Do f1.2, f0.95, or f0.85 have any low light advantage compared to f1.4?

Xx123456xX · Sep 27, 2017

I finally got my first prime, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, to tackle low light situations. To my surprise even ISO 100 yields semi-usable low light results when wide open.

I was wondering if I ever wanted to go candlelight, moonlight, or virtually no light, would an even faster aperture offer any significant advantage.

If anyone has any first hand experience with the Handevision Ibelux 40mm f0.85 when compared to a Voigtlander f0.95, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on how much they compare in low light when wide open.

Space the final frontier · Sep 27, 2017

Can you elaborate on what you mean by semi-usable. Is it image noise or unsharp or ???

Xx123456xX said:
I finally got my first prime, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, to tackle low light situations. To my surprise even ISO 100 yields semi-usable low light results when wide open.

I was wondering if I ever wanted to go candlelight, moonlight, or virtually no light, would an even faster aperture offer any significant advantage.

If anyone has any first hand experience with the Handevision Ibelux 40mm f0.85 when compared to a Voigtlander f0.95, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on how much they compare in low light when wide open.

Xx123456xX · Sep 27, 2017

I mean somewhat dark but still able to discern most details.

leorimkus · Sep 27, 2017

There may be some. But not that much - if any. Real light transmission - the T-stop - of ultrafast lenses (f/1.2 and faster) usually is noticeably lower than for slower lenses of more simple design. For example Olympus 25/1.2 transmits only T/1.8, while Sigma 30/1.4 - T/1.7 (data from dxomark). So in fact Sigma would transmit even more light than technically faster Olympus.

Great Bustard · Sep 27, 2017

Leo "Zoom" said:
There may be some. But not that much - if any. Real light transmission - the T-stop - of ultrafast lenses (f/1.2 and faster) usually is noticeably lower than for slower lenses of more simple design. For example Olympus 25/1.2 transmits only T/1.8, while Sigma 30/1.4 - T/1.7 (data from dxomark). So in fact Sigma would transmit even more light than technically faster Olympus.

In addition to that, you may wish to consider vignetting (the transmission, t-stop, only applies to the center of the photo) and there is also the nature of diminishing returns as a function of the speed of the microlenses covering the sensor, which is negligible at f/2 and higher f-numbers, but becomes progressively more of an issue as you open up wider than f/2.

Space the final frontier · Sep 27, 2017

Xx123456xX said:
I mean somewhat dark but still able to discern most details.

So, it means the image was under-exposed? If that is the case, then all you need is longer exposure time or higher ISO or both. If you use shutter priority with a cap on max ISO, it is possible that the aperture was still not large enough.

With a faster lens, it can certainly help with exposure to a certain extent. However, narrow depth of field will likely become a more serious issue to deal with.

Astrotripper · Sep 27, 2017

Xx123456xX said:
I finally got my first prime, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, to tackle low light situations. To my surprise even ISO 100 yields semi-usable low light results when wide open.

I was wondering if I ever wanted to go candlelight, moonlight, or virtually no light, would an even faster aperture offer any significant advantage.

Not as much as the aperture would suggest. At those super wide apertures, light fall-off becomes really problematic. Nokton 10.5mm f/0.95 is an excellent example of that. Check out the last row of sample photos in this Lenstip review . Note how the image shot at f/0.95 is noticeably darker than the one at f/1.4, despite the ISO settings that should compensate for the difference. That even affects the very centre of the image, where vignetting should not have much impact.

And while we are talking of vignetting, those super fast lenses tend to vignette like crazy. More than 2 stops is the norm for those kind of lenses. The only exception that comes to mind is Olympus 25mm f/1.2, which has a vignette of only 1.4 EV. That is noticeably less than PanaLeica 25mm f/1.4 and about the same as your Sigma, which is also f/1.4.

How this matters? Take an example of two lenses. One is f/1.4 and vignettes by 1.3 EV. The other is f/1.2 but vignettes by 2 EV. If you take the same photo with both of those wide open and with all other settings exactly the same, what will you get? The very centre of the image will be brighter with the f/1.2 lens. But the corners will actually be brighter with the slower f/1.4 lens. And somewhere in between the corners and centre will be area of very similar brightness.

This example ignores the actual light transmission effectiveness and assumes that it's more or less the same. But it sometimes is not, and some of those massively over-engineered lenses with insane number of lenses inside basically trade light transmission for image quality. So you end up with Olympus 25mm f/1.2 that according to DxO has slightly lower transmission than the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma. Which is not hard to believe considering Olympus has 19 lens elements while Sigma has only 9. So based on that and vignetting characteristics, you can assume to have exactly zero benefit (in this particular case) from wider aperture as far as low light is concerned.

Xx123456xX said:
If anyone has any first hand experience with the Handevision Ibelux 40mm f0.85 when compared to a Voigtlander f0.95, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on how much they compare in low light when wide open.

