Why get such a fast 50mm? 50mm f1.2 vs f1.4

msbarnes

msbarnes

Well-known
Local time
7:40 AM
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
841
Does the fraction of a stop really matter in terms of exposure, DOF, and bokeh?

I'm building an OM kit. I'm thinking of getting a 50mm because they are so cheap in comparison to other focal lengths, or just skipping it altogether because 50mm feels too tight for me many times. I'd probably go with a 50mm f1.4 since they can be had for ~$60 or maybe even a f1.8 because those are even cheaper. Getting the 50mm f1.4 over the 1.8 makes sense because it isn't a lot of money but the 50mm f1.2 cost over $600 off keh.com...granted it is in ex+ but even if it were bargain I'm sure it'd still sell for over $400.

Why do you guys pay so much more for a fraction of a stop advantage?
 
Generally 1.4 is enough for me, in particular for RFs. And usually you get better IQ with a 1.4 lens when compared to something faster.

On an SLR, with f1.2, you get brighter view of course.

And then, the OM 50/1.2 is special:

1) it was the last lens OM manufactured, and at f1.4 is just as good as the 50/1.4, for all practical purposes.
2) compared to all other vendor 1.2 lenses it is really small (49mm filter size) - not much bigger than the 1.4.

If you decide go for the 50/1.4, pick a late one. Will cost a couple of extra bucks but is worth it, IMO.

Roland.
 
Most of times Mazda 323 is enough to commute and still there are people paying premium for RX-8.

Well, comparison isn't fair because RX-8 differs from 323 more than f/1.2 lens from f/1.4......I think?
 
Go with the f1.4. The additional cost is not worth it. I have used the OM system lenses and compared to Leica and Zeiss the later far out perform the OM series. Personally, I prefer the Nikon series lenses to the OM. Also, the Zeiss makes Nikon mount lenses for both digital and film.
 
There are numerous factors, including the size, weight, and handling of the lens. If you are just looking for a general purpose lens, the 1.8 is hard to beat. If you plan to do a lot of available darkness photography, the greater light gathering and ability to isolate the subject may be worth the added weight and cost. What are your personal tradeoffs?
 
I own a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. Speciffically this lens is opimized to be used wide open for sharpness and basically I tend to use it between F1.2 and F4.0. Also this lens is optimized not to display Coma so bright sources of light at night don't turn into blobs of light that look like lava lamps.

The speed of the lens adds a half stop of brightness to the VF'er on a SLR making higher contrast and a faster focus. Even if I stop down and don't use the effective speed for an exposure, the handling via fast focus offers a different kinda speed. I like using the Noct-Nikkor during the day for street for this reason.

But realize if I'm looking for maximum sharpness, say at F5.6 or F8.0, avoiding smaller stops due to diffraction, I'll use my 55/2.8 Macro which is a sharper lens at those aperatures.

Cal
 
This is a very personal decision that includes needs, wants, ego, personal income, brand worship, and bokeh worship. Not a judgement, but people buy fast lenses for many reasons. Sometimes it's just because they can.
 
I think size matters as well. I currently have a 50 'cron but would like something faster and am considering the Nokton 1.5 or Nokton 1.1. The size difference between the two is huge. And I don't think there's any real benefit of 1.1 over 1.5 other than specs on paper.
 
swoop said:
I think size matters as well. I currently have a 50 'cron but would like something faster and am considering the Nokton 1.5 or Nokton 1.1. The size difference between the two is huge. And I don't think there's any real benefit of 1.1 over 1.5 other than specs on paper.
Click to expand...

+1

Handling is a different kind of speed. Big lenses have big diameters so even though the focus rotation may be the same the distance of travel due to a larger circumference often means a slow focus.

Sometimes this works out not to be a bad thing for critical focusing, but also realize the fast handling of say a Cron is lost. Slower lenses like Crons offer a different kind of speed.

Cal
 
I've owned a couple of F/1.2 lenses (Canon RF, Nikon reflex) and had extended use (several months) of the old f/1 Noctilux. For me (and it's a personal choice) the half stop is neither here nor there and the Noctilux is more than I can reasonably easily afford, though I think a full stop would be worth the money to me if I could easily afford it. On the other hand, I'd not really care for significantly slower lenses than 35/1.4 and 50/1.5. Sod bokeh: I just like shooting in 'available darkness'.

Cheers,

R.
 
jsrockit said:
This is a very personal decision that includes needs, wants, ego, personal income, brand worship, and bokeh worship. Not a judgement, but people buy fast lenses for many reasons. Sometimes it's just because they can.
Click to expand...

I was very lucky.

Owning high performance lenses is a source of pride for me for sure. What amplifies my pride is that I bought a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor easily saving $1K because I got a great deal that was likely a pricing error.

Also I bought a 75 Lux in great shape before prices more than doubled is another.

