Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       end
  

1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?
  
 
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


boingyman wrote:
Not a waste, although benefits will vary depending on the shooter. Situations where I would prefer a 24L/35L over a 24 2.8 IS/35 2 IS are weddings, portraits, astrophotography, low light, basically almost everything except for maybe street photography and a few other situations. Weigh the pros and cons that applies to you (don't overthink it though as you can always find a scenario where a certain feature can be beneficial) then ask yourself if its worth the cost or not.


Great practical advice - consider your own particular needs and don't overthink it. :-)

Dan



Oct 07, 2013 at 04:53 PM
Kisutch
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I usually rely on lighting and composition to isolate my subject, so I find myself shooting at f/5.6-f/8 most the time. However, even though I don't use wide apertures for 95% of my shooting, I appreciate having the option when I need it. I like 4wd cars even though I'm on pavement 99% of the time.


Oct 07, 2013 at 05:15 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


chez wrote:
It's also great for tight street scenes or environmental photos. What you should say is that is sucks for YOU as a general walk around lens. I think it is great for tight market shots if you want to get a very close perspective of the people along with their environment.


IMO IMO IMO IMO

You did see that right?



Oct 07, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


garyvot wrote:
There is a common belief that 'L' lenses are always superior optically to non-'L' lenses. However, I don't think this was ever really the intent of the 'L' lens program at Canon...


Personally, I think that program needs tightening up. IMO all L lenses should meet certain criteria in terms of build and optical quality, warranties, and weather sealing.



Oct 08, 2013 at 12:47 AM
chez
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Pixel Perfect wrote:
IMO IMO IMO IMO

You did see that right?


Of course it's your opinion...you are after all the one who wrote it. Sure in hell it's not my opinion. You obviously don't shoot tight in low light...so like I said, a wide fast lens is not for YOU, because of how you shoot. But in your opinion, people who shoot natural light scenes close up and include the surrounding environment...is this a valid type of lens? Shooting theatre or concerts up close, shooting markets scenes in low light, shooting street performers up close within the actual street environment...a wide fast lens is indispensable.



Oct 08, 2013 at 01:20 AM
Dave_EP
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Pixel Perfect wrote:
24mm sucks as a general walk-around lens IMO and not even f/1.0 would save it and for 35mm, f/1.2 would be better. Just too much DoF on a 24mm even wide open unless you are close to mfd and just way to much FoV. Great for landscape, but you don't need f/1.4 for that.


Quite true, but then I've never used the 24/1.4 as a walkabout lens, I've used it when in really low light, at higher ISO and when I'm up close. There have been plenty of times when I've needed the 24 or 35 @ 1.4 and still been pushing ISO2000-4000. No chance of adding extra light in some situations either.

For 'walkabout' I have the 24-105L, but that would suck big time in close quarters and really low light.

So, no, 24 / 35 @ 1.4 is not a waste, in fact I rarely use them above f2.0.



Oct 08, 2013 at 10:01 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


chez wrote:
...Shooting theatre or concerts up close, shooting markets scenes in low light, shooting street performers up close within the actual street environment...a wide fast lens is indispensable.


... or a camera that does a clean ISO 12,800.



Oct 08, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


jcolwell wrote:
... or a camera that does a clean ISO 12,800.



As I patiently wait for the NEX 9 and an EF adaptor.



Oct 08, 2013 at 12:56 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


jcolwell wrote:
... or a camera that does a clean ISO 12,800.


I've some pretty decent luck with this using cameras that do a decent 800-3200. (In my case that means the 5DII and the Fujifilm X-E1).

The first two (in an earlier post in this discussion thread: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1245604/1#11846926) were both shot handheld with the 5D2. The first was at ISO 3200 using the 24-70 II. The second was shot at ISO 1600 using the 70-200mm f/4.

The one attached to this message was shot handheld using the Fujifilm X-E1 at ISO 6400 with the 35mm f/1.4 lens, in conditions so dark that most people weren't even aware I was making photographs... and those who were aware thought that my flash was malfunctioning. ;-)

In all honesty, you don't get a "clean" image at such high ISOs, but you can get a very good one that makes a fine photograph with a bit of work in post.

(Thanks to JColwell for the gentle reminder that I had already posted the first two earlier in this thread. :-)

Dan







Edited on Oct 08, 2013 at 02:46 PM · View previous versions



Oct 08, 2013 at 02:35 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Dan, that's like deja vu, all over again.


Oct 08, 2013 at 02:38 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


jcolwell wrote:
Dan, that's like deja vu, all over again.


Ah, oops. Forgot that I shared them in this thread already - so thanks for the polite reminder. I've replaced the two duplicates with a link back to the earlier message. Taking your point to heart, I'm tossing in another high ISO "bonus photograph" that some with a sense of photographic history and knowledge of the art might enjoy.

Can you identify the four individuals shown in this photograph? A hint: The group posed for a photograph at the end of a lecture by Alan Ross on Ansel Adams at the Center for Photographic Arts in Carmel, California recently.

(Techie stuff - Fujifilm X-E1 at ISO 3200 using the 55-200mm lens at f/5.6 and about 110mm. Yes, handheld.)

Take care,

Dan








Oct 08, 2013 at 02:41 PM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I'm scratching my head here wondering why someone would diss an extra stop. More light is more light. What you do with it or even what you don't do by never using its capabilities is the photographer's choice. There is no "one lens to rule the all."

I do some pretty odd things with my 35L like shoot volleyball and basketball in exceedingly dim gyms where I'm trying to keep my ISO down to 3200. I regularly work at f-stops well below f/2.8. Sometimes it's too dark for even my 135mm f/2.0L My other "sport" lens is the 85mm f/1.8. Not an L but a h*ll of a lens (particularly at <$500). The 35 and the 135 acquire focus slightly faster, but the 85 at 1.8 is no slouch.

The whole bokeh/background blur arguement is old and has been hashed over many times here. (H*ll, I don't think there is even agreement as to its spelling. My understanding is that it is taken from the Japanese word for blur.) Correct me if I'm wrong but (1) there is no universal agreement on what the terms mean, and (2) whatever it is it's not scientifically measurable. Since it is a subjective judgement - well the argument continues.

I've found the low light capabilities of the 35mm f/1.4L to be both useful and excellent. The Sigma might be better but since they're just tools and that's a lot of money to test another tool against one that works well, <shrug> arguing about it seems a waste. If one doesn't have a fast 35 then certainly look both over.

Also, if you don't want/need a "fast" 35 then buy the 24-70 f/2.8L. I have the older version which is quite competent and everyone thinks the newer one will cut glass. Lots of choices. What are you taking pictures of?

Robert



Oct 08, 2013 at 05:49 PM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


OntheRez wrote:
I'm scratching my head here wondering why someone would diss an extra stop. More light is more light. What you do with it or even what you don't do by never using its capabilities is the photographer's choice. There is no "one lens to rule the all."

I do some pretty odd things with my 35L like shoot volleyball and basketball in exceedingly dim gyms where I'm trying to keep my ISO down to 3200. I regularly work at f-stops well below f/2.8. Sometimes it's too dark for even my 135mm f/2.0L My other "sport" lens is the 85mm f/1.8. Not
...Show more


An extra stop is always a benefit especially when the lens is sharp wide open but that was not really the discussion.



Oct 08, 2013 at 06:30 PM
chez
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


popinvasion wrote:
An extra stop is always a benefit especially when the lens is sharp wide open but that was not really the discussion.


I thought that was the discussion. Weren't you wondering out loud why someone would choose a wide fast prime over say a 35f2 IS lens. I think Robert is bang on the money with his reply.



Oct 08, 2013 at 06:58 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


OntheRez wrote:
The whole bokeh/background blur arguement is old and has been hashed over many times here. (H*ll, I don't think there is even agreement as to its spelling. My understanding is that it is taken from the Japanese word for blur.) Correct me if I'm wrong but (1) there is no universal agreement on what the terms mean, and (2) whatever it is it's not scientifically measurable.
Robert


Background blur and bokeh are not the same. Bokeh is defined as how out of focus points of light are rendered - this is not just any background blur. Bokeh can be seen in round (or as bad bokeh in donut-shaped) circles of light. Bokeh derives from parameters like lens construction and used aperture (the more wide open the aperture, the better normally the bokeh).You might be able to measure the roundness of the bokeh circles - the more round, the better. But I am also not aware that there exists a physical parameter which defines bokeh of a given lens.



Oct 08, 2013 at 07:06 PM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


chez wrote:
I thought that was the discussion. Weren't you wondering out loud why someone would choose a wide fast prime over say a 35f2 IS lens. I think Robert is bang on the money with his reply.



If you stop down your aperture then the 1.2/1.4 is wasted and most do stop down wide angle lenses. As for the added stop of light, my question originally asked besides the added stop, what is gained by these lenses? and I still believe nothing much.



Oct 08, 2013 at 07:41 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I buy fast lenses to shoot 'em wide open. It's just that all of mine are now 50mm and longer.


Oct 08, 2013 at 08:07 PM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


jcolwell wrote:
I buy fast lenses to shoot 'em wide open. It's just that all of mine are now 50mm and longer.


Makes sense. I am with you.



Oct 08, 2013 at 08:14 PM
chez
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


popinvasion wrote:
If you stop down your aperture then the 1.2/1.4 is wasted and most do stop down wide angle lenses. As for the added stop of light, my question originally asked besides the added stop, what is gained by these lenses? and I still believe nothing much.


Well what else were you looking for? Obviously a fast lens allows you to shoot in lower light...what else did you expect? And no, I don't glue my 24L to 1.4...I use the most appropriate aperture for the shot. Sometimes I require more depth of field in the shot, so I stop it down if conditions allow. Having the fast aperture just gives you more options.

For the slower IS based lens, I'm looking very seriously at the Tamron 24-70 which has VC and image quality rivaling the slower IS primes in it's range.



Oct 08, 2013 at 08:21 PM
chez
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


jcolwell wrote:
I buy fast lenses to shoot 'em wide open. It's just that all of mine are now 50mm and longer.


That's like saying my I use my 100-400 at 400 all the time.



Oct 08, 2013 at 08:22 PM
1       2      
3
       4       5       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password