Is F 1.2 really that difficult ??

Started Oct 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
nevada5 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,208
Re: Is F 1.2 really that difficult ? I'd say yes, it is.

jagge wrote:

Its getting more and more clear to me that its all in the lenses. I have the 20 mm 1.7 and now just got the 45 mm 1.8. While the 1.8 is great its clear to me that I have to try the 25 mm 1.4 as a possible change from the 20 mm 1.7. I do find that I can get good subject isolation with the 45 mm BUT it comes at the price of composing "environmental portraits" is very dificult, due to the narrow angle of view.

What I would really love is a f 1.2 and if not possible a f 1.4 15 mm. I dont get why they make it 1.7, the only reason i can see is that it is technically very difficult to make it faster. BUT can that truly be ? The voiglander makes 0.95 lenses. Anyhow I guess the 42 mm 1.2 will be amazing, but I guess also very very expensive. The crux of the M43 system is the prices, especially of glass.

Anyhow I think that 2.8 is to slow for almost anything in the m43.

I shoot a lot of landscapes.  No need for any aperture wider than f/4 when I do.

But to your question - look back at lenses made by any manufacturer over the past 40 years, very few are f/1.2.  So it must be either too difficult, expensive, big or all of the above.  Or no demand???

-- hide signature --

Life is short - drive a convertible.
Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society. Aristotle

 nevada5's gear list:nevada5's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow