I've had a canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens for about thirty years I'm retired and don't delude myself that if I shelled out around £500 for a FDn 50mm f1.2 L lens it would make me a better photographer, just a poorer one.
The difference between f 1.4 and f 1.2 in terms of screen brightness must be negligible.I have the 55/1.2. Do I shoot it wide-open? Surprisingly, no. I mainly shoot it between f/5.6 and f/11. Get good results out of it. So, yeah, I'm not using it for what it's intended for, but I like having the extra light in the viewfinder (yes, there's a little bit extra light compared to my 50/1.4 AF, at least when viewed through a Nikon body with the earlier style focusing screens (pre red-dot era).
-J
Within a given line of lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Leitz, whatever, and a given time period (e.g. 1980's), are the slower lenses better overall compared to the faster ones?...What say you?
It's a half a stop. Which is measurable and perceptible, especially in lower light situations.The difference between f 1.4 and f 1.2 in terms of screen brightness must be negligible.
Modern Photography magazine published quantification of lens tests, and someone tabulated the results seen here. ...
Fast f1.2 lenses: Over-used cliche or cant life without.. What are your thoughts?
It's a half a stop. Which is measurable and perceptible, especially in lower light situations.
Line pairs per millimetre is a very old fashioned way of assessing lens quality these days they use modulation transfer function that plots resolution over contrast http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mtf.htmModern Photography magazine published quantification of lens tests, and someone tabulated the results seen here. Ignore the qualitative ratings (whose scale changed over the years) and pay attention to the numbers:
I already know that Scott, but speaking personally I very rarely photograph black cats in coal cellars and paying around £500 of my children's inheritance for a Canon 50mm f1.2 L lens when I already have two Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lenses for an extra 1/2 a stop makes no sense to meIt's a half a stop. Which is measurable and perceptible, especially in lower light situations.
I already know that Scott, but speaking personally I very rarely photograph black cats in coal cellars and paying around £500 of my children's inheritance for a Canon 50mm f1.2 L lens when I already have two Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lenses for an extra 1/2 a stop makes no sense to me
That chart is kinda like looking at dinosaur footprints in sandstone. A lot has changed.
One thing to take into consideration with an SLR and a fast lens is to what aperture the focusing screen is optimised to.
A focusing screen optimised for /2.8 lenses will show no difference with a faster lens. In other words you can't see the difference in DOF with a /1.2 lens until it stops down to /2.8.
Something to think about.
One thing to take into consideration with an SLR and a fast lens is to what aperture the focusing screen is optimised to.
A focusing screen optimised for /2.8 lenses will show no difference with a faster lens. In other words you can't see the difference in DOF with a /1.2 lens until it stops down to /2.8.
Something to think about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?