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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 2,310
Re: DOF for the photographer or the client?

fferreres wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

fferreres wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

fferreres wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

Magnar W wrote:

Philnw2 wrote:

There is an interesting figure in the article showing bokeh from an f1.8 lens to an f1.4 lens, and the f1.4 lens is superior

One interesting moment that is not mentioned, is that customers rarely want these extreme shallow dof portraits, with one eye sharp, the other a bit blurry, and the nose tip out of focus.

I don't understand why is it that so many people the first thing they think about when talking about fast lenses is having one eye in focus look...while many of my clients like that very "dramatic" look of just the eyes in focus, for me the most useful part of fast glass is when doing half or full body shots while allowing me to make the subject pop out of the background when desired.

Totally agree. I often do group shots of 10 or more people wide open, as is provides a pop that separates the group from the background, and you can't get that with slower lenses.

What are you talking about, Willis? A group shot at f1.2 or f1.4 is a trainwreck!!! This is the PERFECT book example of the worst possible scenario to use an f1.2 lens. Always. Having to tell people to temporarily join the Cirque Du Soleil crew and try all to lay in a razor thin focal plane, or have some people that from very far all look good then get a bot closer and half the people are totally OOF.

I find it ironic that you opened your argument with "what are you taking about Willis?" Before spouting a bunch of nonsensical verbiage about Cirque Du Soleil and having to tell people things...I guess you just don't get it. That's fine.

BTW, it's "what you talkin 'bout Willis?".

Well, I listened to it in TWO different languages, none of them English, and translated into what would would it have probably be correctly written in English. I never, even once, hear it in English, and I find your correction beyond hilarious. I basically translated from memory, from other languages, something I heard maybe 30 years ago 7 times, and you make a correction about how to write slang in English - note also, I never heard the original pronunciation. I delights me to read your correction.

Odd that you choose that 30-something year old obscured quote then.

I will be less subtle. You are calling other people less professional indirectly, pretending to be head of them, while at the same time, you are proposing using a very wide opening for group portrait photography. I don't need to add anything else than say, everyone's free to to what works best for them...

Never once called others less professional; again you're making that up. I never proposed others attempt my style of photography and/or my techniques. In fact, I said that's what I do, but I also said that I understand why others may have differing priorities. I never once even hinted that I'm, as you claim, ahead of them.

I don't think we need to make a big deal. When you list what Others priorities you acknowledge are 1) sacrificing quality for lower weight, or 2) sacrificing quality to save a buck, you are putting your work ahead of all others. I was reacting to this comment:

Well said. I understand why some folks prioritize cost and weight, but I prioritize ultimate image quality wide open.

But they don't need to sacrifice anything, neither money, nor weight, to have the quality. If you had said some may not need the speed, or may require a larger DOF, then that would be true, and not diminishing.

Then again, even if you intended to say what you said, it's all still fine. But I also think people in a forum can reply and say they don't agree with your characterization. It's a forum, and we reply to posts. Otherwise, we could voice our opinions on wordpress or some other platform where replies are not expected.

It's actually you who called my technique a "train wreck", so is that you claiming to be ahead of me?

I don't claim your technique anything. I don't even know your technique. You make a literal quote "train wreck" ...but I never said that. I think that group portraits / photos and ultra fast apertures are IMHO the worst possible scenario to use such wide opening.

What?! Dude you literally said "trainwreck". Your words, in a post by you, about 4 posts back, and even included in this thread, if you care to look back at your own post.  Don't bother denying it; it's all right here, in plain text.

How you do this work may work for you, or maybe you like the result. That's all fine. However, in my experience, this is the perfect scenario where I would not use it, unless I had control of each person in the portrait and knew they'd like heavily modified poses so they all lie in the same plane for the exact features I want to have in focus. I can't think of an example that is more problematic that group photos for razor thin DOF.

At this point, you're twisting everything I say, so good day to you.

Look at it this way. There are other reasons that don't have to do with cost and weight, but with quality, and the task at hand. And you don't evne need to argue that the best corrected fastest lens, regardless of cost and weight, is the best tool for your work. Both are compatible.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a9 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow