f1.2 or not f1.2?

darinwc · Jul 3, 2016

i see many example pics of people showing off their fast lenses and talking about the creamy bokeh.
But frankly, I get bored of these very quickly.

Yes, fast lenses can help blur out distracting backgrounds.

But in a studio setting, the background is completely controlled and usually a fuzzy blend of colors, or a single continuous toned color without any need for a fancy lens.

And out on the street, i want to see the subjects environment. That is what gives the image context. Blurring out any background just seems like a shortcut to fix a bad image.

So I really don't see the need for ultra fast lenses, or shooting wide open at all unless poor lighting requires it.

Fast f1.2 lenses: Over-used cliche or cant life without.. What are your thoughts?

Slixtiesix · Jul 3, 2016

Whether f1.2 or not, but I like fast lenses and shallow dof because it helps the photographer to make the viewer focus on the subject he had intended.

bernard_L · Jul 3, 2016

Slixtiesix said:
I like fast lenses and shallow dof because it helps the photographer to make the viewer focus on the subject he had intended

Question: is f:1.2 that better than, say, f:1.4 in that respect? Or could it be (God forbid!) one-upmanship, snobbishness, or another way to show how deep your pockets are?

darinwc · Jul 3, 2016

bernard_L said:
Question: is f:1.2 that better than, say, f:1.4 in that respect? Or could it be (God forbid!) one-upmanship, snobbishness, or another way to show how deep your pockets are?

Sixtiesix specifically mentioned that he was not speaking to f1.2, and I dont think he was implying that he was trying to one-up or show off.

The point he was making was that the intent is to isolate a subject.

Slixtiesix · Jul 3, 2016

Of course one could debate whether f1.2 is sensible or not. I´m not quite sure, since I never directly compared an f 1.4 to an f1.2 lens. I would say that there is a great difference between f 1.4 and f 1.0 though!

Gerald C Koch · Jul 3, 2016

Fast lenses are subject to more aberrations than slower ones. You must also consider that they are optimized to be used fully open. Step them down and the resolution falls.

blockend · Jul 3, 2016

Depending on subject distance, an f2.0 lens offers a shallow depth of field.

Agulliver · Jul 3, 2016

It depends entirely on what I am trying to achieve. If I wish to make a photograph where the focus (pun intended) is on one subject, then I want a small depth of field. I will often use medium format f2.8 or 35mm f1.4 (fastest lens I happen to have). My intention is to direct the viewer to the subject.

If I am photographing in very low light (party, gig, night time) I will often use a fast lens because I strongly prefer not to use a flash.

If I am photographing something moving very fast (eg. racing car) I might need a fast lens.

and If I am taking a photograph that I wish to convey a story, I might well use something that is f2.8 wide open but take the photo at f8. However I find photos with infinite depth of field can look flat and unappealing...depending on the subject.

Bottom line...I have various lenses for various things I enjoy photographing.

John Bragg · Jul 3, 2016

Fast lenses really come into their own when shooting hand held in near darkness, but apart from that, there is no need for most people to own one. A camera with shutter speeds ranging higher than the traditional 1/1000th second is of more use to introduce a blurred background in normal daylight and with faster film. Many recent Nikon SLR cameras go up to 1/8000th second and that is mighty useful to restrict depth in bright conditions. This shot on 1/4000 @ f4

Eddie by John Bragg, on Flickr

onre · Jul 3, 2016

Well. If we start calculating DOF for 50 mm lenses, we get these results:

Focused at 2 metres

f/1,2 is sharp from 1,94 to 2,06 metres - 12 centimetres
f/1,8 is sharp from 1,91 to 2,09 metres - 18 centimetres
f/2,8 is sharp from 1,87 to 2,15 metres - 28 centimetres

Focused at 5 metres

f/1,2 is sharp from 4,65 to 5,41 metres - 77 centimetres
f/1,8 is sharp from 4,49 to 5,64 metres - 116 centimetres
f/2,8 is sharp from 4,25 to 6,08 metres - 183 centimetres

You decide whether this matters.

As others have posted before, fast lenses tend work best at full aperture, and even then they're usually less sharp than their slightly slower counterparts. Personally, I've never understood the appeal in getting 0,2 or 0,6 stops more light. I find it easier and cheaper to push the film.

Theo Sulphate · Jul 3, 2016

For a long time I shot Tri-X at ASA 400 in low light, always at night - I never use flash and I like the look at 400. I'm going for a mood rather than sharpness.

