kshapero
South Florida Man
Been getting by with a Zeiss 50mm f2 for years. Would I really gain having that extra stop and going to an f1.4 lens?
Do I need a f1.4 lens?
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 3K
x-ray
Veteran
How often would 1.4 make the difference between getting and not getting the shot? The Planar is hard to beat.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
If you like how a 50mm f 1.4 or f1.5 lens draws at full aperture then yes, but if you don't, save your money or get another focal length instead.
I personally am very fond of photos taken with that the 50mm Sonnar lens types at full bore for instance, so for me the new J-3+ or the modern CV made Zeiss Sonnar lens 50mm f1.5 would be what I would buy, but your preference might be different than mine.
I personally am very fond of photos taken with that the 50mm Sonnar lens types at full bore for instance, so for me the new J-3+ or the modern CV made Zeiss Sonnar lens 50mm f1.5 would be what I would buy, but your preference might be different than mine.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I thought I absolutely needed one... only to find that I take extremely few photographs wide open. In truth, it may be good to have it if you ever need the extra stop, but it's not indispensable when you are already fitted out with an f2.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is nice to have one.
"Need" is more complicated subject. At f1.4 it is not going to give all on group portraits in focus. I have to stop it down to 5.6-8 and use flash. But if I want my FED-2 out on the street after daylight is out, I need my J-3 on it.
"Need" is more complicated subject. At f1.4 it is not going to give all on group portraits in focus. I have to stop it down to 5.6-8 and use flash. But if I want my FED-2 out on the street after daylight is out, I need my J-3 on it.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
No harm in giving it a try:
Indoors with film or CCD, especially at this time of year, it's a must have for me.
It's also fun to use full open with a ND filter outside.
Shooting at f/2 with a ND is also rewarding - give that a go for a day.
Indoors with film or CCD, especially at this time of year, it's a must have for me.
It's also fun to use full open with a ND filter outside.
Shooting at f/2 with a ND is also rewarding - give that a go for a day.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Looking at your avatar you are sixty seven Akiva. Just do it! 🙂
michaelwj
----------------
YES!
But to be actually helpful 🙂
It's one stop. Do you feel you need one stop more light or less depth of field? Then yes, otherwise, No.
My main lens is the summilux pre-asph 1.4/35. I shoot maybe 1/100th or less of the time at 1.4, but it's nice to have when I use it. However, the lens is still tiny, I wouldn't get one of the newer 'big' 1.4/35s, I don't shoot at 1.4 enough to carry the extra size and weight burden.
But to be actually helpful 🙂
It's one stop. Do you feel you need one stop more light or less depth of field? Then yes, otherwise, No.
My main lens is the summilux pre-asph 1.4/35. I shoot maybe 1/100th or less of the time at 1.4, but it's nice to have when I use it. However, the lens is still tiny, I wouldn't get one of the newer 'big' 1.4/35s, I don't shoot at 1.4 enough to carry the extra size and weight burden.
bucs
Well-known
No
I don't like f/1.4 lenses because of the huge front element. I get by with an f/2 and push film when I need the speed.
I don't like f/1.4 lenses because of the huge front element. I get by with an f/2 and push film when I need the speed.
Ronald M
Veteran
My 50 1.4 ASPH is best I own. 50 2.8 last version is what I use most.
ktmrider
Well-known
Have been wondering the same thing myself. I have the current version of the 50 Summicron and have been looking at something faster. However, I also own the 35f1.2 Nokton and seldom use it wide open.
Can get a 50f1.1 used for $750 but it is large, like the 35f1.2. I don't think Leica lenses are worth the price so thinking about the 50f1.5 ASPH from Voightlander and the 50f1.5 Zeiss. But I need another M mount lens like I need an extra hole in my head.
Can get a 50f1.1 used for $750 but it is large, like the 35f1.2. I don't think Leica lenses are worth the price so thinking about the 50f1.5 ASPH from Voightlander and the 50f1.5 Zeiss. But I need another M mount lens like I need an extra hole in my head.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Best post yet!!
Richard G
Veteran
Keith and xayraa33 are right. And get the Zeiss C Sonnar. It's a revelation. It's not about the extra stop necessarily, it's the depth of field at f2 and f2.8 as well f1.5 and the character generally down to an aperture of f5.6 and it's lighter and more compact than all the 50 Summiluxes.
Dogman
Veteran
It depends on performance overall to me. Does the f/1.4 lens have a better overall look than the f/2 lens? Not on a clinical level but on an aesthetic level. Some lenses are great while others are magical.
When I became interested in photography, most photographers relied on maximum aperture only for emergencies. Wide open, most lenses did not perform very well so stopping down one or two stops was the norm. Lenses are better today and I don't hesitate to use my lenses at maximum aperture if it's called for. But only a few are really magical.
When I became interested in photography, most photographers relied on maximum aperture only for emergencies. Wide open, most lenses did not perform very well so stopping down one or two stops was the norm. Lenses are better today and I don't hesitate to use my lenses at maximum aperture if it's called for. But only a few are really magical.
daveleo
what?
I have several very nice 1.4 - 1.8 lenses, yet I very rarely shoot these wide open.
Getting excellent results at f1.4 takes lots of experience and a very fine, critical eye. It's not the average photographer who can get it to work well.
F2.0 is my personal bottom line, and depends much on what's being photographed.
I tend to use light, more than DOF, to draw attention to a subject.
Getting excellent results at f1.4 takes lots of experience and a very fine, critical eye. It's not the average photographer who can get it to work well.
F2.0 is my personal bottom line, and depends much on what's being photographed.
I tend to use light, more than DOF, to draw attention to a subject.
raid
Dad Photographer
Enjoy viewing the world around you wide open. Use the lowest ISO setting on your camera for improved colors and better looking images.
dotur
od karnevala
You definitely do need a f1.4 lens. A f0,95 lens would be too much. 🙂
ktmrider
Well-known
So, between the Zeiss and Voightlander 50 f1.5's, which one would you choose and why?
Steve M.
Veteran
Depends on the lens. Not all 1.4 lenses are created equal. Usually what you get is smoother bokeh, not necessarily better sharpness or IQ. If you're shooting B&W film, you'll get the shot w/ the f2 lens in nearly all instances. I assume that for two years you have been anyway.
Being 67 is not necessarily a motivator. We could all leave the universe at any given moment regardless of age. Tomorrow is not a given even if you're 20, and the next instant is even a question mark.
Being 67 is not necessarily a motivator. We could all leave the universe at any given moment regardless of age. Tomorrow is not a given even if you're 20, and the next instant is even a question mark.
cz23
Well-known
Zeiss, for the focus tab.
Similar threads
