Hi
I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and an
f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. The lenses I am writing about are the
Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM AF lens (about $1,400) and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
lens (about $300) I realize that their is a big difference in quality, but
their also is a big difference in price. Would I be getting that much more
for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for indoor
shots without using my flash.Are there any other good f/1.2 lenses
available?
Thanks in advance for any reply.
I have a 50 f1.4 and intend to purchase a f.1.2 which I have tried and
found incredibly sharp. Although there is only a little difference in light
gathering of both lenses the f1.2 is an L lens and I have found these to be
very good wide open in low light situations (but have not actually tried
this aspect of the 50mm f.12 lens) the f.1.2 is sharper than the f.1.4.
Another good f1.2 lens is Canons 85mm f1.2 L which I have recently purchased
and it is noticeably sharper than, for example, the 24-70 f2.8L.
regards
Malcolm
"ji" <jimpict.comcast.net> wrote in message
newsOWdnXaN24T3WRDbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Hi
> I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and
> an
> f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. The lenses I am writing about are
> the
> Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM AF lens (about $1,400) and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
> lens (about $300) I realize that their is a big difference in quality,
> but
> their also is a big difference in price. Would I be getting that much more
> for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for indoor
> shots without using my flash.Are there any other good f/1.2 lenses
> available?
> Thanks in advance for any reply.
>
>
"ji" <jimpict.comcast.net> wrote in message
newsOWdnXaN24T3WRDbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Hi
> I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and
> an
> f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. The lenses I am writing about are
> the
> Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM AF lens (about $1,400) and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
> lens (about $300) I realize that their is a big difference in quality,
> but
> their also is a big difference in price. Would I be getting that much more
> for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for indoor
> shots without using my flash.Are there any other good f/1.2 lenses
> available?
> Thanks in advance for any reply.
Why not get the Canon EF50mm 1.8. Sharp as a tack photos for around $100.
Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.
Paul
>
>
"Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself."
Rubbish
No matter how good you are behind the lens a poor lens is a poor lens, a
good lens is a good lens and an L series Canon lens is something else.
If it were "the person behind the lens more than the lens itself." do you
really think so many Canon lens users (and Nikon ones with Nikons "better"
lenses) would save and spend on a L series lenses when something of similar
focal length, if not aperture could be bought for far less? I know,
there'll always be those with more money than sense but the rest of us will
always struggle to afford the best...... and appreciate it when we
eventually part with an bucket full of cash for a rather small, slightly
heavier box containing our latest fix of reinvigourated enthusiasm and head
full of inspiration for the eagerly anticipated great pictures......
This nonsense about the photographer and his/her equipment is just that. I
can take pictures with my old lenses and some are OK, a few are good and
maybe one or two are great, in my opinion, but I once borrowed and L series
lens and lo and behold, detail, colour, contrast were far better, post
processing took far less time and effort and I was able to make a far better
print because of the equipment. They also "felt" better, more tactile,
joyously smooth, beautiflly weighted and balanced in the hand. Just using
the thing made me feel good, sad I know but better, if not cheaper, than
drugs or a shrink!
In many cases the equipment is better than the photographer, by far...... or
maybe that's just me!
Granted you need a photographer to choose the direction in which he points
his lens, who chooses the time at which it is best to press the shutter and
make the most appropriate selection of camera controls but the picture is
far more likely to be be better with better equipment than without.
Wish I could afford the best, I can't and it's no big deal but I don't kid
myself that my images would not benefit from a FF sensor, and a set of very
high, "professional" quality lenses that would need a very big bag and
exceedingly strong shoulders to carry about!!!!!!!
Anyone can dream but only a fool ignores the fact that the best is better
than the rest! We may only ever aspire to ownership but it's great to know
that my photograph isn't as good as his because he had this that and the
other. That excuse is a good one till you do have the gear, that's when you
discover how good you really are.... or not.....!
The person behind the lens is very important but ultimately he's more often
disappointed than thrilled at his results, especially with this darned
internet thing showing us "great" with a little searching and "better than
any of mine" on every site. However, as his experience increases and his
gear gets better, if his enjoyment remains the same he's lost nothing, but
if his enjoyment increases and his results improve, who takes the credit,
the man or the gear?
Then when you are seen with some long white lump of hard earned and dearly
paid for lens you are without excuse! Indeed, you are expected to deliver
better images than your mate with something you had just a few years ago.
"....it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.... " I don't
think so! Except for this, the lens doesn't get up an hour before dawn to
get to that specatcular location..... sadly, nor do I as often as I go to
sleep intending to! But, I'm getting better...... so's my gear.
Oh, and I had a 50mm 1.8, now my son has it and I have a 50mm 1.4 and it's
great, far, far superior to the 1.8. Three times better? Easily! Is the
1.2L three or four times better than the 1.4? I don't know but given the
option I'd always have it in preference. I'd buy a 1.2L this afternoon if I
could afford it and if I had everything else I'd like. But I don't and I'm
happy with the 1.4, but I'm able to use flash indoors if I need it, but it's
different for the OP as he doesn't want to use flash so if he doesn't get
the 1.2L it'll be because he can't afford it, not because he doesn't want
it. Mind you, I'm constantly amazed at how little light it takes for the
1.4 to shine so the 1.2 must be amazing!
Cheers
DP
"Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:468de1b3$0$22253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "ji" <jimpict.comcast.net> wrote in message
> newsOWdnXaN24T3WRDbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Hi
>> I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and
>> an
>> f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. The lenses I am writing about are
>> the
>> Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM AF lens (about $1,400) and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
>> lens (about $300) I realize that their is a big difference in quality,
>> but
>> their also is a big difference in price. Would I be getting that much
>> more
>> for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for
>> indoor
>> shots without using my flash.Are there any other good f/1.2 lenses
>> available?
>> Thanks in advance for any reply.
>
> Why not get the Canon EF50mm 1.8. Sharp as a tack photos for around $100.
> Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.
> Paul
>>
>>
>
>
On Jul 6, 12:25 am, "ji" <jimpict.comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi
> I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and an
> f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light.
I have no experience with either lens, but the f/1.2 should collect
36% more light, all else being equal. But sometimes all else is not
equal. If there's a lot of light falloff in the corners with the f/1.2
lens, then you're really only getting f/1.2 in the center of the
image.
On Jul 6, 6:53 pm, "Addenuff" <addenuff_NO_SP...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This nonsense about the photographer and his/her equipment is just that. I
> can take pictures with my old lenses and some are OK, a few are good and
> maybe one or two are great, in my opinion, but I once borrowed and L series
> lens and lo and behold, detail, colour, contrast were far better, post
> processing took far less time and effort and I was able to make a far better
> print because of the equipment.
Out of curiosity, what lenses are we talking about? The difference
between my worst and best lenses are far from as dramatic as you say
(but I don't have any bad lenses).
> But I don't and I'm
> happy with the 1.4, but I'm able to use flash indoors if I need it, but it's
> different for the OP as he doesn't want to use flash so if he doesn't get
> the 1.2L it'll be because he can't afford it, not because he doesn't want
> it. Mind you, I'm constantly amazed at how little light it takes for the
> 1.4 to shine so the 1.2 must be amazing!
It's 1/5 stop faster. So if you would have needed 1/100s with an f-
stop of f/1.4, you'll be able to use 1/115s with an f-stop of f/1.2.
As for optical performance, I have never used either (I don't have a
canon camera), but one can look at eg photozone.de for tests or just
find full-size photographs on the web and look at them.
"Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:468de1b3$0$22253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Why not get the Canon EF50mm 1.8. Sharp as a tack photos for around $100.
> Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.
There is probably not that much difference in picture quality between the
1.8, 1.4 & 1.2, but as with all lenses you will pay a *lot* more for the
faster glass, and will get those low light shots without having to lower
shutter speed or increase ISO, so in demanding situations the fast glass
will always win. Just be prepared to pay a lot of money and be prepared to
lug around quite a heavy lens (compared with standard 50's).
> It's 1/5 stop faster. So if you would have needed 1/100s with an f-
> stop of f/1.4, you'll be able to use 1/115s with an f-stop of f/1.2.
> As for optical performance, I have never used either (I don't have a
> canon camera), but one can look at eg photozone.de for tests or just
> find full-size photographs on the web and look at them.
>
I'm not all that good with numbers, but if my math is correct, it is about
1/2 stop faster: f/1.0 would be a full stop faster.
On Jul 6, 11:02 pm, "Eric Miller" <millerericnos...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> > It's 1/5 stop faster. So if you would have needed 1/100s with an f-
> > stop of f/1.4, you'll be able to use 1/115s with an f-stop of f/1.2.
> > As for optical performance, I have never used either (I don't have a
> > canon camera), but one can look at eg photozone.de for tests or just
> > find full-size photographs on the web and look at them.
>
> I'm not all that good with numbers, but if my math is correct, it is about
> 1/2 stop faster: f/1.0 would be a full stop faster.
>
> Eric Millerwww.dyesscreek.com
Oops yes, I forgot to multiply by 2; so it's .44 stops (and not .22
stops as I said), ie close to 1/2 stop indeed; it'll let you use
1/140s instead of 1/100s, or ISO 1000 instead of 1400 etc. Thanks!
On Jul 6, 10:53 am, "Addenuff" <addenuff_NO_SP...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Paul,
>
> "Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself."
>
> Rubbish
>
> No matter how good you are behind the lens a poor lens is a poor lens, a
> good lens is a good lens and an L series Canon lens is something else.
>
> If it were "the person behind the lens more than the lens itself." do you
> really think so many Canon lens users (and Nikon ones with Nikons "better"
> lenses) would save and spend on a L series lenses when something of similar
> focal length, if not aperture could be bought for far less? I know,
> there'll always be those with more money than sense but the rest of us will
> always struggle to afford the best...... and appreciate it when we
> eventually part with an bucket full of cash for a rather small, slightly
> heavier box containing our latest fix of reinvigourated enthusiasm and head
> full of inspiration for the eagerly anticipated great pictures......
>
> This nonsense about the photographer and his/her equipment is just that. I
> can take pictures with my old lenses and some are OK, a few are good and
> maybe one or two are great, in my opinion, but I once borrowed and L series
> lens and lo and behold, detail, colour, contrast were far better, post
> processing took far less time and effort and I was able to make a far better
> print because of the equipment. They also "felt" better, more tactile,
> joyously smooth, beautiflly weighted and balanced in the hand. Just using
> the thing made me feel good, sad I know but better, if not cheaper, than
> drugs or a shrink!
>
> In many cases the equipment is better than the photographer, by far...... or
> maybe that's just me!
>
> Granted you need a photographer to choose the direction in which he points
> his lens, who chooses the time at which it is best to press the shutter and
> make the most appropriate selection of camera controls but the picture is
> far more likely to be be better with better equipment than without.
>
> Wish I could afford the best, I can't and it's no big deal but I don't kid
> myself that my images would not benefit from a FF sensor, and a set of very
> high, "professional" quality lenses that would need a very big bag and
> exceedingly strong shoulders to carry about!!!!!!!
>
> Anyone can dream but only a fool ignores the fact that the best is better
> than the rest! We may only ever aspire to ownership but it's great to know
> that my photograph isn't as good as his because he had this that and the
> other. That excuse is a good one till you do have the gear, that's when you
> discover how good you really are.... or not.....!
>
> The person behind the lens is very important but ultimately he's more often
> disappointed than thrilled at his results, especially with this darned
> internet thing showing us "great" with a little searching and "better than
> any of mine" on every site. However, as his experience increases and his
> gear gets better, if his enjoyment remains the same he's lost nothing, but
> if his enjoyment increases and his results improve, who takes the credit,
> the man or the gear?
> Then when you are seen with some long white lump of hard earned and dearly
> paid for lens you are without excuse! Indeed, you are expected to deliver
> better images than your mate with something you had just a few years ago.
>
> "....it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.... " I don't
> think so! Except for this, the lens doesn't get up an hour before dawn to
> get to that specatcular location..... sadly, nor do I as often as I go to
> sleep intending to! But, I'm getting better...... so's my gear.
>
> Oh, and I had a 50mm 1.8, now my son has it and I have a 50mm 1.4 and it's
> great, far, far superior to the 1.8. Three times better? Easily! Is the
> 1.2L three or four times better than the 1.4? I don't know but given the
> option I'd always have it in preference. I'd buy a 1.2L this afternoon if I
> could afford it and if I had everything else I'd like. But I don't and I'm
> happy with the 1.4, but I'm able to use flash indoors if I need it, but it's
> different for the OP as he doesn't want to use flash so if he doesn't get
> the 1.2L it'll be because he can't afford it, not because he doesn't want
> it. Mind you, I'm constantly amazed at how little light it takes for the
> 1.4 to shine so the 1.2 must be amazing!
>
> Cheers
> DP
>
> "Paul Burdett" <pburd...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:468de1b3$0$22253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>
>
> > "ji" <jimpict.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >newsOWdnXaN24T3WRDbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com ...
> >> Hi
> >> I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and
> >> an
> >> f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. The lenses I am writing about are
> >> the
> >> Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM AF lens (about $1,400) and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
> >> lens (about $300) I realize that their is a big difference in quality,
> >> but
> >> their also is a big difference in price. Would I be getting that much
> >> more
> >> for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for
> >> indoor
> >> shots without using my flash.Are there any other good f/1.2 lenses
> >> available?
> >> Thanks in advance for any reply.
>
> > Why not get the Canon EF50mm 1.8. Sharp as a tack photos for around $100.
> > Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.
> > Paul
Gee. I guess all of those old, expensive soft-focus lenses were a
waste of money.
Oh wait, no.
Given the choice of a good photographer with a bad lens and a bad
photographer with a good lens, the photographer will make the
difference every time. Heck, if the photographer is really good, he/
she wouldn't even need a lens to outshoot most people.
50mm, f/1.2 vs f/1.4 
OWdnXaN24T3WRDbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
Linear Mode