My first 1.2 lens was the very old Nikon 55/1.2 pre-AI. It's not expensive at all (under $200) and gives me the look I want. It's also very good for my daytime shots at f/5.6, f/8 and I've made some popular photos with it.

cooltouch · Jul 3, 2016

I have a Canon FL 55mm f/1.2, FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC, and a copy of the legendary FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical. I like them all but I think the 85mm is an amazing optic. I love shooting with it wide open. Sharpness and contrast are excellent, but the depth of field is so narrow that I have found that I have to be very aware of my own movements when using it. The slightest movement back or forth and my subject may be rendered out of focus.

Canon F-1, Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, Kodak Elite Chrome 100

Same gear as above
Dead Link Removed

Same gear but with the 85mm stopped down some:
Dead Link Removed

RalphLambrecht · Jul 3, 2016

darinwc said:
i see many example pics of people showing off their fast lenses and talking about the creamy bokeh.
But frankly, I get bored of these very quickly.

Yes, fast lenses can help blur out distracting backgrounds.

But in a studio setting, the background is completely controlled and usually a fuzzy blend of colors, or a single continuous toned color without any need for a fancy lens.

And out on the street, i want to see the subjects environment. That is what gives the image context. Blurring out any background just seems like a shortcut to fix a bad image.

So I really don't see the need for ultra fast lenses, or shooting wide open at all unless poor lighting requires it.

Fast f1.2 lenses: Over-used cliche or cant life without.. What are your thoughts?

never had anything faster than f/1.4 and mostly used/8 anyway but ultrafast lenses and paper-thin DOF have their place

Ko.Fe. · Jul 3, 2016

I don't like my 50L on film at 1.2. But I'm using it on smaller apertures. On 1.2 I'm not confident to use on film.
I have seen some street photography done by Vladimir Panasenko from San Fransisco and some of it was done with fast Leica lens under low light. It is f1.1. Impressive. But lens is several times more expensive comparing to my Canon 50L. I have Jupiter-3 and it is very small lens, which I never hesitate to use at 1.5 after I realigned it for my film RF cameras.
At 1.2 50 lens gives you something similar what LF gives on large apertures. I like how it looks. And it is hard to explain to person who thinks it is only about bokeh.

faberryman · Jul 3, 2016

If a photographer likes the look a f1.2 gives him, it is great that they are available to purchase. If you do not like the look, there is no need to rain on his parade by questioning the need for them.

Jim Jones · Jul 3, 2016

Long ago I had to use a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens, ISO 400 film, and 1/125 second for indoor sports in small town gyms. Then Kodak introduced T-Max 3200 film! Exposing that at ISO 1600 for decent shadow detail with an f/2 Summicron at 1/250 second meant much higher quality prints, although grainier. Using shallow DOF to compel the viewer to see what the photographer wants him to see instead of providing more detail so the viewer can see what he wants seems presumptuous.

Chan Tran · Jul 3, 2016

darinwc said:
i see many example pics of people showing off their fast lenses and talking about the creamy bokeh.
But frankly, I get bored of these very quickly.

Yes, fast lenses can help blur out distracting backgrounds.

But in a studio setting, the background is completely controlled and usually a fuzzy blend of colors, or a single continuous toned color without any need for a fancy lens.

And out on the street, i want to see the subjects environment. That is what gives the image context. Blurring out any background just seems like a shortcut to fix a bad image.

So I really don't see the need for ultra fast lenses, or shooting wide open at all unless poor lighting requires it.

Fast f1.2 lenses: Over-used cliche or cant life without.. What are your thoughts?

I think to each his own but I myself don't want shallow DOF (and today I shoot the D*** too so slow lenses aren't bad in low light) so very fast lenses are not necessary for me. Now I do buy f/1.4 lenses and if they make f/1.0 lenses for my cameras I might consider that too but I avoid buying f/1.2, f/1.7 or f/1.8 lenses. I would buy an f/2.0 lens. I just dislike the in between f/stop.

Dan Fromm · Jul 3, 2016

Darin, it depends on the lens. I started shooting in '70 while I was in the Army. Bought a Nikkormat FTn and a 50/1.4 Nikkor and off I went. One of the other fellows in the data center bought a Konica Autoreflex (sorry, I can't remember which model) and a 57/1.2 Hexanon. And off he went. We often went out shooting together. We both used HS Ektachrome (ASA 400), both sent it to Kodak for processing. Shooting near wide open was usually impossible. Daylight is too bright, even at 1/1000.

