I would like get your opinions on wether the aforementioned apertures are necessary at all. I understand that such wide apertures are useful to maintain subject separation when focusing near infinity; however, if the subject is reasonably close, then higher apertures are required if you want the plane of focus to encompass the subject's depth - and not have like only the eyes and lips in focus, for example. They also gather more light and prevent handshake in a pinch, but at the expense of depth of field, rendering the background into a bokeh oblivion, which can be nice sometimes, but context is also great for storytelling.
It is annoying that Canon is pumping out all these f/1.2 unwieldy lenses, yet their f/1.8 options leave much to be desired. I believe that f/1.8 is a great max aperture. This aperture optimized for image quality will still be considerably lighter and cheaper, therefore, providing more value for photographers. A Canon RF 50mm f/1.8L, anyone? (or an 85mm, 24mm, etc.)
It would be great to hear both pro and amateur/hobbyist's opinions about this.
Usually the big lenses are well-corrected optics so besides the subject seperation, you have less problems like purple fringing, flare, ghosting, and when stopped down they get better to the extreme corners, which help you get sharp and details pictures.
For my own use, I use those big lenses for wide field night sky, I don't have to deal with star aberrations like coma, stars with wings... and I'm now waiting for the RF 35mm f/1.2L with BR Optics, would be the ultimate night sky lens for me, to replace the EF35mmLii.
Hope it help, and please don't mind my poor English.
Depends. A 35mm f1.4 lens has enough dof at relatively short distances. You can shoot easily one person at 1.4. For group shots I need to stop it down to f4/f5.6 so it depends on your shooting style.
It appears you are focused on portraits and people photography, from that perspective maybe not. I rarely shoot people, I often shoot in the garden, out in the wilderness, city scapes natural and man made objects such as statues where I prefer using F1.2 to seperate the background.
I also do nighttime shooting where large depths of field is not needed.
As an aside my Canon EF 50mm F1.0 is often used with extension tubes getting closeup to a flower to get a buttery creamy background. Many of my shots would lose that uniqueness what I wish to capture if I was forced up to F1.8. Furthermore I will shoot from a distance and I like the separation the RF 1.2L lenses give me.
Recently I got my Voigtlander RF 50/1.0 I love shooting with it at 1.0.
I will agree always shooting at F1,1.2,1.4 is not something I do I like shooting at other apertures but if I was limited to F1.8 or higher it would take away different options.
sencarna wrote:
I would like get your opinions on wether the aforementioned apertures are necessary at all. I understand that such wide apertures are useful to maintain subject separation when focusing near infinity; however, if the subject is reasonably close, then higher apertures are required if you want the plane of focus to encompass the subject's depth - and not have like only the eyes and lips in focus, for example. They also gather more light and prevent handshake in a pinch, but at the expense of depth of field, rendering the background into a bokeh oblivion, which can be nice sometimes, but context is also great for storytelling.
It is annoying that Canon is pumping out all these f/1.2 unwieldy lenses, yet their f/1.8 options leave much to be desired. I believe that f/1.8 is a great max aperture. This aperture optimized for image quality will still be considerably lighter and cheaper, therefore, providing more value for photographers. A Canon RF 50mm f/1.8L, anyone? (or an 85mm, 24mm, etc.)
It would be great to hear both pro and amateur/hobbyist's opinions about this.
IMO such fast lenses still have some technical benefits over slower options, such as when working in low light conditions it allows more light transmitted to the sensor to better facilitate AF, and of course use of lower ISO for lower noise images. Or higher shutter speeds to better freeze motion.
In my own work there are still times when a fast lens is technically beneficial, such as certain social events/functions where ambient light is low and use of strobe would be distracting, impractical or would result in images with a completely different ambience.
That said, for the above work I definitely 'get by' with the 'limitations' of f/1.8 and f/2 (RF 135 & 28-70). The technical capabilities of current imaging technology are excellent compared to past decades and extremely fast lenses are no longer absolutely necessary. IMO such lenses exist as much for the above reasons as they do to be 'halo' or showpiece products that one-up the competition for marketing purposes, just because they can, rather than because they should. Consumers are also part of the problem, having been led to believe that given the choice, faster lenses are always better. IMO the reason faster lenses might be better than slower versions in a brand's lineup is because the resources have been put into making them as good as possible, whereas slower lenses have often been made to considerably lower price points without benefitting from the same degree of optimization.
I agree with you that lenses in the f/2 range would offer a nice balance of speed, size, price, etc., and high quality versions are sorely lacking from Canon. I would love to see a range of f/2-2.8 compact primes with very high optical performance and high build quality. Companies like Leica and Cosina (Voigtlander brand) prove that you can make such compact, high performance lenses. The question though is whether Canon thinks there is a sufficient enthusiast market willing to pay premium prices for 'slow' lenses.
I used the old classics EF 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 when I was active as a wedding photographer. When those lenses (especially the 85L) were mounted on the 5D Mark II or 1Ds MK3 there was some "magic" going on. I don't really like the word "magic" but it was something special. Dreamy contrast, nice bokeh and juuuust enough sharpness and microcontrast to not ruin a portrait. And all of this painted with the old school canon colors. Every client loved them. Of course I only used them wide open, imo they didn't even need an aperture! I only used them for portraits. Well, almost :-)
I haven't tried the RF versions so I probably shouldn't comment but I have a feeling they are too good/heavily corrected. The examples I've seen online don't give that dreamy look. Sure, technical marvels in every possible way but...there is something missing.
These days I get a bit bored when seeing portraits with supermegashort DOF and buttery bokeh. For some portraits it works (such as weddings) but for general photography I don't think I would recommend it.
IF you buy it, don't make the rookie mistake and use them wideopen for every picture you take. I know it is tempting (since that is what you paid for) but I just browsed some old archives and an entire week of street photography in New York was ruined IMO since I used the 50 at 1.2 the whole time. Because I could! Today those images look sooo boring.
No, they are not necessary at all. But people like them. They like to think that shallow depth of field is better than less shallow, that it means performance at normal apertures will be better than with slower lenses, they have money to spare so like to spend/waste it on "the best" lenses, or simply like buying gear.
I'm still shooting EF lenses and love my Sigma 35/1.4ART, Canon 50L and 85/1.4LIS lenses. I owned the original Canon 35L but wasn't crazy about it, images shot near wide open were soft from edge to edge.
At the risk of over-generalizing, I would say that in the film days, such high-speed lenses were valued more for their ability to capture hand-held images in low light.
As digital camera ISO sensitivities far surpassed film, I think such lenses are valued today more for aesthetic reasons. Wedding and portrait shooters may prefer f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses for their unique rendering when used wide open.
So yes, depending on what (and how) you shoot, these apertures do have value.
I wonder, now that computational "lens blur" has moved beyond the smartphone to mainstream tools like Camera RAW and Lightroom, will more photographers starting to rely on these post-processing effects instead of opting for faster, heavier glass?
sencarna wrote:
...yet their f/1.8 options leave much to be desired.
I'd like to play the devil's advocate and disagree with this a bit. I think Canon's line of STM primes are all solid improvements over EF designs.
They are generally sharper across the field compared to their EF counterparts, have reduced LoCA, and tend to offer more features at given focal lengths. They even make sense as prime choices for APS-C cameras.
I personally would still like to see a mid-tier 50mm f/1.4 from Canon, but I think the current STM primes are pretty solid. The (intentional) optical tradeoffs they do make (chiefly barrel distortion and vignetting) are easily corrected in software, which allows them to be smaller, lighter, and/or faster.
sencarna wrote:
I would like get your opinions on wether the aforementioned apertures are necessary at all. I understand that such wide apertures are useful to maintain subject separation when focusing near infinity; however, if the subject is reasonably close, then higher apertures are required if you want the plane of focus to encompass the subject's depth - and not have like only the eyes and lips in focus, for example. They also gather more light and prevent handshake in a pinch, but at the expense of depth of field, rendering the background into a bokeh oblivion, which can be nice sometimes, but context is also great for storytelling.
It is annoying that Canon is pumping out all these f/1.2 unwieldy lenses, yet their f/1.8 options leave much to be desired. I believe that f/1.8 is a great max aperture. This aperture optimized for image quality will still be considerably lighter and cheaper, therefore, providing more value for photographers. A Canon RF 50mm f/1.8L, anyone? (or an 85mm, 24mm, etc.)
It would be great to hear both pro and amateur/hobbyist's opinions about this.
Absolutely. I don't use them much, and prefer f/8 on portraits to get more than one eye in focus etc. But even I've used 1.4 in low light.
Some people like the 1.4 look, and sometimes you just need to get rid of a bg.
I have a hard time taking critiques of the latest 1.8 Rf lenses seriously, and older EF 50/1.8 & probably 85/1.8 are excellent. There just isn't much performance difference between the top, large 50's and ancient 50/1.8's to make it a meaningful place for Canon to compete imo. Especially if you stop down the inexpensive ones, the performance gains from a 1.8 L probably more at 1.8 and <5.6
rscheffler wrote:
The technical capabilities of current imaging technology are excellent compared to past decades and extremely fast lenses are no longer absolutely necessary. IMO such lenses exist as much for the above reasons as they do to be 'halo' or showpiece products that one-up the competition for marketing purposes, just because they can, rather than because they should. Consumers are also part of the problem, having been led to believe that given the choice, faster lenses are always better.
So true, Most promotions(ads) with consistency shows an 'L' lens attached to a body. "SHOWPIECE PRODUCTS". They market top end equipment. Some consumers fall into the trap that they need the 'L' lenses.
Not shown in promotional items is the lighting equipment used to capture that image. Inexperienced photographers fall into the trap believing they can get the same shot with an 'L' lens. It is not always the consumers fault, I have seen a few sales people upsell a consumer towards an 'L' lens.
We often see comments a lens must be sharp edge to edge. Yet many pictures taken only have the subject covering 2/3rds of the frame. Does it really matter of the lens is sharp edge to edge.
Lost in discussions of what lens should and shouldn't contain is lenses are tools to attain an image, thus there are different tools provided to a photographer. Just like a mechanic who will have different sets of screwdrivers for their tasks.
Photographers are the same different apertures for different tasks.
As to the OP question for an RF 1.8L if there is demand for such a product the manufacturers know if enough people request it they will build it. I see a demand for lighter smaller lenses but it doesn't appear to be the case for 1.8 for 'L' lenses as the minimum vs 1.2. Case in point the rumoured Rf 35/1.4 vs 35/1.2. I hear a lot more wanting 1.2.
sencarna wrote:
I would like get your opinions on wether the aforementioned apertures are necessary at all.
That is a bit like asking if trucks are necessary at all. It depends on what you need to do.
You accurately point out pluses and minuses of large aperture lenses. It really comes down to whether the pluses or minuses loom larger in your particular photography.
There is sometimes a sort of instinctive reaction on the part of some camera aficionados that believes that the bigger the aperture the better the lens. While there are a lot of excellent lenses with large apertures, there are also some fine lenses that don’t go so big.
And sometimes people who instinctive go for the large aperture lenses don’t understand that they are useful in fewer situations than they might think.For example, I do urban street photography at night with handheld cameras. You might imagine that f/1/4 and larger apertures would be the natural choice. (I have some such lenses.) But for street photography there are advantages to smaller and lighter gear, the urban night environment often has enough light to shoot at smaller apertures, and the extremely thin DOF wide open can be an issue. I’m more likely to shoot at f/2-f/4… even at night!
You also accurately point out that there are more ways to get that nice OOF background than just opening up to f/1.2. The relationship between camera-to-subject distance and camera-to-background distance is important, as is the focal length you use.
Portrait shooters and wedding shooters all love the Canon 85 1.2/L, 24-70 2.8/L and the famous 200 2.0/L
B&H has a 200mm 1.8/L...Now there's a lens.
.
But like boldcolors said, these have the dreamy magical effect that clients love.
A lot of good posts here-- basically the really large apertures are but one of many aspects of higher end lenses. You might never use it that wide open, but its there in case you do find yourself trying to handheld shoot one dark night, same as you might never shoot outdoors as a studio photographer, but the lens may feature weather seals, for example.
Every product is a deliberate choice in compromises for quality, cost, and capabilities, and those choices often are used to appeal to different customers. The OP's suggestion of a 50mm f1.8L vs an 50mm f1.8-- it's possible there aren't enough customers who are willing to pay for all of the L lens aspects like increased quality, weather sealing, faster focusing yet still not want an f1.0/1.2/1.4 aperture, even if it was cheaper. Adding in a third option in between means more cost in planning, production, and marketing.
I think this sadly will be our future as enthusiast photographers--manufacturers moving to the edges of the market--more high end lenses like a 135mm f1.8, 28-70 f2.0 etc...and a low end to appeal to vloggers, content creators coming from phones. Canon used to have three lines--there was a line of mid priced lenses with a gold "ribbon" around the front (like the EF50mm f1.4), but I think without the base of point and shoots generating revenue and fewer and fewer overall "system" camera sales, that middle ground has disappeared.
Yes, f/1.2 is not only very useful and a necessity for some, but it's also a very desired look to isolate your subject. Apple wouldn't have created cinematic mode for the world if it wasn't such a desired look. You won't find many fast prime users in this forum as it's more of a bird forum but there is a small sample of people here who use them here.
This has been discussed previously and you are not alone. The small sample in the poll shows that most people want a "mini" set of f/1.8-f/1.4 L primes. My theory on why Canon hasn't released them yet is because they need to milk the profits out of the high end glass first because the f/1.4L's would be 99% of the f/1.2 lens at half the weight and size. I don't think Canon would sell many RF 85 f/1.2's if they had an RF 85 f/1.4L with specs like the Samyang RF 85 1.4. The same goes for the rest of the focal lengths. I'm not buying an RF 50 1.2L when I can buy an RF 50 1.4L at half the size and weight. There are of course people who will still buy the f/1.2 lenses, but not nearly as much if there's a 1.4L alternative.
As for using all the new lens blur software to create background blur I don't see people who use fast glass converting to that and dumping their L collection for slow glass. For me personally, photography would not be fun using slow glass. I like to create the magic out of the camera instead of trying to fake it using software. IMO I see the software blurring being popular with people who use slow glass.
artsupreme wrote:
The small sample in the poll shows that most people want a "mini" set of f/1.8-f/14 L primes.
Sign me up. I want a mini set of f/14 L primes. I am a bit concerned on how much diffraction will be present. Though they should be very small lenses being F14 and I hope there is at least 15 stops of IS.
burningheart wrote: Sign me up. I want a mini set of f/14 L primes. I am a bit concerned on how much diffraction will be present. Though they should be very small lenses being F14 and I hope there is at least 15 stops of IS.
I know typo, I couldn't resist.
When I say "mini" I'm taking into consideration the size of the 1.2 behemoths. For example, if you look at the size of the EF 50 1.4 and assume an RF 50 1.4L would only be slightly bigger, it's still "mini" compared to the RF 50 1.2.
burningheart wrote: Sign me up. I want a mini set of f/14 L primes. I am a bit concerned on how much diffraction will be present. Though they should be very small lenses being F14 and I hope there is at least 15 stops of IS.
Archive 2024 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?
Sign me up. I want a mini set of f/14 L primes. I am a bit concerned on how much diffraction will be present. Though they should be very small lenses being F14 and I hope there is at least 15 stops of IS.
