What is the difference, really, between f/1.2 and f/1.4 ?

[kevin m]

hehe.. "new" to you?

I have the 50 L and I personally adore it - I would not go back to the 50 f1.4 which I found a bit soft..

Well, it certainly qualifies as "new" on a forum where 50-year old lenses are still used! 😀

I should "blame" you for me getting this lens, anyway. That shot of yours with the model you posted here was one that helped pushed me over the edge. 😛

 

[dcsang]

Awwww.. thanks Kevin 🙂

That said, at the recent David Williams seminar I went to I showed him a shot and he said "Dave has an f1.2 lens and knows how to use it !" 😀

Dave

 

[Al Kaplan]

Kevin, of course we use 50 year old lenses. Some of us couldn't afford new ones back in the sixties.

 

[john_s]

If using a manual focus SLR camera, a 1.2 lens can be helpful in focusing in low-light situations, even if you stop the lens down for the exposure. A brighter viewfinder is not something to be taken 'lightly'.

That was what I have always thought, too. But I have read that most SLRs made in the last, say, 15 years or so, have been optimized for lenses of lesser apertures and that makes the very wide aperture lenses of no benefit in focusing, at least in brightness. I'm not sure about DoF. I'll look for some references and post here shortly.

 

[iamzip]

I think that perhaps the reason I am not seeing a great deal of difference (or any) is due to the gear I am using. To be specific, I have a Canon A1, an old breechlock style FD 50mm f/1.4, and an even older FL 55mm f/1.2 which I just received yesterday. The older FL lenses can only be used on the FD bodies using stop down metering, however it has been my experience that putting the camera into stop down mode results in a slower shuter speed versus regular aperture priority mode. At least that is what the display in the finder is telling me. It may be that I don't understand or properly use the stop down mode, as I have only used it maybe once or twice in 16 years of owning the camera. I am thinking about modifying the lens so that it can be used in regular aperture priority mode, at least wide open.

At any rate, anything that specific is for another thread in another forum. I am enjoying reading this and I think it is an interesting and informative thread. Perhaps in an available light situation, with a slow film, that extra 1/2 to 1/3 stop would make a difference?

 

[raid]

Is the AF Canon 50/1.2L optically different from the FD 50/1.2L? If so, in what way? I have the FD version of the 50/1.2L.

 

[kevin m]

...that makes the very wide aperture lenses of no benefit in focusing, at least in brightness.

Not true. The viewfinder is noticeably brighter than with an f2.0 lens mounted, never mind an f4.0 zoom. And the focusing seems faster, too, at least with the Canon AF system.

Raid, the EF 50/1.2L is a new formula.

 

[Prosaic]

Is the AF Canon 50/1.2L optically different from the FD 50/1.2L? If so, in what way? I have the FD version of the 50/1.2L.

Sure. The EF is better (and much fatter) overall. And it wont focus correctly on every second EOS body...

 

[Al Kaplan]

What gets optimized is the split image rangefinder or micro-prism in the center of the ground glass. Stop the lens down in manual, like for depth of field preview, and at some point half of the split image rangefinder will black out or the microprism spot will start "glittering". Opening up the lens from that f/stop will NOT increase focusing acuracy when using the rangefinder or microprism. The acuracy of focus using just the ground glass will continue to improve as the lens aperture opens past that point.

 

[sojournerphoto]

It's not just the shallow DOF, it's that the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus can be so much smoother, depending on the lens.

The modern f1.2 lenses appear to be much-better corrected, across the board, than the old designs. The Canon 50/1.2 EF objectively performs better than most 50/1.4s out there, for example, including the brand-new Zeiss 50 in EF mount (according to Reid reviews.)

Subjectively, you either like the look of superspeed lenses, or you don't. I do.

100% crop for the pixel-peepers 😀:

You and Sean Reid are going to dfo for my wallet. I liek my 50 1.4, and it's distortion. In terms of wide open sharpness it's not as bad as some people seem to suggest (I know this because I said that once and someone corrected me, so I went and checked), but the 1.2L draws so beautifully and is clearly much better wide open.

Still the 50 1.4 on a 5D makes a nice walkaround package.

Mike

 

[john_s]

Further to my post above about the supposed benefits of very wide aperture lenses in assisting SLR focusing, here are a couple of pages that describe the effect I was talking about. The Ken Rockwell page has a comment about half way down. I know he doesn't have the highest credibility, but it's still worth a read. The page I couldn't find was from Mike Johnston.

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00MujA

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00DS3z

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12.htm

 

[kingmillo]

The difference might make or break a shot where you're in a situation that forces you to slightly underexpose at f/1.4 due to handheld shutterspeed limitations. However, with the latest DSLRS like the Nikon D300 you can really crank up the effective ISO and still get a fairly noise-free shot, so superspeed lenses aren't that big a deal with these cameras.

I dont know why folks lately are so hyped with super clean hi iso. To me noise free=detail free. There is no magic way to clean the noise without sacrificing detail. Sure the image is cleaner at hi iso but i feel the skin becomes like "cement". I personally still prefer my M8 not-so-clean-but-alive image than, slr's very-clean-manequin-tone image

 

[Leighgion]

My Nikon D300 is my main digital camera, and I recently bought myself a 50mm f1.2 AIS specifically for it.

As others have said, it's as much about the overall personality of the image wide open as the light gathering power. I could easily live with my 1.4's (got more than one) for utility, but I wanted to take their shallow depth of field and overall soft quality wide open to the ultimate that's possible with the camera.

 

[colker]

i don't like heavy lenses. i don't like heavy anything. ergonomics is more important tahn sharpness or bokeh or anything else.. it's how fast i am ready to take the pic so i don't miss it. 1.2 glasses are too big.

 

[colker]

I dont know why folks lately are so hyped with super clean hi iso. To me noise free=detail free. There is no magic way to clean the noise without sacrificing detail. Sure the image is cleaner at hi iso but i feel the skin becomes like "cement". I personally still prefer my M8 not-so-clean-but-alive image than, slr's very-clean-manequin-tone image

... and that's why i am going back to film. i am tired of digital technology.

 

[kevin m]

I dont know why folks lately are so hyped with super clean hi iso.

Because it opens up entirely new possibilities in photography, rather than replaying 1954 over and over again.

There is no magic way to clean the noise without sacrificing detail.

You could choose a camera whose sensor isn't noisy at high iso's to begin with.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Very few photographers, either in 1954 or now, really exploit or explore the full possibilities of their cameras or "capture medium". Those people aren't replaying 1954 so much as just trying to get there.

 

[kermaier]

Is the AF Canon 50/1.2L optically different from the FD 50/1.2L? If so, in what way? I have the FD version of the 50/1.2L.

Here's one from the FD 85/1.2L on NPS at about f/1.4 IIRC.

 

[Sonnar2]

Almost every f/1.2 50mm is prone to light-falloff, so that it's a f/1.4 lens or worse, except a small area in the center. (Most f/1.4 show light falloff too).

Tell me ONE example of a f/1.2 50mm lens which is the better lens as far as sharpness/contrast is concerned, when compared to the f/1.4 lens of the same family. I haven't heard yet of one. (f/1.2 Noctilux don't compare with the much older f/1.4 Summilux)