Ed's shots were always sharper than mine. Always. IMO the 57/1.2 Hexanon is a good reason to buy into the Konica AR system.

wiltw · Jul 3, 2016

I believe that folks think so much about 'thin DOF' that they fail to understand what 'far field blur' does in an image.

If you use a 50mm lens at about 21' from the subject to get them full length in the frame (135 format), the DOF zone at that distance is about 40" at f/1.2 vs. 67" at f/2. But when we consider 'how blurred are objected in the background?' and consult a chart such as this one, we can see...

...we can see that the f/1.2 farfield background is about 1.7x more blurry than at f/2

onre · Jul 3, 2016

wiltw said:
about 1.7x more blurry than

This would make a great marketing slogan for a lens. "Now with 170% more background blur!"

MattKing · Jul 3, 2016

I've never owned anything faster than a 50mm f/1.4 lens. And don't intend to own anything faster in the future.

But I do own and use 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2 lenses (as well as 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses) for my OM bodies, and I really appreciate the large maximum aperture for one particular reason.

I rarely shoot at that maximum aperture, but I almost invariably compose and focus at that aperture. And the bright image in the viewfinder, as well as the way the plane of focus is so apparent and obvious, makes working with faster lenses a treat.

The kit, ~ f/3.5 lenses I have for my Canon autofocus bodies are much less pleasing to use when I want to focus manually.

wiltw · Jul 3, 2016

MattKing said:
And the bright image in the viewfinder, as well as the way the plane of focus is so apparent and obvious, makes working with faster lenses a treat.

The kit, ~ f/3.5 lenses I have for my Canon autofocus bodies are much less pleasing to use when I want to focus manually.

A great contributor to the less pleasant manual focus with AF bodies is the fact that the focus screen is optimized for BRIGHTNESS, and not focus precision, since a lot of the light is diverted down to the AF sensor.
Another contributor is the AF lens itself, which does not require the rotational throw from minimum focus to Infinity, in an effort to reduce battery drain associated with long throws.

cuthbert · Jul 3, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
Fast lenses are subject to more aberrations than slower ones. You must also consider that they are optimized to be used fully open. Step them down and the resolution falls.

Mmm....no.

blockend said:
Depending on subject distance, an f2.0 lens offers a shallow depth of field.

This is also wrong.

I have several f1.2: a Canon 50mm f1.2 for rangefinders, a FD 55mm f1.2, a Fdn 50mm f1.2, a Pentax K50mm f1.2 and a Fujinon 50mm f1.2.

The older lenses are pretty bad wide open, but stepped down at f2.8 they are very sharp, the best of the bunch is the Fujinon with the Pentax and the Canon FDn close second.

I agree that to make a f1.2 is an hard work, but I like them because they are very useful, the Pentax K is sharp from f1.2 to f22 and besides some barrell distortion it's optically very good, equal or better than its 1.4 cousin.

This is the DOF at f1.2 and at minimum distance:

This is about 2 mt:

In low light:

This shot is a good reason why you should have a f1.2 lens:

This as well:

Les Sarile · Jul 3, 2016

darinwc said:
Fast f1.2 lenses: Over-used cliche or cant life without.. What are your thoughts?

is this a follow-up from my previous thread -> (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Well so far they are all very good performers but I still have to keep using them to see if there are any real differences . . .

Kyle M. · Jul 3, 2016

I recently got ahold of a Canon FD 55mm 1.2, and I really like it. It's sharper wide open than my New FD 50mm 1.4 was and stopped down it's even better. It's pretty much permanently mated to my Canon F1. I mainly bought it because it was a 1.2 which makes it cool and fast, and it was cheap, also the date code on it just so happened to match the date code on my first style Canon F1. Here's a few examples at 1.2. I have a Nikon F2 with a 50mm 1.4 on the way and I've already hunted down a 55mm 1.2 for it.

f1.2 or not f1.2?

darinwc

Slixtiesix

bernard_L

darinwc

Slixtiesix

Gerald C Koch

blockend

Agulliver

John Bragg

onre

Theo Sulphate

cooltouch

RalphLambrecht

Ko.Fe.

faberryman

Jim Jones

Chan Tran

Dan Fromm

wiltw

onre

MattKing

Moderator

wiltw

cuthbert

Les Sarile

Kyle M.

Attachments

f1.2 or not f1.2?

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency