| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2007 01:05:54 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
How about this picture, shot with the 85mm f/1.2L lens:
And a 100% crop to show you just how sharp this thing really is:
NOTE: This was shot at ISO 1000!!! I was in my studio and found that, at f/1.2, I could NOT turn my strobes down far enough to light the cat with the strobes. So instead, I used the modeling lamp in the strobes. I bumped the ISO up to 1000 just so that I'd be sure to stop the cat at 1/250th of a second.
|
The reason you get a 1.2 or other fast lens is to shoot it wide open! So it had better be sharp WO!
The 85 1.2 is a lens that makes light - it's awesome, but focus speed, is, well, speed isn't quite the right word is it?
I often use just the modeling light and a fast lens - it works well!
|
|
|
|
10/05/2007 01:12:53 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 85 1.2 is a lens that makes light - it's awesome, |
No kiddin'. I swear it doesn't seem possible, but it's 2 1/3 stops brighter than an f/2.8 lens. So if you're hurting for light at f/2.8, chances are, at f/1.2 you'll still have plenty of light to spare.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
but focus speed, is, well, speed isn't quite the right word is it? |
True that! I had this lens out on the dance floor at a wedding reception last week. And while some of the shots are pretty cool with the shallow DOF, it was a lot harder than I expected to lock focus on the people. The focusing speed is really slow. I had expected that, with the additional amount of light, it would be super fast at focus.... oh well. Maybe when they create a III version of the 85 1.2L lens they'll get the focusing up the speed!
|
|
|
|
10/05/2007 02:15:58 PM · #28 |
:)
the original poster was asking about a $115 lens ... you guys are talking about an $1800 lens
you might as well be speaking Chinese as far as he's concerned |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 02:31:17 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by hopper:
:)
the original poster was asking about a $115 lens ... you guys are talking about an $1800 lens
you might as well be speaking Chinese as far as he's concerned |
Perhaps more important, they are talking Canon while the OP is talking Nikon!
Getting back on topic, if the OP has the extra money, the 50mm 1.4 will be easier to focus than the 1.8 on the D40. The drop in the DOF when wide open makes manual focus much easier.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2007 02:52:25 PM · #30 |
His first question was ... "So what's up with fast aperture lenses" and his second was "Are they really that sharp".
Money issues aside ... I think the answer is a resounding yes! :-)
|
|
|
|
10/05/2007 03:28:20 PM · #31 |
the cheapo 50 is like smearing vasoline in your eyes compared to the 85L at 1.8
(i understand your point, i'm just saying those 2 lenses don't compare well) |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 03:40:38 PM · #32 |
You bunch of glass pimps :-)
|
|
|
|
10/05/2007 05:44:47 PM · #33 |
yeah, that would be sweet if i had $1800 to spare on lenses, but i think im going to have to settle for something about 20 times cheeper. until i can get some money, ill just have to work with the cheap stuff, but im just into photography for a hobby, so thats fine.
Message edited by author 2007-10-05 17:49:20. |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 05:48:14 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by ETphonethishome:
yeah, that would be sweet if i had $1800 to spare on lenses, but i think im going to have to settle for something about 20 times cheeper |
Don't worry ... once bitten by the bug, the disease is incurable. You'll want more. ;-)
|
|
|
|
10/05/2007 06:04:06 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ETphonethishome:
until i can get some money, ill just have to work with the cheap stuff, but im just into photography for a hobby, so thats fine. |
Despite what a lot of people would try to lead you to believe, not all pros care to justify $$$$ lenses, either.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2007 08:20:59 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Despite what a lot of people would try to lead you to believe, not all pros care to justify $$$$ lenses, either. |
The idea is to get the image, the one in your mind. Whatever gear does that, then use it.
I've found through talking to pros and advanced amateurs (hey, I like your images. how'd you do it?) that most shoot canon, and most shoot L lenses. Yeah, it's expensive, but once you try it, well, it's like crack baby, you're hooked.
Suddenly that tamron 28-75 is too slow to focus. It's still sharp, but once you've seen the best, well, the rest just won't do anymore.
So don't go into the candy store unless you're prepared to get fat.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 12:44:53 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
So don't go into the candy store unless you're prepared to get fat. |
I thought the Candy Store was a strip club
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 12:58:52 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by ETphonethishome:
ok, so do you guys think it's worth it to pay the extra $160 to get the 50mm f/1.4 instead of the 1.8? or is it not much greater? it's supposed to be sharp all the way through and brighter right? |
Totally worth it. I did a head to head comparison between the two some time back. The 1.4 is first and foremost better built (not plastic), next is faster, next is sharper, and then practically sees in the dark. So worth less than $200. I used it as my primary studio lens for a good year and a great walk-around too.
Edit typing |
I have the 50 f/1.4. Mine is plastic just like the 50 f/1.8. I don't find it to be any better built than the f/1.8 lens. The only mechanical or structural improvement is that the f/1.4 lens has the USM, which has no effect on the picture quality. Having owned both lenses (still owning the f/1.4) I couldn't really recommend spending the extra money on the f/1.4. My own comparisons between the two don't show any significant difference in image quality, other than the fact that f/1.4 creates less depth of field and is about 2/3 stop faster than the f/1.8. 2/3 stop is not that significant. It's less than the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 or f/4 and f/5.6.
