MFT 25mm f/1.4 fails to blur background like Full Frame 50mm lens @ f/2.8

Started Feb 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: I duno ..

Sergey_Green wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Sometimes yes, many times no. For instance, if you don't have image stabilisation in the lens or camera then it's a definite possibility. However, the better lenses have very good image stabilisation which usually means no. It depends on what you shoot, what light you're shooting in, what you're trying to achieve and what you're using. I have two very good Tamron lenses which both have excellent image stabilisation, they are my main lenses, if I use them then there is no problem with having to shoot at higher ISO's unless I want to match the dof I'd get using an m4/3's sensor and I don't have enough shutter speed to do it without raising ISO ( and assuming image stabilisation won't help i.e freezing movement in the scene ). This is not a scenario I encounter too often. Alternatively I have the Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art which has no stabilisation so I might lose a stop or two using it in poor lighting compared to a camera which has in-camera stabilisation using an equally fast lens, if the subject is moving then there is no comparative loss, in fact I'm winning over a smaller sensor. It's all swings and roundabouts, pick the tool that does the job best for you, that's it in a nutshell.

Somehow I do not see it that way. There is always enough light when shooting landscapes (or I simply use the tripod to slow down the motion), I need less DoF (most of the time) when photographing people, and I do not go past f/11 (on average again) with closeups and macros.

Sure, I pretty much do the same, I rarely go past F11 even for landscapes.

The last is the special case; the image (as I see it) can be equally ruined by too deep depth of field as by not having enough of it. It's just where you define that borderline for the point of interest not be burred in two many unnecessary distractions before and after it, and I don't believe mFT is where the middle ground is.

So no, I used to have ISO 200 as base ISO, and now it is ISO 100, and I stay with it most the time.

I do too, but I think the user defines what they need. For some m4/3's will be their sweet spot, though usually driven by size and weight considerations. That being said there are plenty who don't require shallow dof at wider angles so m4/3's is more than good enough. Personally I like a bit more dof control without having to mess about with too many lenses, it's much easier to do that now with FF with fast F2.8 zooms with image stabilisation. I think only individuals can decide which is the better system for them.

-- hide signature --

- sergey

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow