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.
What a load of nonsense
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
for the most part.
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.
Us photographers should set the standard of what is good
Are you going to tell me you’ll pick the 1.8 because the client can’t tell the difference?
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!
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.
I'm not even sure what your "really?" is referring to
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.
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.
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
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.
Quick summary - f/1.8 is better at everything. Except that it's rubbish at 1.4, which is exactly 0.7 of a stop faster.
Aye, pffft, not even a full stop for 4x the price. Flick to ISO 320 instead of 200 .... oh noes!!!
What about 6400 to 10000 though? May be a deal breaker for some
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aye, pffft, not even a full stop for 4x the price. Flick to ISO 320 instead of 200 .... oh noes!!!
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 ...]
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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]