But the shallow DOF offered, especially combined with their close focus abilities (the 75 Lux can focus closer than a Noctilux and the Noct-Nikkor can close focus to 18 inches) is a very humbling challenge to use that soon destroys any ego. The demands on good technic are rather unforgiving, and then there is the challenge of using the rendering tastefully and not over do it with shallow DOF and bokeh. Then there's trying to get a good exposure under some of the most harsh lighting conditions.

I will also mention that a friend of mine calls my cameras affectionally "Monsters." My rig for the Noct-Nikkor is a Nikon F3P with a MD-4 motordrive and a handstrap easily a 5-6 pound rig with the Noct-Nikkor.

Both my Leicas feature TA Rapidwinders and TA Rapidgrips so even my Leicas have a bit of mass to help stabilize and also balance the cameras. Kinda extream, but I still have not maximized the potential that these lenses can offer. Currently I'm pushing film to 1600 for night shooting in NYC. So far lots of bad photography, but every once in a while WOW. BTW I only shoot B&W because this way I can afford to shoot a lot.

These are my dream lenses, somehow I attained them, but it really is humbling and demanding trying to use their full potential. Owned them for a while and still getting better.

Cal
 
I find the fast lenses tend to "veil" a bit, perhaps more often described as having a bit of "glow" about them, when used wide-open.

That said, I recently bought a Nikkor 55/1.2 which is sharper wide-open than any current DSLR kit lens at any aperture (meaningless test, I know, but it was a quiet day lol). This surprised me somewhat, expecting f/1.2 to be soft. At f/2.8 it is ridiculously sharp.

I'll do further pixel-peeping once I get it Ai'd, but more so than sharpness I like how it renders images :) Fast glass also helps with winding your mates up over who has the fastest lens :p
 
Well, I'd go even more practical. In terms of speed, if you need it, then you need it. I have a number of lenses that hover around f:1 (0.95, 1, 1.1 etc.). But these are specialty lenses, whatever anyone may say about them doing just fine at f:5.6.

For what I shoot and the way I shoot, if I had just one 50, it would be an f:1.4 lens. They were well made, price-performance optimized and a source of pride for all the serious lens-makers out there. And if I could have just two 50's, I would add a good f:2 lens. And if I had all of those needs met and had the cash handy, I'd stray into the "super-speed" category as fewer than 5% of the pictures I make are under the conditions that warrant a lens like this.

And, what do you know? That's just what I did.

But hey, you're taking advice from a guy who sold his Mamiya 7 'cause he couldn't hack the limitation of lenses that only opened up to f:4.
 
I don`t know if it matters .
I sometimes find the extra speed useful when I`m shooting in indoor arenas or up in the hills in winter .
I have a Nockton 40/1.4 , a C Sonnar and a Pentax 50/1.2 should be in the post on Wed.
 
msbarnes said:
Does the fraction of a stop really matter in terms of exposure, DOF, and bokeh?

I'm building an OM kit. I'm thinking of getting a 50mm because they are so cheap in comparison to other focal lengths, or just skipping it altogether because 50mm feels too tight for me many times. I'd probably go with a 50mm f1.4 since they can be had for ~$60 or maybe even a f1.8 because those are even cheaper. Getting the 50mm f1.4 over the 1.8 makes sense because it isn't a lot of money but the 50mm f1.2 cost over $600 off keh.com...granted it is in ex+ but even if it were bargain I'm sure it'd still sell for over $400.

Why do you guys pay so much more for a fraction of a stop advantage?
Click to expand...

I'm shooting with Nikon and not the OM system, but with Nikon, the 50mm f/1.2 gets sharper earlier than the 1.4 does (sharper at f/2) so the almost-wide open performance is nice. Could be a similar deal with the OM lenses. Plus, occasionally a 1.2 can be found for the same price as a 1.4 (at least with Nikon, Canon, Olympus manual glass... can't say the same for the C/Y 50/55mm)
 
Calzone said:
+1

Handling is a different kind of speed. Big lenses have big diameters so even though the focus rotation may be the same the distance of travel due to a larger circumference often means a slow focus.


Cal
Click to expand...

I second that, my nokton 1.1 is a pain if you want to go 1m to infinite.
 
I also have a Nikon system and own 1,2 AIS and 1,4 AIS. In this case the 1,2 is a better lens across the board. Aside from the brighter VF, its surprisingly more capable in low light. More than you would imagine until you use one. BTW increments of excellence are always expensive when it pushes the limits.
 
The extra brightness in the viewfinder of the 50mm f1.2 over the f1.4 is quite noticable on my OM-1.

As for using it ... I don't often because it is large on an OM body ... and the 1.4 is a very good lens.
 
Not worth it to me. Aside from the size/cost of lenses, sure you get a stop or half a stop of light, but at the cost of razor thin DOF. I know it's the fashion now, but it's not really my thing, and in real life, not that useful. Also, you'll often get back/front focus issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom