Is there a need for F1.4 lenses....

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 3,745
Re: Victory - a well reasoned reply - others
1

Philnw2 wrote:

havoc315 wrote:

Yes, 1.8 is somewhat arbitrary, but it's the somewhat arbitrary line across the industry to define "consumer primes" in the 24mm to 85mm focal length. (of course, a 200mm 1/1.8 lens would be a $10,000 luxury item).

Just as 2.8 is the somewhat arbitrary point by which the industry has defined fast zooms. They could have done 2.6 or 3.0.

So we aren't have the discussion about F2 because that's not where the line has been set. There are only a handful of F2 primes in that 24mm to 85mm ballpark.

Most prime lenses between 24mm and 85mm are 1.4 or 1.8, with a handful of alternatives.. a handful of 1.2... F2... Sony a-mount even has an 85/2.8.

So considering that's where the line has already been set.... (even if arbitrary, that line exists in the real world, long before this discussion)... I think it's reasonable to look at the gains versus costs of the difference between 1.8 and 1.4. But the understanding that nothing in this discussion should be looked at as an "absolute." The Sony 24/1.4 GM is 1.4, without adding a whole lot of extra weight -- only adding 100 grams to the Batis 25/2. The Sony 85/1.4 GM is a big heavy 1.4 lens, but the Rokinon/Samyang 85/1.4 comes in 170 grams less.. and only 170 grams more than the Nikon Z 85/1.8.

Meanwhile, the IQ difference between, for example, the Sony 55/1.8 and 50/1.4 may be small, but in many other cases, it's big: The Sony 24GM is vastly superior to the 28/2.. the 50/1.4 is vastly superior to the 50/1.8.

So we shouldn't speak in absolutes.

Merely, as a general proposition -- the difference between a 1.4 and a 1.8 lens is typically a lot of money, a lot of weight, for a fairly small gain. And as a general statement, that's basically true. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, the most appreciable gain is bokeh differences.

I can agree with that. There were a lot of thoughtful replies, but there was an ironical one from Magnar, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63177517, who noted that customers were sometimes more pleased with more moderate blur. Isn't that the truth I didn't try to sell photos (and now welded "art objects") until i retired, but i found that the best of my items sometimes sold nicely, but others were difficult to give away. An artist's life can be "difficult". But the chase is almost always fun!!! Thanks for all the participation. I've attached 3 humble photos of my own, taken at f1.8 I think - don't have yet a 1.4 but eventually will buy one - probably in the wider spectrum 35mm or below. Have a great day!!!

85mm f4 Past a bronze casting in a gallery window towards a busy sidewalk,

FE 55

FE 55 - How much blur is enough - too little, too much - very subjective

Thanks to all for participating!!!

Beautiful photos. All f1.8. Did you notice that you are the only one that produced examples?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow