Do I need a f1.4 lens?

[farlymac]

I don't know as I needed one, but when it was time to replace my f2 Nikkor that came on an S2 (with element separation), I decided to upgrade to the f1.4 just in case I'd ever need that much of an opening. TomA's experience with it is what sealed the deal for me.

I remember my first SLR f1.4 lens, a Sears branded M42 mount of dubious manufacture, and how it used to fog when shot wide open. Back then I didn't much care for that, though now days some consider it artful. When I got my first Nikkormat I again went with an f1.4 (Nikkor), and had no issues with it.

Whether or not you shoot wide open very much, Akiva, sooner or later you'll need it, and be glad you have it. You might even grow to like it a lot.

PF

 

[kshapero]

So, between the Zeiss and Voightlander 50 f1.5's, which one would you choose and why?

Looking at a sweet Leica Summilux 50/1.4 Version 2

 

[raid]

Go for it, Akiva. I regret not having bought a 50mm Summilux. I got instead a 35/1.4 Summilux and a 75/1.4 Summilux.

 

[Robert Lai]

I have some fast lenses: Canon 50 1.4 in LTM, the Zeiss C-Sonnar 50 1.5 in M mount, Jupiter 3+ 50mm 1.5 LTM, and Nikkor SC 50mm 1.4 in LTM.

Of them all, the Canon fails to inspire me. It seems to behave just as an SLR lens would behave, due to its double Gauss design. It's a little less sharp wide open, and sharpens up as you stop down.

The C-Sonnar, Jupiter 3+, and Nikkor are far more interesting as they are all Sonnar designs. The aperture controls image quality, as the degree of "dreaminess" is controlled by the aperture. The differences in spherical aberration causing the bokeh changes and veiling flare disappearance as you stop down contribute to this dreaminess. This creates a much greater difference to the image than the small increase in depth of field as you go from f/1.4 to f/2. The C-Sonnar has almost no "dreaminess" at all wide open, and a lot of contrast and resolution in the center. It can be used as a universal lens, and I do use it frequently for that reason.

 

[narsuitus]

Do I need a f1.4 lens?

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?

I cannot answer the question for you. However, I can answer the question for me.

Many years ago when I purchased my first 35mm SLR, my first lens was a 50mm f/2. Too many times, when I found myself shooting handheld under low-light conditions, I wished I had one more f/stop to use. When it was time for me to replaced my first 35mm SLR system, I used the change as an opportunity to get faster lenses. I now use three f/1.4 lenses (35mm, 50mm, and 85mm focal lengths) and three f/2 lenses (24, 28, and 135). These fast lenses meet my need for speed.


Fast Prime Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[kshapero]

Go for it, Akiva. I regret not having bought a 50mm Summilux. I got instead a 35/1.4 Summilux and a 75/1.4 Summilux.

You are giving me the final push.

 

[sepiareverb]

Looking at a sweet Leica Summilux 50/1.4 Version 2

I've had two 50/1.4s a v2 and the last version. Disliked them because when wide open the corners were way too soft. Not just sorta soft like the 35/1.4 pre-ASPH, but completely out of focus. Just didn't work for me.

 

[raid]

You are giving me the final push.

Look for a good deal from a RFF member here. If needed, send the lens to DAG or Sherry Krauter for an optimal CLA. I have way too many amazingly good 50mm lenses, so to now buy a Summilux 50mm lens is too late for me.

 

[Prest_400]

Back when I started, I wish I had an f1.4 just for the low light capability -admit the guilty pleasure and fad of bokeh too-. Spent 2009 shooting a bit of Kodachrome and that was quite an exercise at ISO64.
Time went on but I decided to move up to MF RF instead of dropping $ on a 135 format f1.4.

Then digital, as humble as is an old m43, took care of lower light.

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.

I am 22 and last year was a blast. Mostly because I had quite some pressure in one way or another and I'd leave my hometown a few months, closing up periods and chapters. Having a sort of ticking time sensation does give a good push.

And anyways, 30 is the new 20... 70 is the new 60 and so on. Age becomes less of an issue and a 50 year old is much younger now than 50 years ago.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I have several f1.4 lens on slrs because they provide better viewing and some the lenses have better optics but I almost never use f1.4. Now consider this on an slr below 1/60 the mirror slap affects the image. With a rangefinder it is okay to photograph at 1/30 or even 1/15. Also, todays film has greater latitude so sometimes I will photograph even if the meter is slightly negative. Now, to give to you my opinion. Unless you have plentiful cash I would stay with the f2.0 Zeiss.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Why not the Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50 instead? It's small, short and does not block the finder.

 

[gb hill]

I bought a Canon 50/1.4 & shot it at a function indoors. I shot it wide open & with my bad eyesight, when I got the film back I missed some of the shots because the crazy shallow depth of field the lens has. So IMO bad vision + shallow DOF=missed shots. Just shoot at a higher ISO & embrace the grain.😀

 

[Arbitrarium]

I'm very pleased I upgraded my Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 to a 1.4. I use the wider aperture a LOT, and I even shot a whole roll (of 50 ASA B+W) entirely on 1.4. Excellent results!

 

[silverbullet]

f2? For me it depends on the type of camera. A SLR with a prism is better to focus with a high open lens, a rangefinder doesn't need this.
My shooting style for streets is mainly close distance head shots with a minimum of DOF. An aperture of f2 helps to get one eye sharp and to nail the reflex of light on the open eye.
At the age of nearly 69 the less weight of the slower lens is really helpful for me...

Oh - another benefit of the f2 lens is the recessed front lens - you don't need a sun shade (Nikkor 50mm f2) -
much faster when changing lenses in the field.
For me the Nikkor H 50mm f2 is the best buy and the bokeh is similar to the 35mm Summi V4 from Leica. http://flickrhivemind.net/blackmagi.../www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/169520168

 

[Livesteamer]

All you Need is Love. But an f1.4 is nice.

Joe

 

[Richard G]

I had a version 2 Summilux. Stolen. That hurt, especially as it was on an M4. But it led me to the v4 Summicron in black: so much lighter. I really began to want a Summilux ASPH several years ago but then saw the results with the C Sonnar. Having no Summilux is one of the most useful cards I've been dealt in my gear owning journey. Unlikely ever to want a 50 Summilux again now.

 

[giulio stucchi]

If you don't mind the barrel distortion my vote goes to the Lux pre asph v2

I found it a great lens for portraiture.

I also just start using a nikkor 5cm 1.4 sc on my M2 via an amedeo adapter, I like it but I found it really interesting only at 1.4

I had a Sonnar 1.5 ZM but I never liked the 1/3 click stop.

Lux V2

Giulio

 

[lxmike]

GAS says yes😀

 

[jesse1dog]

How about doing an analysis of the last 1000 photos you have taken.
'Exposureplot' is quite useful for this.
The analysis will tell you far more than what the usual aperture is that you use.
If you still decide 'yes' make sure you have the opportunity to see how the chosen lens feels on your chosen camera - does it heft OK etc.
If the answer is still 'yes' have a cooling off period for a couple of weeks and then decide if it is still your highest priority.
I'm sounding very negative but am trying to help!
J

 

[kshapero]

Why not the Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50 instead? It's small, short and does not block the finder.

The Ver 2 Lux is tiny (uses 43mm fiters). Got a good deal from a RFF classified.