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

[iamzip]

So, is there any real practical difference between the two? I realize the f/1.2 has a shallower depth of field, but do you see any real performance gains in terms of low light performance? Anything else?

 

[FA Limited]

when you're handholding down to 1/15 or less, the half stop of speed makes a huge difference

 

[Peter_Jones]

f/1.2 will certainly make your wallet lighter 🙂

As above, the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is noticable, I would assume the same for f/1.2.

 

[foto_mike]

In 1981, I bought a new Nikon FE-2 and a 50mm f1.2 AIS lens. I owned a couple of other Nikkor AIS lenses at the time. The 50mm f1.2 looked impressive while mounted on the camera but I was disappointed in its wide open performance. It suffered from chromatic aberration at wide apertures.

I eventually bought a 50mm f1.4 AIS lens that was sharper at f1.4 than the f1.2 lens was at either 1.2 or 1.4. The f1.4 AIS lens had better contrast at wide apertures as well. Keep in mind, though, the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AIS lens is a very, very good lens.

After a decade or so, I sold the f1.2 for almost as much as I paid for it new. I suppose the best thing I can say about it was that it held its resale value very well.

 

[iamzip]

I realize the f/1.4 lenses are usually sharper, I am interested in taking very low light pictures or using low speed film with available light - like Kodachrome 64. In just playing around with the f/1.2 for a few minutes, it did not seem like there was a huge difference, however once I actually begin taking pictures it may become evident.

 

[capitalK]

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

about 1/2 of a stop.

 

[kevin m]

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 😀:

 

[Al Kaplan]

It's actually more like 1/4 or 1/3 of a stop faster rather than 1/2 if you take into account the actual transmission of the optics, what the movie guys call "T-stops". Unless you like "the LOOK" to me it doesn't seem worth the expense. Chances are that your shutter isn't callibrated that acurately, yet it'll still be within ISO standards. Switching to another brand of film, a different developer, another light meter can easily introduce that much exposure difference. Unless you're shooting color transparencies you'll likely never notice the little extra speed without doing a direct comparison between two frames. Also consider that ultra fast lenses, like ultra wide angle lenses, vignette a bit at wide apertures. Even if you're getting 1.2 in the center the corners might be brighter with the 1.4 lens.

 

[MCTuomey]

what kevin said. it's not only about the speed. part of the magic lies in the dreamy quality the superfast lenses exhibit wide open.

btw kevin, is that shot taken with the 50L? sure looks like it, judging from the color and bokeh.

 

[kevin m]

Yes it is, Mike. I should have labeled it. It's the new Canon 50/1.2 L @f1.2. 🙂

 

[feenej]

Owning an f1.2 would be great. Or you can shoot wide lenses like a 35 or 28mm, hold your breath and brace your elbows on a table or against a wall etc. You can shoot really long exposures that way, offhand, depending on if you can tolerate a little blur. People will get really blurry too, after a half second or so, due to their own movement.

You can also push your film, use fast film, stand developing, or just shoot in better light. Better light means better photos. (Maybe I have taken too many muddy looking bar-photos with terrible contrast, ha)

 

[capitalK]

It's actually more like 1/4 or 1/3 of a stop faster rather than 1/2 if you take into account the actual transmission of the optics, what the movie guys call "T-stops". Unless you like "the LOOK" to me it doesn't seem worth the expense. Chances are that your shutter isn't callibrated that acurately, yet it'll still be within ISO standards. Switching to another brand of film, a different developer, another light meter can easily introduce that much exposure difference. Unless you're shooting color transparencies you'll likely never notice the little extra speed without doing a direct comparison between two frames. Also consider that ultra fast lenses, like ultra wide angle lenses, vignette a bit at wide apertures. Even if you're getting 1.2 in the center the corners might be brighter with the 1.4 lens.

I originally wrote 1/3rd of a stop but edited it to "about 1/2". I figured the "about would take care of it. 😀

 

[gavinlg]

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 😀:

Awesome! 😀

 

[Rprice]

Depends on the lens but usually it is .2 🙂 I know useless.

 

[bmattock]

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'.

 

[dcsang]

Yes it is, Mike. I should have labeled it. It's the new Canon 50/1.2 L @f1.2. 🙂

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..

Dave

 

[awilder]

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.

 

[bmattock]

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.

In terms of exposure, no. But there are other differences, which may appeal to some, including thinner depth-of-field; resulting in more distinct out-of-focus areas and different (which for some might be better) rendering of those out-of-focus areas (bokeh).

 

[Svitantti]

Focusing accuracy is a good point that I also almost forgot (well, only with SLR of course). The DOF issue is not just something minor. It can be very important and the difference is clear in many situations.

For sharpness, the difference of course depends on how the lenses are made... But if I bought f1.2 it would be for the DOF.

 

[dcsang]

In terms of exposure, no. But there are other differences, which may appeal to some, including thinner depth-of-field; resulting in more distinct out-of-focus areas and different (which for some might be better) rendering of those out-of-focus areas (bokeh).

bingo.. exactly Bill.

Dave