I guess results will vary in image quality comparisons between two lenses. I'm probably a very rare example of someone who would recommend the cheaper of the two.
People do tend to recommend what they already have.
Now... If someone was considering the 50mm f/1.2L, I might change my suggestion. I have several of the L lenses and I think there is significant image quality differences between those and the cheaper lenses. I wouldn't care much for the fact that the lens is f/1.2. I doubt I would even use it at below f/2 or f/2.2, which is where I shoot mostly with my f/1.4 lens. I think the f/1.2L is about $1350, so it won't normally fall into the discussion of which 50mm lens to buy.
I have all the zoom lenses I need. Additional lenses that I buy from here on out will be primes.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 03:36:44 AM · #39 |
I haven't checked to see if anyone earlier in this thread actually listed the various f/stops in order, but it's possible some people think "how much of a difference in speed can there really be between, say, f/1.4 and f/2.8?" So here they are:
f/1.0, f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8. f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0, f/11.0, f/16.0, f/22.0, f/32.0
Each of these is a full stop slower than the previous one. So an f/1.8 lens is like a stop-and-a-half faster than an f/2.8, which means shutter speed could go from 1/30 to about 1/75, a truly significant change in low light shooting.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 04:15:47 AM · #40 |
| I agree there is nothing like a good F1.8 I have the 100mm Tokina ATX macro and its worthits wieght in gold especially for portrait work |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 09:38:18 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
f/1.0, f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8. f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0, f/11.0, f/16.0, f/22.0, f/32.0
Each of these is a full stop slower than the previous one. So an f/1.8 lens is like a stop-and-a-half faster than an f/2.8, which means shutter speed could go from 1/30 to about 1/75, a truly significant change in low light shooting. |
I was going to mention this somewhere and may have forgot.
I took the 85mm 1.2L lens outside to play. I set the aperture to f/1.2 and was surprised to discover that I could NOT take a picture of a white flower without overexposing it!!! The fastest shutter speed on the 1D Mark III is 1/8000th of a second. And at f/1.2 and ISO 100, the camera was blinking, telling me that 1/8000 was TOO SLOW. I ended up stopping down to f/2.8 in order to get the shot.
So this got me curious... just what kind of speed did I need in order to use f/1.2 outside in full daylight?
Well... thinking about the Sunny 16 rule (ISO 100, shoot at 1/125 at f/16) I started backing up: f/11 = 1/250, f/8 = 1/500, f/5.6 = 1/1000, f/4.0 = 1/2000, f/2.8 = 1/4000, f/2.0 = 1/8000, f/1.4 = 1/16000. And then f/1.2 would be something faster than 1/20000. I'm not even sure how to calculate a 1/3rd stop, but it's obviously beyond the range of my camera.
Now THAT is some fast glass!!!! :-)
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 09:52:19 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
So don't go into the candy store unless you're prepared to get fat. |
I thought the Candy Store was a strip club |
You are what you eat. (I heard the rimshot, did you?) LOL
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 10:16:34 AM · #43 |
I think that the OP said that he didn't mind focusing manually. This was shot with a manual Ai S 50mm 1.4 which I found at a pawn shop for $20. I bought it because it was beautiful and well made. I wanted at least one lens to hand hold in low light, and it works great for that. This is a night shot in the dim galley of a sail boat @ 1/90 sec, not edited except to crop a little off both sides.
If you can be happy with manual focus, the 1.8 Ai's are showing up at pawn and thift shops now, and the camera and all can be purchased for almost nothing. I picked up a Nikon FE with a 1.8 50 on it for $5 about a month ago, and the lens is perfect. They were the standard lens sold with most of the film Nikons, so there are a lot of them out there. The 50 1.4 was an option on most except the higher end Nikon cameras of that era.
I agree that talking about the 85 1.2 here is not in line very well with what the OP was asking. If he is concerned about spending the money for a 50 1.8, then the 85 would be way beyond budget limits. I would like to have one myself.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 10:51:52 AM · #44 |
Maybe too late but My favorite lens is my 50mm 1.4. Best $325 i've spent on glass so far. In reference to the OP's question about the 55-200-VR It's great too! I've gotten some great shots with it that have been published in various regional magazines and papers.
Here's a couple from the 55-200
 
Pretty crisp!
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 02:07:28 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 85 1.2 is a lens that makes light - it's awesome, |
No kiddin'. I swear it doesn't seem possible, but it's 2 1/3 stops brighter than an f/2.8 lens. So if you're hurting for light at f/2.8, chances are, at f/1.2 you'll still have plenty of light to spare.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
but focus speed, is, well, speed isn't quite the right word is it? |
True that! I had this lens out on the dance floor at a wedding reception last week. And while some of the shots are pretty cool with the shallow DOF, it was a lot harder than I expected to lock focus on the people. The focusing speed is really slow. I had expected that, with the additional amount of light, it would be super fast at focus.... oh well. Maybe when they create a III version of the 85 1.2L lens they'll get the focusing up the speed! |
One of my pals has a 5D, and found that there is a special focus screen that is very useful with lenses faster than 1.8 on the digital Canons. I don't have the details, could ask him if you PM me.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 06:57:35 AM EST.
