Reading mode: Light Dark

1.4 Aperture..highly over rated!

Go to last post
Just an FYI....It's actually my favorite forum. ;-)
 
John Motts said:
John Motts said:
Greg Gebhardt wrote:
If you are using a flash you do not need the 1.4 lens.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
John Motts said:
John Motts said:
You are showing a lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
John Motts said:
As indeed you are with the above comment.
Click to expand...
Hi!

Of course under some circumstances, even the fastest lenses can be used better with flash.

(I would ignore the offending comment. That poster, posts very few images of his work, and is primarily an eBay reseller).

Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF ,SB-900 (Incand Gel)
1/50s f/1.6 at 28.0mm iso1600



Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF ,SB-900 (Incand Gel)
1/10s f/2.5 at 28.0mm iso400



Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/400s f/2.2 at 28.0mm iso2500



Best regards,

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
 
Kerry Pierce said:
One thing an f/1.8 lens will never be capable of doing, is giving the user the choice of having a larger aperture, which increases the creative capability uses of the lens.
Click to expand...
How appreciable is the difference in DOF between f1.8 and f1.4 anyways... I highly doubt you would be able to tell the difference side by side. At f1.8 it's already shallow enough...
Kerry Pierce said:
Kerry Pierce said:
I shot with the 85mm 1.8, and it looks just every bit as good as the 1.4
Click to expand...
You mean to say that you can't see and/or don't appreciate the difference. That certainly doesn't mean that the 1.8 is as good or even close, to the 1.4. Some people are willing to give up the difference, to save money, claiming bang for the buck goes to the 1.8. Again, the 1.8 may be the best bang for the buck, but that isn't the same as being the best.
Click to expand...
The f1.4 may be slightly better at some things (bokeh, flare), but for sharpness the f1.8 should be just as good if not better according to the reviews
 
i dont think that is a good comparison.
A porsche compared to a ford is a very far disparity.
a f1.4 versus 1.8 is not that far off...i wish people stop
using the construction of the lens to justify the high cost difference.

glass is glass, no matter how the shell is.
 
ImagesInstyle said:
i dont think that is a good comparison.
A porsche compared to a ford is a very far disparity.
a f1.4 versus 1.8 is not that far off...
Click to expand...
What he probably is trying to point out is the phenomena called "diminishing returns", which essentially means once you are at a decent quality level (like with a AF-S 85/1.8) you end up paying substantially more just to get small or incremental improvements.

Also, the comparison brings up the fact that for everyday (non-demanding) use, there is often not a lot of visible advantage in a better product - for shopping groceries a Porsche will not get you there any faster then a standard Ford does. But for demanding use the difference becomes much more noticeable - like taking the Porsche and the standard Ford to a race track.
ImagesInstyle said:
i wish people stop
using the construction of the lens to justify the high cost difference.
glass is glass, no matter how the shell is.
Click to expand...
Well, a durable and stable shell does cost a lot extra, and no matter how good the optics is, it will not get you any images at all if for example the lens stopped working because of moist or dust. And what use is good optics if the lens elements are misaligned because the lens shell got dented.

The world of optics is filled with examples where seemingly small differences cost a lot more then many people find reasonable. Part of that is the issue of diminishing returns, where a step up in performance becomes increasingly expensive to implement. Going from bad to decent is cheap. Going from decent to good will cost more. And going from good to very good is painfully expensive.

Also, many of the differences between two lenses cannot really be read from their specifications. Speed and precision of focus is one example. Character of the out-of-focus blur is another. Corrections for distortion is not shown in the specs, neither is a flat (non-curved) focus plane. And many, many other small things which combined explain why for example a 85/1.4 is significantly more expensive to design and build then a 85/1.8.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny
 
ImagesInstyle said:
great image, extremely sharp..but that was then, and this is now.
i still dont see how a 1.8 now, cant produce that same image, or nearly close
at a fraction of the cost....just cant see it.

anyone have the two lenses, and can show a comparison between them
to show why its worth $2,000.00 more??
Click to expand...
There are many reasons to buy a lens. If you don't want to buy the 28/1.4, don't.
 
m_appeal said:
How appreciable is the difference in DOF between f1.8 and f1.4 anyways... I
highly doubt you would be able to tell the difference side by side. At f1.8 it's
already shallow enough...
Click to expand...
Hey, you're right! The 28/1.4 is therefore a BAD LENS! And people who shoot 1.4 instead of 1.8 are DUMB! Yeah, that's it!

Let's make sure NOBODY buys these RIPOFF 1.4 lenses that NOBODY NEEDS!

END THE TYRANNY OF FAST LENSES, EVERYONE!
 
chris maytag said:
Hey, you're right! The 28/1.4 is therefore a BAD LENS! And people who shoot 1.4 instead of 1.8 are DUMB! Yeah, that's it!

Let's make sure NOBODY buys these RIPOFF 1.4 lenses that NOBODY NEEDS!

END THE TYRANNY OF FAST LENSES, EVERYONE!
Click to expand...
Could you come up with a less childish reply? No?

BTW, I'm selling my Sigma 85 1.4 and getting the Nikon 85 1.8 G... I don't really need the 1.4
 
ImagesInstyle said:
a f1.4 versus 1.8 is not that far off...i wish people stop
using the construction of the lens to justify the high cost difference.

glass is glass, no matter how the shell is.
Click to expand...
It isn't just a shell, it's the whole chassis.

Do you think you can make an f/1.4 lens with tighter tolerances and critical alignment in a plastic mount, and still achieve the kinds of results that it does achieve with a metal mount?

Second, how much more glass do you think it takes to make an f/1.4 lens compared to an f/1.8 lens times 11 pieces of glass?
 
m_appeal said:
The f1.4 may be slightly better at some things (bokeh, flare), but for sharpness the f1.8 should be just as good if not better according to the reviews
Click to expand...
Like you, I opted for the 85/1.8 over the 85/1.4, but that was mostly for money reasons. I'm very happy with the f/1.8.

But.

The f/1.4, with tighter tolerances all around, and nanocrystal coating gives better performance at f/1.8, f/2, f/4, especially in edge sharpness.

The f/1.8 has bokeh that is very nice, but not the same as the f/1.4. The little things make a difference.

Meanwhile, we rejoice, because the 85/1.8g is miles ahead of the 85/1.8d, and good enough for anything.
 
m_appeal said:
How appreciable is the difference in DOF between f1.8 and f1.4 anyways... I highly doubt you would be able to tell the difference side by side. At f1.8 it's already shallow enough...
Click to expand...
Considering that DOF for a given focal length depends on the distance to subject, how can you determine that f/1.8 yields "shallow enough" DOF? In some situations, no lens will yield "shallow enough" DOF so a 2/3 stop larger aperture is significant. Think really busy background and no ability to reposition subjects further away from it. Perhaps in a situation where you are forced into using a wide angle lens where DOF is always going to be fairly significant compared to a telephoto.

2/3 stop faster can also mean the difference between a decent quality standard ISO-range RAW file and a not-so-pretty boosted ISO-range RAW.

No one is forcing anyone to buy f/1.4 lenses over the f/1.8 alternatives so I really can't understand some of the whining.
 
joejack951 said:
Considering that DOF for a given focal length depends on the distance to subject, how can you determine that f/1.8 yields "shallow enough" DOF? In some situations, no lens will yield "shallow enough" DOF so a 2/3 stop larger aperture is significant. Think really busy background and no ability to reposition subjects further away from it. Perhaps in a situation where you are forced into using a wide angle lens where DOF is always going to be fairly significant compared to a telephoto.
Click to expand...
Well, can you show such an example? How far from the subject would you have to be... I don't know about you, but when I use a f1.4 lens, having less DOF is not a problem for me... having more is... at portrait distances I highly doubt the difference would be significant
 
Comparing the 85mm 1.4 and 1.8...

When the 85mm f/1.4 is still shooting, tell me which one is worth the money.
 
Luke Kaven said:
Like you, I opted for the 85/1.8 over the 85/1.4, but that was mostly for money reasons. I'm very happy with the f/1.8.
Click to expand...
I don't have the 1.8. I have the Sigma 85 1.4, but I am trying to sell it and get the 1.8, because I don't need the 1.4
Luke Kaven said:
The f/1.4, with tighter tolerances all around, and nanocrystal coating gives better performance at f/1.8, f/2, f/4, especially in edge sharpness.
Click to expand...
I have read it's the other way around... do not own either... but edge sharpness is already stellar with the 1.8 from reviews...
 
m_appeal said:
Well, can you show such an example? How far from the subject would you have to be... I don't know about you, but when I use a f1.4 lens, having less DOF is not a problem for me... having more is... at portrait distances I highly doubt the difference would be significant
Click to expand...
True, for a single person portrait having enough DOF with a fast lens is usually the bigger concern. Now, instead of one person, shoot a group of 5 in a smallish room (can't use an 85mm focal length so maybe you use a 50 or 35mm lens) with a lot of distracting stuff going on in the background. Any event shooter has been put in this situation at some point I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top