Differences at f1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2, 2.8.

[woof woof]

Just out of interest.

The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 for DoF and bokeh has cropped up a couple of times so I thought I'd post a series of pictures. Note that I'm ignoring light gathering here and just looking at depth of field and bokeh.

I looked at bokeh and depth of field years ago and decided that for me f2.8 sometimes didn't give quite enough scope when going for thin depth with 35/50mm lenses which I tend to use the most. Looking at wider apertures I decided I wasn't really too fussed about the differences until somewhere between f2 and f2.8 and that it's at about f2.8 that the difference in bokeh and depth become significant for me unless looking at the size of bokeh balls which is sometimes for me the most visible difference between these wide aperture settings.

For me this was a worthwhile thing to go through as it helped me decide that I wouldn't set out to buy f1.2 or even f1.4 lenses as f1.8 or f2 was enough for me. I do own two f1.2 lenses, an old Minolta Rokkor 50mm and a modern Voigtlander 40mm but when buying the Voigtlander the f1.2 wasn't a factor and I'd have bought it if it was 1.4, f1.8 or f2.

So, to look at the differences I've taken three sets of pictures at f1.2, f1.4, f1.7 (as the Voigtlander does f1.7, not f1.8,) f2 and f2.8.

Here they are... please ignore the blown highlights as Mrs WW is shy and I had to be quick before someone came and the point of all this is just to look at the differences the apertures cause.

f1.2.



f1.4.



f1.7.



f2.



f2.8.

 

[woof woof]

f1.2.



f1.4.



f1.7.



f2.



f2.8.

 

[woof woof]

f1.2.



f1.4.



f1.7.



f2.



f2.8.

 

[woof woof]

I hope that was interesting

There are some very nice f1.2 and f1.4 lenses now and I'm often tempted to buy one but I think the lens being a nice lens is more important to me than the differences between wide apertures and if I do end up with a very nice f1.2 lens the fact that it's f1.2 and not f1.4, f1.8 or f2 will be incidental as I'll have bought it primarily because it's a nice lens. We're all free to make our own decisions though, obviously I did buy a very nice Voigtlander 50mm f2 and I'm happy with it.

 

[ABTog]

Interesting comparisons.
Looking at those, the most noticable difference is between f1.8/f2 and f2.8. It seems that below f2 it's all nicely out of focus in the shots, the only difference between f1.2/1.4/1/7/2 is the size of the bokeh balls. But once you get to f2.8 the bokeh is no longer pleasing ball shapes and just out of focus.

I recently had the Canon RF 85mm f2 on loan and compared it to my Tamron 90mm f2.8 and found the bokeh and out of focus areas at f2 on the 85mm to be much more pleasing than my 90mm at f2.8.

 

[woof woof]

Other than the size of the bokeh balls I'm happy enough with f1.8/2 as they give enough depth control for me.

Another factor for some will be the shape of the aperture blades and one nice thing about the Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO is that you get a round aperture at f2 and f2.8 and straight edges at the other settings for sunstars or shaped bokeh of whatever takes your fancy. I believe their similar 35mm f2 APO gives a round aperture at three settings but I could be wrong.

What prompted this was a couple of discussions about wide apertures plus the new Sony 50mm f1.2 which seems to be a very nice lens but a bit chunky for my taste. I do have the 55mm f1.8 but it could be better and I wish they'd make a f1.8 or f2 as optically good as the f1.2 as it would hopefully be smaller and lighter and I do like more compact and lighter kit and perhaps it could be cheaper too. f1.8/2 seems to be a nice point for me and I certainly can't see myself going for f1.2 over f1.4 for the sake of the wider aperture alone but each to their own and good luck to those who see a significant difference in these things.

 

[f/2.8]

@woof woof

For me your "test" doesn't really make any sense.

I can't speak for anyone else but I got the Sony 50mm f/1.2 yes because I wanted an f/1.2 autofocus lens but also because it is best 50mm in class. I have not been 100% happy with any of the other 50mm lenses I have used for Sony. To be fair I was never that excited about the 50mm options available when I shot Nikon either other than the Sigma Art which was superb.

The lens you have used for your "test" has surprisingly ugly bokeh even at f/1.2.

To do a real comparison you would need to have all the 50mm options for Sony and take test shots using them all wide open to see the differences. There is no point using an f/1.2 lens shooting at different apertures and then concluding "yes I am happy at f/1.8-f/2" so I only need a lens that can do that, It just makes no sense. That would only make sense if there was another lens available as good as the 50GM but with an f/1.8 aperture, this lens does not exist and never will.

I have owned previously the absolutely awful Sony 50mm f/1.8. the planar 50mm f/1.4, the Samyang 50mm f/1.4 and still have the 55 f/1.8 as well as now having the 50mm f/1.2.

The 50mm f/1.8 is awful, it is noisy, it is slow, it isn't that sharp, it has pretty bad C.A.

The planar has nice rendering but autofocus isn't exactly lightning quick, C.A isn't awful but still not great, it is sharp enough but not razor sharp wide open. It is a good lens, if you get a good copy there are some QC issues with this lens. it is also huge for a 50mm f/1.4.

The Samyang 50 f/1.4 has nice rendering, but it isn't sharp wide open, it has pretty terrible a.f reliability and a.f is also slow. Like all Samyang lenses it also has that weird Samyang orange colour cast and C.A especially in backlit situations isn't well controlled.

The 55 f/1.8 firstly just isn't a 50mm, I like this lens we have used ours a lot it is very small, compact and very sharp. It also has nippy a.f. It does however have terrible C.A and it is particularly poor in backlit situations. It also vignettes a lot.

I never got tempted to buy the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 for Sony even though I had a superb copy when I shot Nikon that I liked a lot. The built in adaptor means that this lens is huge and cumbersome and wasn't for me.

The 50GM is razor sharp even at f/1.2, the rendering is beautiful, the autofocus is very quick, I have taken about 5000-6000 frames with mine so far and still haven't come across any noticeable C.A. This lens is probably the best autofocus 50mm lens ever made by any manufacturer as you would expect at such a premium price and with it being the very latest lens design. It is also the smallest a.f 50 f/1.2 available for mirrorless camera systems. Sony will never be a lens made that is as good as the 50GM but with an aperture of f/1.8 simply because it would still come in at a premium price, nobody is going to buy a 50mm f/1.8 that costs 2k. It would make zero sense for any manufacturer to make one. A 50mm f/1.8 version wouldn't even be much smaller either the lens has the new motor system it simply isn't possible to shrink that down in size any further at the moment.

The 50GM because of it's cost won't be for everyone, it is also a bulky lens for 50mm even if it is the smallest 50mm f/1.2 for mirrorless. Like with all equipment choices it comes down to if you want the very best available and you are willing to pay the costs that brings. For me personally I have always wanted a 50mm f/1.2 when I shot Nikon there wasn't an autofocus option available and until recently that was also the case with Sony. I have zero interest in manual focus lenses. I debated quite a few times jumping over to Canon just to get one. The cost of equipment within reason doesn't really concern me too much, it is a business cost anyway. The size of the lens is no issue for me as it is basically replacing the 85GM and it is similar size.

Until I bought the 50GM I mainly used a 35 and an 85 since I switched too Sony. When I shot Nikon I also shot with a 35/85 for a long time before switching to a 20/50. I felt I produced my favourite work using the 20/50. When I switched too Sony I tried and didn't like any of the 50mm options so went back to a 35/85. We do have the Sony 24GM which I really like but I found that 24/85 didn't work for me so my wife has been using 24/55 while I was using 35/85, although she previously always preferred 35/85. So now I have the 50GM and am using 24/50 but found that I missed the 35GM which is a superb lens. At my last two weddings I shot all day with a 35/50 which while it seems a strange combination worked perfect for me. My wife has now decided that even though she used to prefer 35/85 and fought with me all the time because I had relegated her too 24/55 that she now actually prefers 24/55. So it looks like our lovely 85GM will be relegated to the camera bag for a while or we might swap it out for another 50GM so that my missus can upgrade from the 55.

I only basing this on your previous posts on the forum, you seem to mainly use your camera for taking photos of flowers in your garden and photos of your missus to send back to her family. In your position the 50GM probably wouldn't make any sense at all other than to feed a bit of G.A.S.

 

[woof woof]

The point was not to test different lenses against each other and see which has the nicest bokeh. That was nothing to do with it and if that's what you or anyone else wants you/they can do your/their own and it'll no doubt be very interesting and I'll look forward to seeing it. There's even a bokeh thread...

The point was to look at the difference between apertures stopping down to a point at which it probably makes no odds and f2.8 is really far enough. Doing this with just one lens avoids the differences using other lenses could introduce as those differences are nothing to do with what I set out to look at which was (to repeat and clarify) to try and see the difference between wide apertures at different distances and at what point they become significant for me, or anyone else looking.

Not to try to defend the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 too much as it isn't perfect but many people do think it has nice bokeh and in its defence a foliage scene is probably a torture test for any lens in this sort of focal range. You'd probably get better bokeh with a longer lens and the perspective compression and shallower DoF that could bring but that wasn't the point and criticising specific kit is not what I intended and indeed criticising that lens (or any other) is an example of the distraction that introducing other lenses would lead to as it'd just end up about which has the nicest or most horrible bokeh or CA instead of the differences between aperture settings and if they're significant. Anyone interested in looking at examples of pictures taken with that Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 E mount can Google their way to them and make their own mind up.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

hmm... surprisingly small rendering difference between 1.2 and 1.4 but quite big ones between 1.7 and higher. From f2 background rendering starts to look quite busy.

I'm always like either use it wide open or stop it all the way down to f/5.6-8 for max DOF and sharpness.

 

[ABTog]

I did a comparison of apertures back in 2014 when I first got my Canon 50 f1.4
Same shot at f1.4, f1.8 and f2.8. These were back on a 60D, so crop frame meaning the effective focal length was 80mm and the associated difference in depth of field too. Also these were shot at very close range, so the depth of field is affected that way too.


I also compared 4 lenses at f2.8.
Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 50mm f1.4, Takumar 55mm f1.8 (Pentax M42) and Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (at 50mm).
Not at all a scientific study, but interesting to do for my own sake.


Like @woof woof I did the tests for my own curiosity. They were all lenses I owned and was interested to see the differences.
I kept the Canon 50mm f1.4, using it on my 6D when I went full frame and enjoyed it, only getting rid of it this year when I went to the Canon RP and bought the RF 50mm f1.8, which is a great lens. Newer design than the old EF 1.4, smaller, lighter, faster to focus and I don't miss being able to go to f1.4.
Is the RF 50 f1.8 the best 50mm? Not likely, but it does fit my needs.

 

[f/2.8]

The point was to look at the difference between apertures stopping down to a point at which it probably makes no odds and f2.8 is really far enough. Doing this with just one lens avoids the differences using other lenses could introduce as those differences are nothing to do with what I set out to look at which was (to repeat and clarify) to try and see the difference between wide apertures at different distances and at what point they become significant for me, or anyone else looking.

That wasn't what you said here though.

What prompted this was a couple of discussions about wide apertures plus the new Sony 50mm f1.2 which seems to be a very nice lens but a bit chunky for my taste. I do have the 55mm f1.8 but it could be better and I wish they'd make a f1.8 or f2 as optically good as the f1.2

 

[woof woof]

To move off at a tangent from the differences between f1.2 stopping down and generalising a bit and others may well disagree... In the past and IMO depending on the system we owned we haven't always had very good 50mm lenses and the flagship lenses have perhaps tended to be the wider aperture ones. Thinking back to my Canon days the Canon f1.8 and f1.4 options seemed (arguably) rather ordinary and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 seemed to be (arguably) the best option and I did buy and like that lens but more recent lenses are IMO better.

The Sony 55mm f1.8 was interesting for me as it is relatively expensive for a f1.8 as again generalising a bit they are sometimes the cheaper option alongside their maybe more upmarket wider aperture alternatives. That lens has it's issues and isn't by any means perfect but on balance when I bought it I thought it was worth the money and the best 50mm-ish lens I'd used. There have been other good smaller than f1.4 lenses, the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo pro Lanthar and the Zeiss Loxia 50mm f2 both in E mount spring to mind and there may well be other good AF/MF options and MF lenses you can adapt to modern cameras.

Recently we've seen some very good 50mm f1.4 and f1.2 lenses and these may be some of the best 50mm lenses we've ever seen outside of the very expensive and exotic options. These lenses quite rightly have their fans and I'm not attempting to take anything away from that it's just that I prefer more compact kit and if at all possible I'd like to see the level of performance we've seen recently in these top end 35 and 50mm f1.2/f1.4's in a more compact f1.8/f2 lens.

I hope the examples posted above were interesting. Apart from the size of the bokeh balls f1.7/f1.8/f2 offer enough options for shallow DoF for me when I want it with f2.8 perhaps not giving enough scope for shallow DoF but only sometimes as I often prefer more depth than the widest apertures give. Light gathering is another issue and keeping in mind todays relatively good higher ISO's f1.7-f2 is again usually enough for me with f2.8 again not giving enough scope in the most extreme situations.

 

[Lemaildetom]

What about sigma 45mm f2.8 DG DN? A shame they didn't make it F2 like the 35 and 65mm?
They look like a good size / fast aperture ratio. A bit on the expensive price but they are really new.

 

[woof woof]

That wasn't what you said here though.

Yup. Those things interest me. I'm interested in the difference between apertures at different distances and I'd like to see optically good f1.8/f2 lenses, if possible better ones than the Sony 35 and 55mm f1.8 (and I'd include the 85mm f1.8 too) which although good lenses do IMO have issues we can go looking for and find and nit pick if we want to.

What I didn't set out to do is compare different lenses bokeh quality or sharpness or CA or any of the other things here. Those wishing to do that can read and comment on your post or post another thread. Whatever. If that's what you want to do.

Hopefully anyone interested in the difference in aperture settings can get some clues from this. For me this confirms what I already knew and that is that for me there's precious little difference between f1.2 and f1.4 and that f1.7-f2 offers enough control over DoF the main and most obvious difference IMO being the size of bokeh balls. These apertures also offer enough light gathering for me. Others are of course free to make their own choices and as always, good luck to them.

 

[woof woof]

What about sigma 45mm f2.8 DG DN? A shame they didn't make it F2 like the 35 and 65mm?
They look like a good size / fast aperture ratio. A bit on the expensive price but they are really new.

Yes. I've watched and read reviews of these lenses and they are tempting but maybe not significantly different to the lenses I already have.

 

[woof woof]

Interesting comparisons.
Looking at those, the most noticable difference is between f1.8/f2 and f2.8. It seems that below f2 it's all nicely out of focus in the shots, the only difference between f1.2/1.4/1/7/2 is the size of the bokeh balls. But once you get to f2.8 the bokeh is no longer pleasing ball shapes and just out of focus.

I recently had the Canon RF 85mm f2 on loan and compared it to my Tamron 90mm f2.8 and found the bokeh and out of focus areas at f2 on the 85mm to be much more pleasing than my 90mm at f2.8.

Yup that's all pretty much exactly how I see it with the significant differences coming in somewhere around f2.2 to f2.5 and definitely visible at f2.8. That's not to say that there aren't differences between f1.2 and f2 but they're often not significant to me.

I do like bokeh balls but thinking about how many times they're a significant factor for me... it's not very often, so I can very possibly live with smaller bokeh balls in a more compact f1.7-f2 lens.

 

[woof woof]

hmm... surprisingly small rendering difference between 1.2 and 1.4 but quite big ones between 1.7 and higher. From f2 background rendering starts to look quite busy.

I'm always like either use it wide open or stop it all the way down to f/5.6-8 for max DOF and sharpness.

I tend to go from wide open to f2 or f2.8 to f5/5.6 to f8 and rarely f11 and smaller. As some of my lenses aren't so good wide open I'll sometimes stop them down to f2 and not be shatteringly disappointed that I haven't used f1.x as to me the differences often aren't significant. Apart from those pesky bokeh balls which can be the big clue.

 

[woof woof]

I did a comparison of apertures back in 2014 when I first got my Canon 50 f1.4
Same shot at f1.4, f1.8 and f2.8. These were back on a 60D, so crop frame meaning the effective focal length was 80mm and the associated difference in depth of field too. Also these were shot at very close range, so the depth of field is affected that way too.
View attachment 323103

I also compared 4 lenses at f2.8.
Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 50mm f1.4, Takumar 55mm f1.8 (Pentax M42) and Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (at 50mm).
Not at all a scientific study, but interesting to do for my own sake.
View attachment 323104

Like @woof woof I did the tests for my own curiosity. They were all lenses I owned and was interested to see the differences.
I kept the Canon 50mm f1.4, using it on my 6D when I went full frame and enjoyed it, only getting rid of it this year when I went to the Canon RP and bought the RF 50mm f1.8, which is a great lens. Newer design than the old EF 1.4, smaller, lighter, faster to focus and I don't miss being able to go to f1.4.
Is the RF 50 f1.8 the best 50mm? Not likely, but it does fit my needs.

I went through a similar exercise with all my old film era 50mm lenses including a Takumar 50mm f1.4 and decided that the Takumar although not the technically best lens gave the most pleasing portrait look, the Olympus 50mm f1.4 came second and I'd forgotten what a nice look that lens gives.