f1.2 or not f1.2?

[cuthbert]

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.

Surely you'll be poorer, but as other people suggested different gear can open doors you haven't open so far in your career.

If you are getting a 1.2 you'll be tempted to use it wide open for shallow DOF or in low light, if you have never explored these territories perhaps you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

You guys inspired me to fix my Nikkor 50MM f 1.4 w/Nikon Y52 filter to the F5 (Ilford XP2) and go out shooting in the morning fog in the mountains. Thanks I really like that lens.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

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

 

[benjiboy]

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

The difference between f 1.4 and f 1.2 in terms of screen brightness must be negligible.

 

[wiltw]

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?

Modern 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:

 

[Dali]

So what is your conclusion (if one can make a general statement for samples test which is scientifically questionable)?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The difference between f 1.4 and f 1.2 in terms of screen brightness must be negligible.

It's a half a stop. Which is measurable and perceptible, especially in lower light situations.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It's been said that fast lenses (and similar items) do more for the photographer's ego than for his technical ability. They are flypaper for money.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Bokeh" is related to a lot more than just focal length or aperture. Longer focal lengths give you shallower depth of field, as do wider apertures.
But the shape of out-of-focus blur is also controlled by the number of aperture blades as well as the lens design itself. If all this is important to you,
you should seek the reputation of any lens in this particular respect. And some of this is subjective. For example, many modern Nikon lenses have an
obnoxious double-lined background blur, while others like my 85/1.4 Ais have lovely bokeh. It's also easy to focus and remarkably sharp even wide open.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Modern Photography magazine published quantification of lens tests, and someone tabulated the results seen here. ...

This is basically what I was looking for, thank you.

Ultimately, I'm looking at the photo I made with the one lens I was using and I don't agonize over whether it should've been a 1.2, 1.4, or f/2. But there are lenses that we like for what they allow us to do and for the effect we get.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That chart is kinda like looking at dinosaur footprints in sandstone. A lot has changed.

 

[flavio81]

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

My favorite Canon lens was a Canon FD 55/1.2, and this due to the excellent bokeh. Someday i'll buy me again another one. And the bokeh was excellent at all apertures, not just wide open.

But bokeh is not a function that depends directly on the aperture. Or on the number of diaphragm leaves, as many ignorant folks think.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's a half a stop. Which is measurable and perceptible, especially in lower light situations.

That it is, and also keep in mind the extended low-light performance of the metering system with a faster lens, even by a half stop.

Another way to think about this is that, if the lens doesn't suffer from focus shift and it helps you focus more accurately, then your images will likely be sharper where you want them to be with a faster lens (using an SLR), than with a slower lens focused with less accuracy, even if the slower lens is slightly better corrected.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

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.

 

[benjiboy]

Modern 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:

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.htm

 

[DREW WILEY]

All depends on the specific working aperture, all kinds of things, really. When push come to shove, I do my own testing at all relevant apertures,
different subject distances, etc. Magazine articles and popular websites might furnish a vague clue, but should otherwise be taken with a grain of salt; there tends to be a lot of Mickey Mouse methodology involved. A good factory graph will plot a whole family of MTF and illumination curves for any given lens using serious lab techniques by real optical engineers.

 

[benjiboy]

It'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

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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

Strokes for folks. For those who need it, they need it, and they can justify the cost because they're using it to make money. I have one lens that's that fast, and it's for my digi-thing. I use that lens for portrait work, and as a result I use it at f 1.2 frequently because I'm shooting in confined spaces with cluttered backgrounds, so being able to compress and blur the heck out of the scenery is a really nice to have capability.

 

[Steve Roberts]

An f1.2 is surely just like any other slightly exotic lens in a photographer's kit - it has it's time and place like a 20mm, 400mm, macro, etc.. None of those is essential, but if you're prepared to spend the money on them they are occasionally very useful. I have Pentax f1.2. I don't keep it permanently on a body but wheel it out a few times a year when it does just what I want.
Steve

 

[wiltw]

That chart is kinda like looking at dinosaur footprints in sandstone. A lot has changed.

I was directly responding to the question posed, "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?"

 

[DREW WILEY]

Way too generalized a question anyway. Choosing lenses is all about specifics, even within the same brand and vintage.

 

[craigclu]

I got comfortable with a 1.2 Konica and was always so pleased with the results in candids... It eventually dawned on me that I was getting my critical focus more accurately set because of the added brightness and shallow depth of field in the viewfinder. As I write this, I can't recall depending on the full aperture being used in any situation in the duties I put it to but simply appreciated the extra assistance in focusing accurately. The lens is especially sharp for a 1.2 optic and this isn't always the case but the Konica was well regarded among the ultra-fast primes (some astigmatism aside). As a side note, when adapted to my Fuji X bodies, this lens doesn't seem as compatible as the 1.4 and 1.7 options in Konica glass. This lens and another favorite, the Hexanon 85 1.8 don't do well when adapted to the Fuji's but others do quite well. I've learned not to make assumptions anymore!

 

[Alan Gales]

Fast lenses at their widest apertures have their place. Maybe not for everyone but for those who like to use them.

Shoot what you like.

 

[flavio81]

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.

Important remark!!

 

[craigclu]

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.

I didn't know that. It always seems as if the fast optics snap in and out of focus more crisply... Just from the enhanced brightness, perhaps?