f1.4 and f2.8

[keller]

I really want to do my research on the next lense that we purchase. I know this iswrong, but i honestly do not want to rent a lense to test it out. I keep thinking, why rent and "waste" the money. I wish there was and option to rent a lense and if you like it, you can put that money towards the buying of the lense. (no need to scold, i know...i know rent the lense)


My question is... when using alense with an aperture off2.8 how much of a difference is that say using aprime lense with a aperture of f1.4 ?? Is there really much of a noticable difference in low light situations?


I know, i know...just rent the lense.


thanks


keller

[crosbyharbison]

The difference is very noticeable. You can do some pretty amazing things at f/1.4 that you wouldn't have thought possible. You don't have to rent to experience a lens. I guarantee if you come cash-in-hand to your local photo store they will let you try before you buy for a little bit. I've even seen people in the store parking lot with an employee trying out things.

[lculpin]

Any reputable camera store should definitely let you try before you buy, especially if you're purchasing something major. And there is definitely a huge difference from 1.4 to 2.8 (including DoF, of course)

[Jon Ruyle]

My question is... when using alense with an aperture off2.8 how much of a difference is that say using aprime lense with a aperture of f1.4 ?? Is there really much of a noticable difference in low light situations?


I know, i know...just rent the lense.





Sure it is noticeable. You get 4 times the shutter speed at f/1.4 than at f/2.8... big difference. Of course you have a tiny DOF... in both respects, quite different from f/2.8.


If you don't want to rent another option is to buy used... if you don't like it you can sell it for near what you paid.


Personally, though, I never rent or buy used. I just buy :)

[Colin]

Yeah, big difference. What jon said.


I love my 35mm f/1.4. It does unnatural things, and does them well!

[Daniel Browning]

Think of it this way:


ISO 200 vs ISO 800


1/60 vs 1/250


60 MPH vs 250 MPH


60 pounds vs 250 pounds


I hope that helps. [:)]

[Maleko]

Is there really much of a noticable difference in low light situations?


Simple answer...HELL YES!


I have a 100mm f/2.8 lens which i took to a few gigs and got some "good" photos which i was happy with I admit.
Then I got a 50mm f/1.8 and its TOTALLY different!

[Deva207]

I tried 50mm 1,4 and I'm amazed how good it is in dark, BUT because of its DOF f1,4 becomes useless. At least to me. If you're taking a portrait photo with f1,4 on 50mm face will be half sharp half blurred and that is not good.http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00G/00GN4K-29906584.jpg


here is the example (thanks to Google)


if I'm right this is taken with f1,4 and tho photo look nice but the birdhouse is out of focus. only closer part is sharp.


if you can buy 1,4 buy it, you can always go to narrow aperture, but if you buy 2,8 you can never go to 1,4

[Sean Setters]

Two of my lenses have a maximum aperture of f/2.8. One has a widest aperture of f/1.4. Whenever the light starts to wain, and I'm not using a flash, then my hand goes immediately for the f/1.4 lens. Usually, I don't even shoot wide open--but f/1.6 through f/2 are still extremely useful. Yes, you must worry about the shallow depth of field; to compensate, you need to back up from your subject (if possible) and try not to shoot headshots.






http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3623/3666476797_585ceacd3f.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/3666476797/)


Canon 50mm f/1.4 (at f/1.8), 1/320 sec, ISO 400


No flash; mainlight was a large window camera right.

[Dallasphotog]

I agree totally about the DOF issues. I have a lot of f/2.8's in my own case, but the company has the 50mm f/1.4, so I get to use it a lot. The shallow DOF makes f/1.4 impractical for large groups and generally screws me up. I have to shoot the f/1.4 stopped down to get enoughof a scene in focus. It's very sharp and does a great job, but the DOF keeps you on your toes.


If you have some uses for razor thin DOF, you'll love the f/1.4. If you are trying to shoot groups or capturelandscapes, you'll end up stoppedback down below f/4.0.

[hotsecretary]

As people have been saying there's a big difference as you go down from say 4 to 2.8 to 1.4 and ohhh 1.2 :)





But also depends on what you're primarily shooting... do you want one subject with a creamy sexy bokeh? Or do you want a group shoot of the family, friends, etc? Are you doing landscapes? Are you doing long exposed shots of buildings, city scapes, etc? Doing a lot of low light?


