f/1.8 > f/1.4 lenses, 5 reasons why
- Thread starter Cagey75
- Start date
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
I saw that last night, yeah but I can tell....
Shooting photos, even for a client, a small part of me is for me, if I’m not happy then I’m not happy and then I will do something about it. Up to a point of course and up to certain age with the weight etc but I want to be happy about my work, as much as the client, more than the client in fact.
It’s the same argument of musicians should just use a £500 Korean guitar and not their vintage 58 Gibson Les Paul which is worth like £100k.
The joy of the music is as much for the player as it is the audience. I doubt the audience can tell the difference, they just want to hear the songs but the player can feel the difference and the joy of using both guitars can be different, no matter how small.
Same for photography, most people might not notice but I do. That sometimes is priceless.
Shooting photos, even for a client, a small part of me is for me, if I’m not happy then I’m not happy and then I will do something about it. Up to a point of course and up to certain age with the weight etc but I want to be happy about my work, as much as the client, more than the client in fact.
It’s the same argument of musicians should just use a £500 Korean guitar and not their vintage 58 Gibson Les Paul which is worth like £100k.
The joy of the music is as much for the player as it is the audience. I doubt the audience can tell the difference, they just want to hear the songs but the player can feel the difference and the joy of using both guitars can be different, no matter how small.
Same for photography, most people might not notice but I do. That sometimes is priceless.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
But how much difference are your 1.4 lenses contributing to end result? Say you're shooting at f/4 with off cam flash, you're not likely to notice any difference. Even in natural light, at say 2.8, the difference between an 85 1.4 and an 85 1.8 is going to be minimal. The only time I feel 1.4 lenses stand out, is of course wide open, when you really desire that OOF backdrop while maintaining sharpness on the subject. And even then, 1.8 will usually offer enough
Only it's not, it makes a hell of a lot of sense, especially to those on a budget
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s not about how much, sometimes I just want to, even if I shoot it purely in 1.8 and never shoot it in 1.4. If it’s 1% difference, that is enough for me. I switched from 35L to 35Lmk2, do you think anyone notice to the difference? I shot my first few weddings mostly with my 24-70/2.8 and now it’s 99% primes, do you think anyone else knows the difference?
I take photos as much for me as for someone else.
Like some photographers shoots Fuji because they like it, the client don’t know what camera it comes from.
Same thing, I just want 1.4 lenses.
Kodiak Qc
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,285
- Name
- French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Really?
I think the guy is very reasonable in these 5 reasons. I, nevertheless,
opted for the most important aspects in my decision: weather seals
and toughness… I went for the ƒ 1.4 where it is possible.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
Plus generally the glass in the 1.4 are the best in the lineup. Better contrast, sharpness, CA control etc.
Us photographers should set the standard of what is good. It’s not a question of whether the clients notice. The bar should be much higher. We should ask higher and better of our work. If we constantly think “the client won’t notice” and start applying it to other aspects then little by little it all adds up.
Kodiak Qc
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,285
- Name
- French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In that sense, I wouldn't mind a ƒ 1.8 that is lighter, where
sealing and toughness are paramount in my book… I could
even have saved a couple of hundreds with such version!
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
I think if you are on a budget then you are on a budget, that criteria will trump everything else. The aperture is irrelevant because if you are given a choice of 2 lenses and both the same price, if I offer you a 85/1.4L and a 85/1.8 and both £300. Are you going to tell me you’ll pick the 1.8 because the client can’t tell the difference?
Kodiak Qc
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,285
- Name
- French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, the client has nothing to do with it… and money neither.
I just don't like being caught with my pants down! My gear
MUST be ready when it is time.
I can afford anything but will allow me only what I need so,
in this cace, weather seals and toughness.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
In that sense, I wouldn't mind a ƒ 1.8 that is lighter, where
sealing and toughness are paramount in my book… I could
even have saved a couple of hundreds with such version!
Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s a place for 1.8 lenses. I am really tempted to get the Sony 85/1.8 just for the size because for holiday snaps i purely want something smaller above all else.
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Er, yes , really, as I stated above, except for when you want shallower DOF. Also the weather sealing thing, though I think WR is a bit over rated. I've owned many 1.4 lenses, I am mainly a prime shooter, I've also owned many 1.8. I'm not even sure what your "really?" is referring to
I've owned both an 85 1.4 and 85 1.8 Nikon, and given the money for a 1.4 i would buy the 1.8 and a couple other primes with the rest instead. Easy, no decision making needed. Though that is a simple example as the 85 1.8G is one of the best lenses they ever made IMHO. I love that it's so light, it also doubles as a decent macro lens with a Raynox slapped on front
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 20,285
- Name
- French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To the extracted quote of yours, Keith: "for the most part"!
I think, though I went the other way, that his points are per-
featly coherent and I agree with all parts.
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah, I get you, I phrased it wrong
I do agree with all he said, but I see a few reasons to go for the pricier lenses.
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Fair enough, but the point of the video is to show that the cheaper option is almost as good and will do for most cases. I'm poor, I like cheaper but decent options
- Messages
- 2,249
- Edit My Images
- No
Isn't this akin to saying you don't really need that 5D4 or 1DXII, you could save a lot of money by sticking with a 5D2 or 6D?
It's lighter, cheaper and is your client really going to notice the difference?
It's lighter, cheaper and is your client really going to notice the difference?
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
That sounds almost something you tell yourself because you can’t afford it. If I offer you both options at the same price, would you still take the 1.8?
There is nothing wrong liking a lens, any lens, however videos like is a bit strange since you can say this with a everything like 5 reasons why I like a Toyota Yaris over a Ferrari Enzo.
1 - easy to park
2 - cheaper to buy and run
3 - you don’t get to places any faster really
4 - it’s still 4 wheels
5 - it holds more stuff
But if you offer me a Ferrari for the price of the Yaris, all those reasons goes out the window, give me the keys now!
Almost as good can be a business decision and essentially that can be paramount especially if money is tight but if you consider money as a reason, other factors becomes irrelevant as cost is an advantage for every lower price item but there is good reasons why a cheaper item is cheaper.
The aegument shouldn’t be using it’s cheaper so it’s an advantage, the question that should be asked is does the 1.8 lens offer what you need for your work and are these cost effective for you.
If the 1.8 offer what you need then stick with it. If you need or want 1.4 then get the 1.4. They both do and offer something different.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course I'd take the 1.4, sell it, buy the 1.8 and enjoy the extra cash, cheers.
I sold an 85 1.4 and bought the 1.8 when I had plenty of spare tbh, this was at the time I was also able to buy the D800E when it first hit, I was one of the first in Ireland to get one in fact. I'm not always broke - just right now!
And even if I had wads, I'd still buy many 1.8 lenses over the 1.4 pricier versions, for the reasons he lists. I don't like overly heavy lenses, metal can get damaged easier than plastic in my experience, the quality is never 4x better so cannot justify the price a lot of times, I don't put any real faith in WR [it's a bit of rubber ... seriously] and I would still prefer to get more bang for buck even if money was no obstacle. Don't read too much into one sentence laddy.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Aye, pffft, not even a full stop for 4x the price. Flick to ISO 320 instead of 200 .... oh noes!!!
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,673
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Just on the quality and cost ratios... These days f1.8 lenses can be both very good and on the more expensive side. I'm thinking especially of the Sony 55mm f1.8, it's a fantastic lens and more expensive than a few f1.4's.
- Messages
- 1,672
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
What about 6400 to 10000 though? May be a deal breaker for some
I think I might have shot at above 6400 one time
they should learn to use OCF
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course I'd take the 1.4, sell it, buy the 1.8 and enjoy the extra cash, cheers.
I sold an 85 1.4 and bought the 1.8 when I had plenty of spare tbh, this was at the time I was also able to buy the D800E when it first hit, I was one of the first in Ireland to get one in fact. I'm not always broke - just right now!
The rules of diminishing returns is never proportional to the price, the last 1% of improvement in anything is often like 10x or 100x the cost. Just look at HiFi audio, most people are happy with their sound bar, i have an okay 5.1 system but it is no Krell or Quad system. I am happy with me humble system like you are happy with the 1.8.
I know where you are coming from because I don't think the last 1% is worth the money.
When it comes to photography however……….my bar is undoubtedly higher than yours, but still, not at the people who are willing to spend £10k on a Leica lens. It is all relative.
- Messages
- 2,249
- Edit My Images
- No
How many lenses are like the Zeiss though? At £700 I'm thinking it's more the exception that proves the rule when typically 50mm f/1.8's come in under £200 for Canon/Nikon/Sony etc.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
The 55mm Zeiss cost more than the Sigma 35 Art and more than I paid for my 100L and almost as much as my 135L.
I don't think it's fair putting that 55/1.8 as the example of all 1.8 glass are great. The reality is that at £700 for a 50mm it really ought to be great. It's only about a couple hundred less than a Canon 50/1.2.
Almost always that if the same manufacturer has the same focal length in 1.4 and 1.8, the 1.4 version is superior in every measurable aspect apart from the weight and focus speed. Both of which you can't really get around due to the laws of physics having larger elements.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Is that not one of the points he made in the video? that the only person who will notice the difference mostly, is you? If I walk into someone's lounge, and they have music pumping, I'm not going to notice that they're running Bose, or Korg or Krell ... unless they make a point of making me aware. And I like decent sound systems [ok, so I may notice a little and ask, but in general ...]
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not seeing the point of the argument TBH. It's not as if the video said anything new. Why not f/2 then, or 2.8 and get a zoom thrown in?
Pros and cons on both sides, and all subjective. Where anyone chooses to draw the line is entirely personal.
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
There are 2 points here.
1 - Whether you notice it
2 - Whether you care enough to do something about it.
I think as photographers we should all notice it, but the important point is No.2, whether you are going to do something about it. The point of the video is you shouldn't because the clients don't. My point is mostly because personally I do because at least for professional work, I like to set my bar higher. I don't set the bar at the point of "will the client notice" that almost feels like "will I get away with this?".
For personal stuff the bar can be lower because ultimately there is not as much on the line.
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
What argument? That post was in jest for one, I don't "pffft"
I'm only looking at it from a prime perspective tbh, and I'm not the guy in the video ... I was just sharing it
Most times there is nothing to notice. Clients, or not! Seriously - tell me what a 1.4 lens is doing better than the 1.8 equivalent for you, what is it you notice? Is there a placebo effect at play? You keep talking like you have higher standards, I wonder what exactly these standards entail?
Last edited:
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
All these talk of 1.8 lenses I want to get a 50/1.2.
Can get one used for the price of a Zeiss 55/1.8 !
Like I said with my Guitar analogy, even if its 1% it's worth it.
As for higher standards?
Do you know why I change from the 35L to the mk2? one of the reasons is CA, I was getting tired at having to correct it in post a lot of the time because I do like to shoot into the light, high contrasts scenes. Most people won't even know what CA is. Most clients have never heard of it. I do, I place CA, to lack of, be a important criteria, that is a higher standard than the client.
Is that a good enough example?
I love my 85/1.2 but sometimes it's borderline unusable wide open.
Can get one used for the price of a Zeiss 55/1.8 !
What argument? That post was in jest for one, I don't "pffft"
Most times there is nothing to notice. Clients, or not! Seriously - tell me what a 1.4 lens is doing better than the 1.8 equivalent for you, what is it you notice? Is there a placebo effect at play? You keep talking like you have higher standards, I wonder what exactly these standards entail?
Like I said with my Guitar analogy, even if its 1% it's worth it.
As for higher standards?
Do you know why I change from the 35L to the mk2? one of the reasons is CA, I was getting tired at having to correct it in post a lot of the time because I do like to shoot into the light, high contrasts scenes. Most people won't even know what CA is. Most clients have never heard of it. I do, I place CA, to lack of, be a important criteria, that is a higher standard than the client.
Is that a good enough example?
I love my 85/1.2 but sometimes it's borderline unusable wide open.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Not really, when I've had 1.8 lenses that exhibited no CA whatsoever, even wide open against the harshest back lighting, But yes, I guess in general, the pricier lens is going to have better coatings, better anti-flare and glare, but you're talking pshing extremes to notice differences there.
I can get 1.4 lenses for buttons, in fact I do mean to get a couple, but they'll not be fancy modern AF lenses
Last edited:
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
Not really, when I've had 1.8 lenses that exhibited no CA whatsoever, even wide open against the harshest back lighting, But yes, I guess in general, the pricier lens is going to have better coatings, better anti-flare and glare, but you're talking pshing extremes to notice differences there.
I can get 1.4 lenses for buttons, in fact I do mean to get a couple, but they'll not be fancy modern AF lenses
I am not talking about whether you got CA in your 1.8 lens. You asked for an example why I upgraded for things where clients will never notice. like CA.
I gave you one reason. That could easily have been for a different lens but the point is I upgraded a lens for something that clients won't notice but I do. That in a nutshell, is a higher standard.
OP
- Messages
- 16,747
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Ok, again, fair enough. I'm just curious. I like to know why people aim higher, what it is they believe they get for the money etc ... I'm not interrogating you or anything
I shared the video to inspire debate/discussion, I think it's healthy. I can definitely see both sides. For pro's in particular, the better build quality, weather sealing, better coatings on the optics and that extra helping in low light is sufficient enough reason to buy the higher level of lens. But this video isn't really about that, it's showing that the cheaper alternative 1.8 variants can do pretty much the same job [just not in a rain shower ... or a dark cave maybe]
Last edited:
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,032
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
Ok, again, fair enough. I'm just curious. I like to know why people aim higher, what it is they believe they get for the money etc ... I'm not interrogating you or anything
I shared the video to inspire debate/discussion, I think it's healthy. I can definitely see both sides. For pro's in particular, the better build quality, weather sealing, better coatings on the optics and that extra helping in low light is sufficient enough reason to buy the higher level of lens. But this video isn't really about that, it's showing that the cheaper alternative 1.8 variants can do pretty much the same job [just not in a rain shower ... or a dark cave maybe]
I aim higher because it's something I can't help with. Greed, aspiration, ambition, self improvement, vanity, chasing the rainbow or basic human needs of wanting something better.
I do however believe that as a professional, when doing a job that is paid, I should set my standard that is higher than what clients expects. What you will get in return is a happy client and that generally means more work.
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
I think it is those things that are hard to measure that often make the difference between a good lens and one that is outstanding. You can usually find them by carefully reading lots of reviews, but it certainly isn't as easy as picking the f1.4 lens over the f1.8.
I have 2 lenses which I would rate as outstanding (actually I have more than 2, but I'll use these 2 as an example).
The first is the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f1.4. It has several disadvantages over the Sony 50mm f1.8. It is much bigger and it is much, much more expensive. On the plus side it takes pictures that just look wonderful (well, I think they do anyway).
The other is the Zeiss Loxia 21mm f2.8 (can it be good when it's only f2.8?). It is fully manual, quite small and very expensive, but again, it takes beautiful pictures.
I also have a very old Canon 50mm f1.2. This used to be one of my favourites as it also took beautiful pictures, in spite of its slow focusing, weight, cost, chromatic aberrations, lack of resolution, etc. Nowdays I only use it for timelapse as the lack of resolution has become a problem, but it still takes beautiful pictures.
I think to get the noticeable increase in how the picture looks you need to pay a lot more, but you also need to select very carefully. If you do then you may see a difference. I certainly do.
I have 2 lenses which I would rate as outstanding (actually I have more than 2, but I'll use these 2 as an example).
The first is the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f1.4. It has several disadvantages over the Sony 50mm f1.8. It is much bigger and it is much, much more expensive. On the plus side it takes pictures that just look wonderful (well, I think they do anyway).
The other is the Zeiss Loxia 21mm f2.8 (can it be good when it's only f2.8?). It is fully manual, quite small and very expensive, but again, it takes beautiful pictures.
I also have a very old Canon 50mm f1.2. This used to be one of my favourites as it also took beautiful pictures, in spite of its slow focusing, weight, cost, chromatic aberrations, lack of resolution, etc. Nowdays I only use it for timelapse as the lack of resolution has become a problem, but it still takes beautiful pictures.
I think to get the noticeable increase in how the picture looks you need to pay a lot more, but you also need to select very carefully. If you do then you may see a difference. I certainly do.
- Messages
- 5,813
- Edit My Images
- No
I never really enjoyed using my 1.4 primes, which meant I was never really inspired to use them and that took away the point of having them for me.
There are plenty of pros out there who use 1.8 lenses tbh, you only need to read their blogs too see this and in some ways the Nikon 1.8 primes are better than the 1.4 versions depending on what you look for in a lens.
All subjective though, we all have different reasons to why we prefer lenses. It’s like arguing if 35mm or 50mm is the perfect focal length.
Just because people have 1.4 lenses it doesn’t automatically make them the best lens for everyone. Taking away the cost, there is still a lot to consider. People don’t always ‘settle’ on having 1.8 primes, they choose them as they prefer them.
There are plenty of pros out there who use 1.8 lenses tbh, you only need to read their blogs too see this and in some ways the Nikon 1.8 primes are better than the 1.4 versions depending on what you look for in a lens.
All subjective though, we all have different reasons to why we prefer lenses. It’s like arguing if 35mm or 50mm is the perfect focal length.
Just because people have 1.4 lenses it doesn’t automatically make them the best lens for everyone. Taking away the cost, there is still a lot to consider. People don’t always ‘settle’ on having 1.8 primes, they choose them as they prefer them.