No first hand experience, but keep one thing in mind. Ibelux is designed for larger sensors and just because of that it will do noticeably better than Nokton. Voigtlander in the corners is loosing 2.5 stops of light. Ibelux will no doubt suffer from much lesser loss of light.

Davud · Sep 27, 2017

Leo "Zoom" said:
There may be some. But not that much - if any. Real light transmission - the T-stop - of ultrafast lenses (f/1.2 and faster) usually is noticeably lower than for slower lenses of more simple design. For example Olympus 25/1.2 transmits only T/1.8, while Sigma 30/1.4 - T/1.7 (data from dxomark). So in fact Sigma would transmit even more light than technically faster Olympus.

Tommi K1 · Sep 27, 2017

Xx123456xX said:
I finally got my first prime, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, to tackle low light situations. To my surprise even ISO 100 yields semi-usable low light results when wide open.

I was wondering if I ever wanted to go candlelight, moonlight, or virtually no light, would an even faster aperture offer any significant advantage.

If anyone has any first hand experience with the Handevision Ibelux 40mm f0.85 when compared to a Voigtlander f0.95, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on how much they compare in low light when wide open.

No, not really. Check the lenses T-stop value, that is the light transmission (how much light does actually end through the lens).

Example Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 has f/1.2 aperture value but it has only a transmission of T/1.7.

Compare that to example cheap Olympus 45mm f/1.8 lens that has nice T/2 so only a half stop difference to exposure. What you are paying for, is for DOF, not so much for the exposure.

ANd wider you go, more falloff you see on corners of the lenses. That is even problem with the FF lenses as after f/2-2.8 you start to lose the benefits. Curved sensors would be answer, or telecentric lens design.

Lower the light, more you just need to either increase the sensor size or then simply lower your expectations.

Tommi K1 · Sep 27, 2017

Davud said:
Leo "Zoom" said:

There may be some. But not that much - if any. Real light transmission - the T-stop - of ultrafast lenses (f/1.2 and faster) usually is noticeably lower than for slower lenses of more simple design. For example Olympus 25/1.2 transmits only T/1.8, while Sigma 30/1.4 - T/1.7 (data from dxomark). So in fact Sigma would transmit even more light than technically faster Olympus.

Click to expand...

Astrotripper · Sep 27, 2017

Tommi K1 said:
ANd wider you go, more falloff you see on corners of the lenses. That is even problem with the FF lenses as after f/2-2.8 you start to lose the benefits. Curved sensors would be answer, or telecentric lens design.

Or that mythical organic sensor Panasonic has been teasing us with for years now

One of the biggest promises of that technology was massive increase in the range of angles of incoming light that can actually be captured by the sensor.

whumber · Sep 27, 2017

Tommi K1 said:
Davud said:

Leo "Zoom" said:

There may be some. But not that much - if any. Real light transmission - the T-stop - of ultrafast lenses (f/1.2 and faster) usually is noticeably lower than for slower lenses of more simple design. For example Olympus 25/1.2 transmits only T/1.8, while Sigma 30/1.4 - T/1.7 (data from dxomark). So in fact Sigma would transmit even more light than technically faster Olympus.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

David Kieltyka · Sep 27, 2017

Here's a section from a post of mine after getting the Voigtländer 42.5/0.95:

- - - - -

I shot a sequence of pics on a tripod at ISO 200, primarily to evaluate light transmission at full-stop apertures. Here are the aperture and shutter speed values. (Note that I took the pics at around 8pm, as the sun was setting, so the conditions don't guarantee lab-level accuracy. But I did take 'em all within a one-minute span.)

f/0.95 -- 1/250 sec.

f/1.4 -- 1/160

f/2.0 -- 1/80

f/2.8 -- 1/40

f/4.0 -- 1/20

f/5.6 -- 1/10

f/8.0 -- 1/5

f/11 -- 1/2

f/16 -- 1 sec.

- - - - -

-Dave-

_vlad · Sep 27, 2017

Astrotripper said:
Tommi K1 said:

ANd wider you go, more falloff you see on corners of the lenses. That is even problem with the FF lenses as after f/2-2.8 you start to lose the benefits. Curved sensors would be answer, or telecentric lens design.

Click to expand...

Or that mythical organic sensor Panasonic has been teasing us with for years now

One of the biggest promises of that technology was massive increase in the range of angles of incoming light that can actually be captured by the sensor.

That "mythical" sensor was announced for next Olympic games (2020), and its development was several times confirmed (lastly about 6 months ago) so we have to wait until GH6 is around the corner - that is it.

kevinparis · Sep 27, 2017

There are three reasons (four if you count vanity/boasting rights (this applies both to photographers and lens manufacturers) to wish for a faster lens

1) Ability to shoot at higher shutter speeds - useful if subject is moving

2) Ability to shoot at lower ISO to reduce grain

3) Ability to create a shallower depth of field - which is a two edged sword.. nail the focus and its great... otherwise very frustrating

going from f/1.4 to f/1 for all practical and discernible purposes is a stop... its the difference between shooting at 1/60th or 1/125th, shooting at 400 or 800 ISO.

Faster lenses are not a magic bullet cure for poor photographic technique... they are harder to manage and are more likely to cause frustration with missed focus. If you get the lens pointing in the right direction with the right relationship between subject and background they can produce wonderful results.

I have no idea what your concept of low light is.. or indeed your expectations .. but your claim that you get acceptable results 1.4 at ISO 100 does not equate to my idea of low light.. I would be interested in seeing what you find acceptable.

this was shot 7 years ago in a typically dimly lit restaurant on an E-P1, first generation micro 4/3 camera, but with a Leica Noctilux f/1.0 @1/50 and iso 1000

this was shot last week in a darker restaurant with a E-PL6... 3rd or 4th generation of camera from above, with a 14mm lens @f/2.8 and 1/30 at 3200 ISO

My experience is that many peoples fast lens lust can be abated with good metering techniques and realistic expectations

If ther is no light or poor flat light... no wonder lens can cure that

K

--
if you really must see my photos then try

kevinparis

Explore kevinparis’s 2,094 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

hindesite · Sep 27, 2017

Xx123456xX said:
I finally got my first prime, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, to tackle low light situations. To my surprise even ISO 100 yields semi-usable low light results when wide open.

I was wondering if I ever wanted to go candlelight, moonlight, or virtually no light, would an even faster aperture offer any significant advantage.

Well, Kubrick would have thought so...as do others who are prepared to pay €750 per day to rent 50/0.7 lenses.

Sean Nelson · Sep 27, 2017

hindesite said:
Xx123456xX said:

I finally got my first prime, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, to tackle low light situations. To my surprise even ISO 100 yields semi-usable low light results when wide open.

I was wondering if I ever wanted to go candlelight, moonlight, or virtually no light, would an even faster aperture offer any significant advantage.

Click to expand...

Well, Kubrick would have thought so...as do others who are prepared to pay €750 per day to rent 50/0.7 lenses.

Kubrick, and perhaps his imitators, used film which isn't subject to the limitations of a digital sensor that uses microlenses to overcome the geometrical problems of getting wide cones of light down into its deep charge wells - so I'd hesitate to use his practice as an example.

hindesite · Sep 27, 2017

Sean Nelson said:
hindesite said:

Xx123456xX said:

I finally got my first prime, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, to tackle low light situations. To my surprise even ISO 100 yields semi-usable low light results when wide open.

I was wondering if I ever wanted to go candlelight, moonlight, or virtually no light, would an even faster aperture offer any significant advantage.

Click to expand...

Well, Kubrick would have thought so...as do others who are prepared to pay €750 per day to rent 50/0.7 lenses.

Click to expand...

Kubrick, and perhaps his imitators, used film which isn't subject to the limitations of a digital sensor that uses microlenses to overcome the geometrical problems of getting wide cones of light down into its deep charge wells - so I'd hesitate to use his practice as an example.

If we follow that logic, we probably don't need 0.95 lenses, either.

Somebody will always want to shoot something darker than you; and that is especially true of astrophotography.

Sean Nelson · Sep 27, 2017

hindesite said:
Sean Nelson said:

hindesite said:

Xx123456xX said:

I finally got my first prime, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, to tackle low light situations. To my surprise even ISO 100 yields semi-usable low light results when wide open.

I was wondering if I ever wanted to go candlelight, moonlight, or virtually no light, would an even faster aperture offer any significant advantage.

Click to expand...

Well, Kubrick would have thought so...as do others who are prepared to pay €750 per day to rent 50/0.7 lenses.

Click to expand...

Kubrick, and perhaps his imitators, used film which isn't subject to the limitations of a digital sensor that uses microlenses to overcome the geometrical problems of getting wide cones of light down into its deep charge wells - so I'd hesitate to use his practice as an example.

Click to expand...

If we follow that logic, we probably don't need 0.95 lenses, either.

I'm not saying they're not needed, I'm just saying that experience using film can't just be blindly applied to digital sensors.

khunpapa · Sep 28, 2017

There was the superheat debate (and article), around 2-3 years ago, about the 'ultrabright' lens which does not perform perfectly when fully opened.

The reason is the microlens in front of the sensor.

Whether being lens or microlens, they have one common characteristic : f/stop.

In short, the microlens f/stop is only around f/1.2.

So when you use F/2 camera lens, the light at the surface of the light-sensing junction is from F/2 + f/1.2 lens combo. Almost no light lost.

But when the camera lens is f/1.2 .. the combo would be F/1.2 + f/1.2 .. not all light could pass.

When the camera lens if f/1.0, this effect shows off clearly. No matter how much bright the camera lens is, it can not pass all light through the narrower microlens.

Do f1.2, f0.95, or f0.85 have any low light advantage compared to f1.4?

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Tommi K1

Guest

Tommi K1

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts