ISO performance of modern cameras.

I agree though, the price premium of f/1.4 vs f/1.8 tends to be painful for the extra 2/3rds of a stop.
 
There are times when the extra stop means the difference between a blurry shot and a usable shot. For us hobbyist, it's not worth the price and weight. But for professionals, F1.2 may be needed at church weddings.

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with F2 or 1.8 primes and F4 zooms. Weight and size is more important to me than getting 100% of the shots and absolute image quality.

End of the day, it really depends on what's more important, where you'd be willing to compromise.
 
HoppyUK said:
I agree though, the price premium of f/1.4 vs f/1.8 tends to be painful for the extra 2/3rds of a stop.
Click to expand...


I agree. I've swapped all my f/1.4 lenses for the f/1.8 equivalents this summer. I don't feel I'm missing anything (except some back pain)
 
wuyanxu said:
But for professionals, F1.2 may be needed at church weddings.
Click to expand...

You're never going to need f/1.2 at a wedding. Getting all your subjects on the plane of focus is going to be a fool's errand in a church.

Of course you may want to shoot at those very shallow depths of field, but thats a different matter
 
jamiebonline said:
I have been thinking about this and I am not convinced it is worth paying often so much extra money to get 1.4 over 1.8.
Click to expand...

Yup. Smart money is on the cheaper, smaller and lighter f1.8 :D

But... us geeks like to play with our f1.2 and f1.4 toys :D and it is just possible that a wider aperture lens may be sharper when stopped down just a bit than the f1.8 when used at the same aperture but really we're probably talking about tiny differences that may only be visible when looking very closely. Mostly though, that one sentence from you sums it up nicely :D
 
I upgraded from an f/1.8 to a 1.4 lens this year specifically to get that extra stop of light. I do quite a lot of fire lit photos round campfires with no extra light, and was maxing out for handheld shots of people on a crop sensor (f/1.8, ISO6400, 1/30 or so). That extra stop has made a real difference and was worth every penny.
 
jamiebonline said:
Hi everyone,

How important for you how fast your lens is?

I have been thinking about this and I am not convinced it is worth paying often so much extra money to get 1.4 over 1.8. It is only one stop of light, the depth of field becomes so shallow that it is often impractical especially when doing street photography or landscapes, even portraits sometimes. Yes, the bokeh becomes more intense although many factors influence bokeh such as focal length and distance of subject from background.
So I am curious to know your thoughts and could someone explain the usefulness of a 24mm 1.4 lens? It strikes me as really odd.
Basically I think gaining one stop is not worth the money. You can increase ISO for example, in many cases. Also a lot of working pros are using zoom lenses that don't go faster than 2.8 and they seem to do OK.
It is true, one could argue that 1.8 is sharper on a 1.4 lens than 1.8 on a 1.8 lens. If the lens is basically sharp, I wonder how visible that even is when looking at a picture, especially on the internet, where most of us post.
Am I missing something huge here? How many of you would pay the two or three times more for a one-stop faster lens?
Click to expand...
Excellent post and thread I also have been considering the f stop issue would f1.4 really help on landscape while I accept for some its creativity how often do I really just need say 1 rose in focus.

Even f4 in confined spaces using longer focal length will require stopping down for me probably f1.8 is as much as I might ever need and f4 zooms fill 95%+ of my needs
 
I am happy with my f1.8's (the D750 is more than capable of getting me out of situations) and don't believe the extra stop justifies the cost.
 
I like f1.4 for DOF rather than light gathering. I have a nikon 50 f1.8g. It's ace but I always stop it down to f2 at it's largest. I now have a sigma 50 f1.4 art, hoping to use it at f1.4.

I have a sigma 35 f1.4 and it's amazing at f1.4.

I have a nikon 85 f1.8g which is excellent. I also have the samyang 85 f1.4. Love the samyang and have nearly pulled the trigger in a nikkor 85 f1.4 a couple of times but thought better if it (if sigma release an 85 f1.4 art, that may be different!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I do think the 1.4 lenses often have better qualities than the 1.8 lenses (contrast, sharpness), even if you don't need the extra 2/3 stop.

For us Nikon users though, the 1.8 primes are a great option
 
f/2.8 suits me fine and weighs next to nothing which i like - with leica lenses adding an extra stop of speed normally adds at least £1k to the cost, often more!
 
The cheap n cheerful Canon nifty fifty is a great little lens and a bargain to boot for the f1.8 version. Where it falls down is build quality and it's tricky to take a pro serious (I'm not a pro) with a £75 lens on the end of their £4K camera body! The newer STM version has upped the game a little with metal mount, slightly better plastic housing and much much better focus ring but I feel the f1.4 is a far better lens in terms of build even if notion terms of optical quality. This may explain in part why it's popular. The eye wateringly expensive f1.2 version however - that's a different story!!

I'm lucky enough to have a mk1 version of the 50 f1.8 and I feel it is an acceptable compromise over the very plasticky mk II.

I also have the 85mm f1.8 which, in my very humble opinion, is a belter of a lens and very much a bargain.
 
Another point is, lenses aren't always at their best fully open, so having a fast lens to start with, then stopping down a tad can make a difference without losing the narrow DOF if needed.
 
It looks different. Especially f/1.2 (and wider). Canon's 85 1.2 wide open, looks very different to their 85 1.8 wide open, for example. Or for that matter, the 85 1.2 at 1.8.

Of course you don't need it, but you may want it. Not like it means you can charge any more for you work, so it's just for the fun of it really I suppose.
 
I've always found the faster lenses easier to focus in difficult conditions.
 
Could a lot of people get away with the f1.8 or f2 lenses? Definitely and they'd probably be very happy with them. But in the same vein, does anybody really NEED a Ferrari in place of a modest 3 Series BMW? :p
 
I haven't used wider than 5.6 all day but I still carried the 1.4 around in case it was needed. You can stop down a fast lens, you can't open out a slow one. ISO only gets you so far when there's a photon shortage about you.
 
Jayst84 said:
It looks different. Especially f/1.2 (and wider). Canon's 85 1.2 wide open, looks very different to their 85 1.8 wide open, for example. Or for that matter, the 85 1.2 at 1.8.

Of course you don't need it, but you may want it. Not like it means you can charge any more for you work, so it's just for the fun of it really I suppose.
Click to expand...
This^
When you get to this type of gear, it's not necessarily about a requirement. The 85 1.2 produces images that look very different to the 1.8, and some people are prepared to put up with the dangerously thin DoF and the slower focussing to get those images. The 50mm 1.2 gets a very bad press, but I've seen some fab images produced with it.

My 35mm Art is superb, my Canon 50mm 1.8 is fairly ordinary - but again, that's less to do with the max aperture than it is to do with the whole construction of the lens. I am expecting to try the new Canon 50mm STM though before I save for the Sigma 50mm Art to see if it'll be 'good enough' or 'suitable' for my needs (which is the point - it's not about the aperture - it's about the lens and what we need).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkh
On Canon, I got used to the Sigma 85 f/1.4 when I switched to Nikon, the first lens I got was the 85 1.8G which everyone raves about but, the rendering was 'cold' and 'analytical'. Extremely sharp but there was no life to the images (????). Maybe it's just me???. I saved and got the Nikon 85 1.4G - I rarely use it at f1.4 but at 1.8-2 it produces a magical warmth that the 1.8g could never do.
 
Last edited:
jamiebonline said:
Hi everyone,

How important for you how fast your lens is?

I have been thinking about this and I am not convinced it is worth paying often so much extra money to get 1.4 over 1.8. It is only one stop of light, the depth of field becomes so shallow that it is often impractical especially when doing street photography or landscapes, even portraits sometimes. Yes, the bokeh becomes more intense although many factors influence bokeh such as focal length and distance of subject from background.
So I am curious to know your thoughts and could someone explain the usefulness of a 24mm 1.4 lens? It strikes me as really odd.
Basically I think gaining one stop is not worth the money. You can increase ISO for example, in many cases. Also a lot of working pros are using zoom lenses that don't go faster than 2.8 and they seem to do OK.
It is true, one could argue that 1.8 is sharper on a 1.4 lens than 1.8 on a 1.8 lens. If the lens is basically sharp, I wonder how visible that even is when looking at a picture, especially on the internet, where most of us post.
Am I missing something huge here? How many of you would pay the two or three times more for a one-stop faster lens?
Click to expand...
So I was thinking what conclusions you have drawn from your question most benefit seems around faster focus on poor light though I guess that would have some relevance with the camera body you use
 
Interesting replies. The first ones were all about how unnecessary the faster primes are but then it kind of changed and more people saying they see other benefits. Of course build is a point. A good lens is a good lens no matter what the widest aperture is.
Also, yes it's a third of a stop of light from 1.8 to 1.4 so for low light I see this not worth the money at all. For bokeh I am not sure either, as I said in the beginning. Certainly not worth 3 times more money. Each lens does have a different look to it. That's true and on the subject of bokeh, I recently shot with an old Minolta 35-70 that set me back only 50 pounds and eventhough it's 3.5 wide open, the bokeh is spectacular. It is so unique and attractive. (Having said, some people find this too busy looking)
People mentioned it as being like a toy, to have a 1.4 or 1.2. That's fine if you can afford expensive toys :) And some people are more interested in gear acquisition too than simply shooting. I am thinking purely value for money and the needs and yes different people have different needs.
I don't think comparing with having a ferrari is apt. I don't think a lens being faster is the equivalent of a car that has ten times more going for it than a moderately-priced car.

True that a 1.4 at 1.8 should be sharper than a 1.8 at 1.8 but again, I imagine it's minimal. It's looking in the corners for softness at 100 percent.

Faster focus in poor light is something I hadn't thought of but again shooting at a very shallow depth of field for a little more light can be a big compromise. Also I shoot manual focus now mostly.

I still don't understand people shooting 24 1.4. Why would you want such a shallow depth of field at this focal length? It seems like for real special cases. Landscapes and street photography maybe are typical for sure focal lengths and so is higher F stops.

I picked up the Samyang 85 1.4 actually recently. I love it. I didn't get it cause it was 1.4 but cause it was cheaper than the Nikon 1.8G or even D and I don't need autofocus. This lens stopped down is like nothing I have ever seen in terms of detail.
 
Last edited:
jamiebonline said:
Interesting replies. The first ones were all about how unnecessary the faster primes are but then it kind of changed and more people saying they see other benefits. Of course build is a point. A good lens is a good lens no matter what the widest aperture is.
Also, yes it's a third of a stop of light from 1.8 to 1.4 so for low light I see this not worth the money at all. For bokeh I am not sure either, as I said in the beginning. Certainly not worth 3 times more money. Each lens does have a different look to it. That's true and on the subject of bokeh, I recently shot with an old Minolta 35-70 that set me back only 50 pounds and eventhough it's 3.5 wide open, the bokeh is spectacular. It is so unique and attractive. (Having said, some people find this too busy looking)
People mentioned it as being like a toy, to have a 1.4 or 1.2. That's fine if you can afford expensive toys :) And some people are more interested in gear acquisition too than simply shooting. I am thinking purely value for money and the needs and yes different people have different needs.
I don't think comparing with having a ferrari is apt. I don't think a lens being faster is the equivalent of a car that has ten times more going for it than a moderately-priced car.

True that a 1.4 at 1.8 should be sharper than a 1.8 at 1.8 but again, I imagine it's minimal. It's looking in the corners for softness at 100 percent.

Faster focus in poor light is something I hadn't thought of but again shooting at a very shallow depth of field for a little more light can be a big compromise. Also I shoot manual focus now mostly.

I still don't understand people shooting 24 1.4. Why would you want such a shallow depth of field at this focal length? It seems like for real special cases. Landscapes and street photography maybe are typical for sure focal lengths and so is higher F stops.

I picked up the Samyang 85 1.4 actually recently. I love it. I didn't get it cause it was 1.4 but cause it was cheaper than the Nikon 1.8G or even D and I don't need autofocus. This lens stopped down is like nothing I have ever seen in terms of detail.
Click to expand...
Jamie, excellent summary and thank you I found the thread highly useful as well having recently switched for the Sony A7m2 and just started playing with manual focus I really lusted after a Batis 85mm f1.8 but even though I am on a waiting list starting to question the wisdom :)
 
The Ferrari analogy was more along the lines of having a luxury because one can afford it, not necessarily a direct comparison :)

Your summary seems apt though, and seems to cover most of the bases of why people buy the widest aperture they can :)

As for 24 1.4, for landscapes it may not be ideal but I've seen some really nice environmental portraits shot at 24mm and 1.4 and they give a really nice effect that may not necessarily be possible at a smaller aperture :)
 
When I used to shoot Canon I got a bit obsessed about the Canon 50mm f/1.4 because everyone said the bokeh was better than the cheap nifty fifty f/1.8, plus had better build quality etc. I don't recall ever needing the f/1.4 shallower DOF. I mean I used it sure....but only really just because. f/1.8 would almost always have sufficed to be fair. Most of all, I just never saw sharper images or better contrast/colour out of that lens at all and soon after owning it decided to keep the nifty fifty and sell it on. It was about 4 times the price. The bokeh being "creamier" just never really was that important to me. It was nicer sure, but at the time not important to me.
 
clicktor said:
When I used to shoot Canon I got a bit obsessed about the Canon 50mm f/1.4 because everyone said the bokeh was better than the cheap nifty fifty f/1.8, plus had better build quality etc. I don't recall ever needing the f/1.4 shallower DOF. I mean I used it sure....but only really just because. f/1.8 would almost always have sufficed to be fair. Most of all, I just never saw sharper images or better contrast/colour out of that lens at all and soon after owning it decided to keep the nifty fifty and sell it on. It was about 4 times the price. The bokeh being "creamier" just never really was that important to me. It was nicer sure, but at the time not important to me.
Click to expand...
There's a particular thing though, the Canon 50mm 1.4 isn't great, and the 2 50L's aren't considered that much better.
The build quality and focus motors improve, but none of them are as good as they should be optically.

It's a great example of why spend more, however, the 35mm L and 85mm L options both justify themselves, despite the 1.8 (or f2) versions also being great lenses, so it's not so cut and dried, it depends on individual lenses and personal requirements.
 
Phil V said:
There's a particular thing though, the Canon 50mm 1.4 isn't great, and the 2 50L's aren't considered that much better.
The build quality and focus motors improve, but none of them are as good as they should be optically.

It's a great example of why spend more, however, the 35mm L and 85mm L options both justify themselves, despite the 1.8 (or f2) versions also being great lenses, so it's not so cut and dried, it depends on individual lenses and personal requirements.
Click to expand...

I tend not to get involved with technical gear discussions these days as I am kind of over the whole obsession with equipment, BUT, I used to shoot Canon including the 85mm F1.2 and the 50mm F1.2 and now have the NIkon 35mm F1.4 and 85 F1.4.

I would absolutely pay the extra for these again and there are a few reasons. I have seen a Nikon 35mm F1.4 kicked off a 15-20 foot balcony by a guest (accident) during a wedding. It fell to the carpeted floor below and I full expected a plastic carcass full of broken glass. The damage was a broken lens hood with a fully functioning perfect lens. Not sure that would have happened with some of the cheaper built ones. Also, as alluded to above, the quality of the OOF areas for me is a deal breaker especially when my lenses during weddings live at F1.4-F2.0. I only step down for groups that are a few people deep and with 35mm, that isn't usually that far.

Also that speed in dark venues. Someone asked why you would need 24mm F1.4. Speed. The difference between F2.8 and F1.4 is 2 full stops. That the difference between 1600 ISO and 6400 ISO. Plus beautiful subject separation if you are close enough. I will add this lens at some point.

As for the Canon F1.2's. I found them so frustrating to use at times wide open. Slow to focus, hit and miss at times (especially the 50mm at F1.2) but when they nailed it. Ooooooooh! Buttery. The 50mm is beautiful when it nails focus wide open. In fact, I sometimes miss the images it made.

Damn, I promised no more gear obsession!! :LOL:
 
Autofocus and build are not always better on 1.4 lenses as opposed to 1.8 so. It is not good to assume it. I suppose I started this thread to really talk about spending money wisely when one is not exactly rich. I mean, if you have thousands to spare then why not buy 1.2 lenses. Also I maybe wanted to demystify the very fast lenses a little.

border_all said:
Jamie, excellent summary and thank you I found the thread highly useful as well having recently switched for the Sony A7m2 and just started playing with manual focus I really lusted after a Batis 85mm f1.8 but even though I am on a waiting list starting to question the wisdom :)
Click to expand...

I thought about the same lens but it is over 1000, right? I could never pay this for a 1.8 lens. I don't care if it has better build and sharper corner to corner. I actually left Sony and went back to Nikon. I just need more lens choices at affordable prices and there are some super Nikon mount lenses out there that won't break the bank especially if you don't care about have AF. I shot with the Sigma 60 2.8 and was disappointed. Sure, its one of the sharpest lenses I have used but the look of it, it is somehow too clinical.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
There's a particular thing though, the Canon 50mm 1.4 isn't great, and the 2 50L's aren't considered that much better.
The build quality and focus motors improve, but none of them are as good as they should be optically.

It's a great example of why spend more, however, the 35mm L and 85mm L options both justify themselves, despite the 1.8 (or f2) versions also being great lenses, so it's not so cut and dried, it depends on individual lenses and personal requirements.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
It's interesting that the Canon 50mm f/1.8 was/is so sharp and yet so cheap. I know it has a fairly loud and notchy AF (or at least the first version did when I used it). I know a lot of the savings in price come from plastic construction, but is it as simple as this? Is it just a focal length where there is a small amount of glass required and hence optical design is easier to get right? A couple of versions my friends had weren't spot on in terms of AF back/front focus but still possibly the best bang per buck lens I've ever come across.
 
jamiebonline said:
I still don't understand people shooting 24 1.4. Why would you want such a shallow depth of field at this focal length? It seems like for real special cases. Landscapes and street photography maybe are typical for sure focal lengths and so is higher F stops.
Click to expand...

Astrophotography? I've never tried it but read up a bit on it, shooting the Milky Way etc. It seems in those conditions that every stop or fraction of a stop counts.
 
clicktor said:
Indeed.
It's interesting that the Canon 50mm f/1.8 was/is so sharp and yet so cheap. I know it has a fairly loud and notchy AF (or at least the first version did when I used it). I know a lot of the savings in price come from plastic construction, but is it as simple as this? Is it just a focal length where there is a small amount of glass required and hence optical design is easier to get right? A couple of versions my friends had weren't spot on in terms of AF back/front focus but still possibly the best bang per buck lens I've ever come across.
Click to expand...
Actually the opposite of my point, the 50mm 1.8 isn't optically great, there's a couple of zooms that are as good at 50mm, the 1.4 isn't much better at 4 times the cost and the astronomical L's are not awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top