Here obviously, I get into the reasons why one would want to consider the f1 range of lens choices vs f2 range of lens choices.
Obviously, there are also others to consider - many others. I have owned and used the Fuji 56 f1.2 lens in concert photography also. But besides that lens, there's Viltrox and Sigma f1.4 lenses in this range for Fuji.
What I think is critical to me are probably the same things for most of you: fast af and follow fast AF - plus IQ. IQ matters when the DOF is this thin in a f1.0 lens. What is acceptable sharpness vs tack sharp - becomes a factor to consider. If you can shoot at 5000 ISO vs 12,800 - does that become more important than the relatively wider DOF of f2? Well, with the f1.0 lens, you can always shoot at f2 if you want. But with an F2 lens, you can't open up any more than f2.
pasblues wrote:
Can you expand on what you are saying so I can understand "transmission efficiency"?
I believe that lbloom is referring to the change in the ISO value. All things equal the ISO should drop to 3200 with a 2 stop faster lens, but it only dropped 1 1/3 stops. That being said since it's not a static pose I don't think you can draw firm conclusions. It seems to me that the singers body changed angle slightly resulting in a more shaded black sweater in the center of the frame. As a result it looks to me that the f1.0 is slightly more exposed as shows in the highlights on the face and the sign in the back.
CVickery wrote:
I believe that lbloom is referring to the change in the ISO value. All things equal the ISO should drop to 3200 with a 2 stop faster lens, but it only dropped 1 1/3 stops. That being said since it's not a static pose I don't think you can draw firm conclusions. It seems to me that the singers body changed angle slightly resulting in a more shaded black sweater in the center of the frame. As a result it looks to me that the f1.0 is slightly more exposed as shows in the highlights on the face and the sign in the back. ...Show more →
Yes, the lights were changing a bit also - not a lot but perhaps a little. I was just spit balling the exposure difference by looking at it. Nothing I'm doing is scientific or intended to be. I changed lenses on the same body and tried to stay in the same position but I was not using a tripod.
Another possible takeaway is: "Why choose a faster lens for low light photography when you can just change the ISO?"
lbloom wrote:
Understood, that's why I take it as one indication/data point. I fully expect a transmission hit from all that glass relative to the 50/2.
To me, the rendering is the primary reason for this class of lens, with a moderate boost in speed.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for mentioning rendering. I think that sometimes (and I'm guilty of this as well), we can put our minds narrowly into trying to make apples to apples comparisons based solely on focal length or f-stop or, you know, pick something. There's something wonderful about a greatly designed, engineered lens that - in the crowded market of choices - can sometimes be missed.
I'll tell you another lens that has gotten under my skin is the 90mm f2. It's a real standout. Every time I use it, I can look at previews on the computer and see the 90 f2 sharpness and rendering jump out at me.
Two drunk guys throwing backs shots saying what are the best and worst of the year. Entertaining.
So, moving on, here are some shots from the undefeated Lansing girls HS basketball. I included a series so you could see how it was working on follow focus. Where f1.0 may be too shallow for some, if there is room in the exposure, opening up to f2 allows for more DOF on more players. It's. point of choice and perhaps taste. I found that the quality of the lens helped hold the images together to an acceptable focus. Sharper can always be achieved with auxiliary lighting of course. But the lens is no doubt sharp and responsive for sports action as long as one works with the focus tracking menu options that work best for that photographer. The performance is best also, for me, with the updated firmware with the X-T4 optimized to work with the 50mm f1.0.
X-T4 files are really nice - croppable - and I believe the 50mm f1.0 benefits from the IBIS.
The only shots taken in the study of this series were by the players on the court.
That little girl is a sweetheart! I love the apparent reach/look of this lens and it's bokeh in low light is quite nice.
I have a daughter and grandsons in Phoenix! Where did you manage to find your 50mm f1.0? It hasn't hit the NY houses yet and it's been months.
I got mine from a small shop out of Washington state. I'm just not seeing very many people who've managed to snag one yet.
This time, I decided to add in the a6500 which does a decent 11fps and has eyeAF. Surprised me. Especially with the Sigma 105 f1.4 on it. It performed well.
Also through a 200mm f2.8 Canon on the X-T4 with a Fringer Pro. Again, some surprising results. Also, the 200mm on a Canon 1DX as I work through what gear is most responsive and how to adjust myself and the settings to exploit the best results.
I continue to work with the 50mm f1.0 on the X-T4.
The X-T4 and the 50mm f1.0 continue to do well at basketball as I get better at choosing settings with this body and lens.
A perplexing winner in this series of testings, though, has consistently been the a6500 - lol - nobody even thinks about that camera when it comes to sports. But its capable AF tracking and 11fps and the crop sensor ability to bring a shorter lens view 50% closer - I've found myself reaching for it. Plus, it's small. Coupled with the Siggy 105, the results are pretty, even if I close down for a bit more DOF and add some ISO.
Then, just for fun, I thought I'd try out the Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f1.2 on a Techart Pro. Getting the focus fairly within range manually and letting the adapter close the deal, it was a fun lens on the a6500. The EXIF data shows a 40mm SAM lens but for some reason the camera reads an adapted lens that way. I've corrected it in the caption. The rest of the EXIF data info is correct.
ILCE a6500 + MF Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 @f2 + Techart Pro AF adapter
I got mine about a week ago. It's an interesting lens, but not sure it's a keeper. Bokeh and sharpness are good. It's just very "un-Fuji" in that it's a huge chunk of glass to heft around on an X-T4. These are some raws exported from C1 with just exposure corrections.
This lens doesn’t seem to get much love within the Fuji community. Do we have any more examples of what this lens is capable of? I personally love what I have seen from the little that is out there. The lens seems to have a really pleasing character - ideal for portraits.
