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.


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.









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.