f/1.8 > f/1.4 lenses, 5 reasons why

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?

Some highly respected photographers very happily use the Nikon 1.8 AF-S lenses, including some wedding photographers who I'm sure have no financial concerns at all. Size and weight should not be underestimated and often the AF speed is quicker when there is less glass to move around.

For similar reasons the D750 became a massive hit and saw many happily moving 'down' from the D5.

Aperture isn't everything. I've shot weddings with the Canon 50mm 1.2 and Zeiss 55mm 1.8. I'd take the Zeiss every single time in future.
 
Last edited:
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.

A Lotus Elise is a better example vs the Ferrari. The Ferrari is the faster on a strait road but with lots of tight curves.....
I'll take the lotus any day.
 
The reason I prefer 85mm f1.8 over the 85mm f1.4 GM or canon 85mm F1.2 is because it's faster to focus. Fast AF really comes in handy for my use cases.
You should try the robust canon 85mm L.
If there is any difference in focus speed between it and the 1.8 it is insignificant.
 
You should try the robust canon 85mm L.
If there is any difference in focus speed between it and the 1.8 it is insignificant.

you mean the new f1.4 version?

Hmm... interesting, if that's the case I may well give that one a go. Its a large lump of glass though :D
 
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.

t4UNTYX.png

that's a nice healthy amount of CA there :D

boy will you love your zeiss lenses :D
 
you mean the new f1.4 version?

Hmm... interesting, if that's the case I may well give that one a go. Its a large lump of glass though :D

I traded my 1.2 mk2 for it.
The ability to work in low light is amazing when aided by the IS. And the frame edge to edge sharpness is easily good enough for me.
In truth, subject isolation is not as good as the 1.2 but, given the sum of it's parts, it's probably the best lens I own.
 
If Ken Rockwell didn't say this I'll say it anyway: f1.4 and f1.8 are the same thing. :D
 
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.

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.

I'm not saying that the Sony 55mm f1.8 is a fair example and nowhere did I say that all f1.8's are great. Dunno where that came from. All I'm saying is that there are f1.8 lenses that buck the trend of f1.8's being cheaper and humbler than the usually more expensive and more upmarket f1.4's.

If there are other examples then all they do is give us more choice and remove a little of the perception that the f1.4 option is the better quality when in reality "all" the f1.4 option may offer is the f1.4. There may be times when f1.8 just doesn't cut it though, I accept that :D but if f1.4 isn't needed and the lenses are judged on other criteria then a f1.8 lens which is a quality bit of kit could be a viable option :D
 
On looking at the video again I would say that the guy who made it is just big noting himself by stating the bleeding obvious. And that is, that you should get the tool that best suits your needs, rather than the one that best suits your ego. If you don't need and can't use the expensive option, then why get it when the cheaper option may serve your needs as well, if not better.
 
Some highly respected photographers very happily use the Nikon 1.8 AF-S lenses, including some wedding photographers who I'm sure have no financial concerns at all. Size and weight should not be underestimated and often the AF speed is quicker when there is less glass to move around.

For similar reasons the D750 became a massive hit and saw many happily moving 'down' from the D5.

Aperture isn't everything. I've shot weddings with the Canon 50mm 1.2 and Zeiss 55mm 1.8. I'd take the Zeiss every single time in future.

That is not a question of whether 1.8 can do what you want, that is merely a choice of the photographer choosing the lenses that they prefer and like and without knowing the reasons for every one of them, you are just guessing. But let's say they choose it because they just like it.

Then that's just an opinion, like my opinion that I prefer 1.4.

Or just as valid as photographers who shoots with 2.8 zooms or photographers who shoots on iPhones!

Aperture isn't everything, hell, even cameras isn't everything.
 
Every lens design is a compromise. To get the faster aperture, the designer might (e.g.) have accepted greater distortion, higher weight, and potentially slower focusing. My older Nikon 50 f/1.4 has significantly more barrel distortion and vignetting than the contemporary f/1.8 lens, so there are situations where the faster lens would be the poorer choice. On the other hand, only the f/1.4 can pare down depth of field to such a thin sliver, squeeze out that last stop of candlelight, and it's sharper at f/2. For most subjects shot at smaller apertures, I doubt it would be possible to do better than chance if asked to separate a few dozen photos taken with one lens from a similar number taken with the other.
 
Well I did the same thing on Nikon, they made it a much easier choice by having such good f/1.8 lenses which sometimes outperformed the f/1.4 versions.

I'm using a different system now and it seemed like the f/1.4 version was the better lens this time round.

So yes I agree with the article in the sense that if you don't know better and you just pay the most for the largest aperture it's probably not the best decision.
 
Well I did the same thing on Nikon, they made it a much easier choice by having such good f/1.8 lenses which sometimes outperformed the f/1.4 versions.

I'm using a different system now and it seemed like the f/1.4 version was the better lens this time round.

So yes I agree with the article in the sense that if you don't know better and you just pay the most for the largest aperture it's probably not the best decision.
I'm sure the f1, 2-1,4 lenses are a gift to the lazy and the ones with poor composition skills ;)
 
It makes sence to me more so for financial reasons
 
I have the Canon 50mm f1.8 mk1 with the metal mount and the 50mm f1.4.
I got the 1.4 because it was better built, gave better performance wide open which was handy when shooting gigs. I could also let my lad have the f1.8. Sometimes that little bit extra makes the difference
 
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.

t4UNTYX.png

Is that a real example? Seriously, I am asking because I am appalled at the level of CA, I thought it had been drawn in using a magic marker, appreciate its a "blow-up" against a back light, so a difficult subject but given your desire for quality which you have stated many times I am surprised you would accept that quality.
 
Is that a real example? Seriously, I am asking because I am appalled at the level of CA, I thought it had been drawn in using a magic marker, appreciate its a "blow-up" against a back light, so a difficult subject but given your desire for quality which you have stated many times I am surprised you would accept that quality.

Are you asking if that’s fake CA?

No it’s not fake CA and yes that’s why I said it’s unacceptable and why I’m looking to get the new 85/1.4L.
 
Are you asking if that’s fake CA?

No it’s not fake CA and yes that’s why I said it’s unacceptable and why I’m looking to get the new 85/1.4L.
That I can understand, serious question again, would you get the same results if you used a larger format instead of tiddly 35mm equivalent?
There are other considerations of course in using a larger format but if quality is your priority would it be worth your while moving up a size.
 
That I can understand, serious question again, would you get the same results if you used a larger format instead of tiddly 35mm equivalent?
There are other considerations of course in using a larger format but if quality is your priority would it be worth your while moving up a size.

Shooting medium format at a wedding?

Minus the DR, the flexible lighting setup, the choice of glass.

The overall quality of images will plummet.
 
Something about the video irritates me, and I think it is the cheesy backing music. Slightly off putting and makes me think I am watching an infomercial lol

Anyway. I disagree with the ISO statement in general. I find with my D750 that the image begins to lose that pop when the ISO is pushed and look flat and not dynamic.

I also personally feel this video has been made purely to drive people to his website and he is only really trying to justify his thinking.

Meh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkh
Snip:
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.

Neither, it's 40mm, and that's the reason why I didn't buy an f/1.8 or an f1.4 50mm lens! ;)
 
A serious question out of curiosity. Are f/1,4 lenses actually 2/3 stop faster than f/1,8, do you get 2/3 stops higher shutterspeed or lower ISO for the same EI?
 
A serious question out of curiosity. Are f/1,4 lenses actually 2/3 stop faster than f/1,8, do you get 2/3 stops higher shutterspeed or lower ISO for the same EI?

In a perfect world, you do. But in the real world, it is lens dependent.



The number you are looking for is the T-Stop, this is the light transmission value. A F/1.4 lens might have a T-stop of T/1.8. If the F/1.8 lens have a T-stop of F/1.8 then they would look almost identical in terms of brightness in the same camera settings. The bokeh of the 1.4 lens would still be nicer so to speak.



But in reality, you can normally assume the T-stop difference to be similar or close enough so you do that that difference in light through.



FYI, the Sony G-Master 85/1.4 has an almost perfect T-stop of T/1.5.
 
In a perfect world, you do. But in the real world, it is lens dependent.

The number you are looking for is the T-Stop, this is the light transmission value. A F/1.4 lens might have a T-stop of T/1.8. If the F/1.8 lens have a T-stop of F/1.8 then they would look almost identical in terms of brightness in the same camera settings. The bokeh of the 1.4 lens would still be nicer so to speak.

But in reality, you can normally assume the T-stop difference to be similar or close enough so you do that that difference in light through.

FYI, the Sony G-Master 85/1.4 has an almost perfect T-stop of T/1.5.

F/number is theoretical, T/stop is supposed to be actual tested light transmission though I don't trust many published reviews. DxO for example, I know to be factually wrong in a few key areas because they use a flat test target at much closer distance than infinity. With many lenses this can have a seriously detrimental affect on measured performance that has very little real world relevance and there are plenty of examples of this happening.

That aside though, in reality T/stops measured properly rarely stray far from the f/number in the centre of the frame, maybe a couple of tenths, and a far more significant issue is vignetting. That's a problem with all fast lenses, regardless of cost or quality, and at maximum aperture (vignetting reduces dramatically on stopping down) it's routine to see fast rimes of 1.8 or 1.4 to be one or two stops down on that towards the edges and corners of the frame. Depth of field stays true to the f/number though.
 
Are you asking if that’s fake CA?

No it’s not fake CA and yes that’s why I said it’s unacceptable and why I’m looking to get the new 85/1.4L.
I can tell you that the 85/1.4L is not free from CA.
It's controlled better than the 85 1.2 and the 50 1.2 but you'll still see it.

That said, Canons DPP lens profile does a great job of reducing it with the exception of really high contrast areas.
 
F/number is theoretical, T/stop is supposed to be actual tested light transmission though I don't trust many published reviews. DxO for example, I know to be factually wrong in a few key areas because they use a flat test target at much closer distance than infinity. With many lenses this can have a seriously detrimental affect on measured performance that has very little real world relevance and there are plenty of examples of this happening.

That aside though, in reality T/stops measured properly rarely stray far from the f/number in the centre of the frame, maybe a couple of tenths, and a far more significant issue is vignetting. That's a problem with all fast lenses, regardless of cost or quality, and at maximum aperture (vignetting reduces dramatically on stopping down) it's routine to see fast rimes of 1.8 or 1.4 to be one or two stops down on that towards the edges and corners of the frame. Depth of field stays true to the f/number though.
I didn't realise the F/number was theoretical!
 
I didn't realise the F/number was theoretical!

F/number is focal length divided by the diameter* of the entrance pupil, eg 100mm lens with a 50mm diameter entrance pupil is f/2 in theory, though there are sometimes some roundings going on and absolute accuracy isn't guaranteed, in the same way that stated focal lengths are also prone to a bit of optimism ;)

The t/stop is always lower than the f/number due to light reflected from the lens glass surfaces and lost, and absorbed by glass. Transmission losses used to be quite substantial with a multi-element zoom for example, but modern multicoating has reduced it to insignificant levels.

T/stops are used in the movie industry where it's important for exposures to match exactly when the same scene is shot from different angles with different cameras, so an accurate T/stop at least reduces one of the variables.

*Not something you can easily measure. It's the 'effective' diameter of the entrance pupil within the optical system. Not simply the same as the diameter of the front element, or the diameter of the aperture blades.
 
Back
Top