If you're shooting a lot of single person portraits, the 2-1.2 are awesome, but if you're shooting group shoots, landscapes, etc.. you're going to go to 4-11 .. and it won't be worth it. But if you want the versatility you'll want 2.8 and lower possibly. I only buy 2.8 now because I love low light photography and it's great. And I think one day after I pickup another L zoom and a new body, I'll grab a 50 1.4 or better because I do enjoy the Nifty fifty for the candid portraits and it's light weight compared to my brick of a zoom.

[Chuck Lee]

keller,


There are many reasons to prefer a fast prime over a slightly slower one. There are only a few primes that have apertures as fastor faster than1.4. It does make a difference and my advice is that you go to Bryans ISO 100% comparison charts ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108)and see for yourself the change in sharpness of different prime lenses as you change from wide open to stopped down. If you have certain lenses in mind then go to his lens review and peruse the sample images. Do likewise at other lens review sites like photozone.de and slrgear.com. pbase is another good site for "real world" examples.


The DOF control is one of the major creative features of lenses with large apertures and as you study photos created by pro photographers you will see very clearly how this creativefeature is used. Using a lens like the 50 1.4 or 50 1.2 wide open on a FF body is hit and miss because the dof is so razor thin. When it hits the results are stunning. When it misses just a little the results are rather disappointing.


The"low light" capabilitity is the other creative feature of a lens with a large aperature. F1.4 as mentioned is 4 stops faster than f2.8. Fortunately the DOF for any given distance isonly 2times as shallow. See DOF Master ("http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) to calculate. That's a good thing. Also compare the DOF on a FF and crop body cameras to understand better how the DOF changes between these formats. I find on my 5D I will stop the same lens (50mm 1.4) down more because of the shallower DOF created by the FF format for the same field of view. Remember, 16ft shooting distance on 1.6X crop = 10ft shooting distance on FF for the same basic field of view. The FF image will include more background @ infinitybut the subject will be aprox the same size in the frame. The 1.6X crop will have the same field of view as an 80mm lens on the FF. That's also worth comparing as a useful study. The DOF for equivalent fov setups is a ratio of aprox 1:1.6.


The best feature in my opinion of a lens with a large aperature is the amount of light available for the AF system and this is regardless of the set aperture. All lenses AF wide open. It is not until you press the shutter release that the lens stops down. I find thatfast lenseslike the 50 1.4 and the f2.8 zooms AF very accurately do to the larger default apertures.

[Jon Ruyle]

Wonderful pic, Sean.


This illustrates that one *can* use very narrow dof for great portraits. It isn't easy but it can be done. You've gotten what you want in focus, and nothing else.


(What I really like is the expression on the girls face, the color, and the composition, but you've nailed the technical side as well)

[Daniel Browning]

The best feature in my opinion of a lens with a large aperature is the amount of light available for the AF system


Minor clarification: the improvement is not due the increase in amount of light available, but the increase in baseline. I started a new thread about it so we don't take this one off topic:


http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/2012/15235.aspx

[keller]

One more thing...


I've never used a prime lense before, but from what i think i've read onthis foruma lot of people use prime lenses for weddings.


How does one for example using a 50mm f/1.4 at a wedding get the groom and bride to appear focused. Is it because the photographer is shooting the couple from a distance, and what you are saying is that if the photographer was shooting a close up or head shot, one of the subjects would be a little more out of focus?


keller

[hotsecretary]

The primes mean you have to move your feet to focus get DOF at times... zoom you have the advantage of not moving, but at times you'll have to move no matter.


As for the 2 person shot, you'll have to bump up from 1.4 typically if you want both perfectly in zoom, unless they're head to head style of portrait.. if you want the eyes and such sharp :) If you're unsure a Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 II is a great little piece of glass that can be picked up for dirt cheap to try out lower f stops.


Some people prefer zooms, some primes.. and honestly it's all your shooting style. But a lot of portrait people like 35, 50 or 85.. or even a 135 prime. And others swear by 24-70/70-200 for portraits... so you are the one who has to make that decision.


I'm picking up my zooms first, then moving to a few primes probably in the future.. but we'll see once I have my zooms covered.

[Chuck Lee]

The closer you get the shallower the depth of field becomes at a fixed aperture.


IMHO (In my humble opinion) I would guess that 90% of the wedding photographers in this world shoot weddings with a zoom. There are some really outstanding photographers that have the skill and "daring" to shoot with primes only. Jeff Ascough was one I was introduced to recently.



How does one for example using a 50mm f/1.4 at a wedding get the groom and bride to appear focused.


It depends on the body being used (FF vs Crop) and how far both subjects are from the camera. If you can get their faces in the same plane (same distance from the camera) then you can open up to f2 to get that sharp eye dreamy background look. If the groom/bride is away from you on the otherside of the bride/groom then you'll have to stop down to get the required dof. Hence, DOF Master. I have it on my palm.

[peety3]

The primes mean you have to move your feet to focus get DOF at times... zoom you have the advantage of not moving, but at times you'll have to move no matter.








Uh...primes mean you have to move your feet to get the imaged composed/framed as desired. Once composed as desired, one has to understand the DoF for that focal length at that subject distance (and at a particular target print size).

[Sean Setters]

When you increase the distance to your subject, you depth-of-field grows. However, you it's much easier to get the bride & groom in focus if you're at a right angle to the line created between both of them (meaning they are both in the same focal plane away from you). Then you're able to capture both subjects with a relatively wide aperture. If there one of the subjects is closer than the other, then you can either move to get them on the same focal plane or you can 1) get one in focus and leave the other out of focus, or 2) increase ISO or use a slower shutter speed along with a narrower aperture to get both subjects in focus.





Use this Depth-of-Field calculator ("http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) to find out who much you'll have in focus in a given situation. For example, it says using a 50D (crop sensor) and a 50mm f/1.4 at a distance of 10 feet from your subject, you'll have about .65 feet in focus (48% in front of focus point, 52% behind).

[Dallasphotog]

I use the EF24-70mm f/2.8 L USMfor wedding partiesand I stop down to the f/4.0-f/5.6 areafor group portraits. I haven't seen a lot of primes in the wedding business for the ceremony / reception part of the gig. They can be used for bridal portraits and engagement shoots, but they will wear you outat awedding shoot.

[Deva207]

In my opinion, people who use prime for weddings use it because they are much much sharper than zoom lens. And i believe that they dont use the 1,4 aperture, they use narrower aperture. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is just my opinion.

[Cory]

A quick piece of info...


I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 with IS. For my purposes I have found there isn't much difference in the lenses. I'm not taking shots of fast moving objects and really, when I am I usually WANT the streaks I get (i.e. tail lights and such). I also like the greater depth of field as a result.


So, what I use my "low light" lens for (indoor or backyard at night parties, night shots in the city) I don't really need the 1.4. I've even been thinking of selling it or trading it in for a macro.

[Chuck Lee]

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 with IS


Cory,


The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 does not have IS if by what you mean is "Image Stabilized"


Tamron is rumored to be releasing a VC (Vibration Compensation) model of this lens this fall.

[Sean Setters]

In my opinion, people who use prime for weddings use it because they are much much sharper than zoom lens. And i believe that they dont use the 1,4 aperture, they use narrower aperture. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is just my opinion.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Actually, wedding photographers many times use the widest aperture they can. Most churches are dimly lit and a majority of couples don't want a flash going off during the actual ceremony. At those times, a very wide aperture helps tremendously.

[Cory]

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 with IS


Cory,


The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 does not have IS if by what you mean is "Image Stabilized"


Tamron is rumored to be releasing a VC (Vibration Compensation) model of this lens this fall.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Heh, that's the SECOND time I've done that and I know better. Wishful thinking / Freudian slip. A friend just bought the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM and my mind seems to keep sticking on that.

[Chuck Lee]

Heh, that's the SECOND time I've done that and I know better. Wishful thinking / Freudian slip


I thought that exact thing when I read your post......LOL [:D]


I wanted to make sure we didn't excite any newbies.


Funny, your wishful thinking has been fulfilled....how prophetic dude!!


Please slip and say "my 5D MkII with in-camera sensor stabilization" Please say it....Please say it.....over and over.