gdanmitchell wrote:
Let me start with the last point about “bird forums.” I think this thread must have gotten cross-posted into multiple forums, something that isn’t always immediately apparent — and not everyone is coming from the bird photograph perspective.
But let’s use that for a moment. It is true that many bird photographers like to use large aperture telephotos. (But not likely f/1.4 or f/1.2 in most cases, as those lenses are most often too short.) The advantage here is primarily, I would argue as a bird photographer, that we often workin marginal light with moving subjects, thus potentially tilting the trade-offs to favor larger apertures (and consequently shorter exposures) to deal with this. On the other hand, using a super large aperture creates (as we know) DOF issues. I quite often have to use smaller apertures (f/11 or f/16) if more than one bird appears in the frame if I want them both to be reasonably sharp.
As in all things, it is a trade-off. Here we trade off among keeping the shutter speed up (good), keeping the ISO lower (can be good), and ending up with DOF problems (not so fun).
- - -
As to the point about the usefulness of larger apertures (illustrated by the Apple cinematic mode), it is certainly true that larger apertures help balance the sharpness of the subject with the desired softness of background (and sometimes foreground) elements. But it is not true that the very largest aperture is ideal. Again, at f/1.4 or f/1.2 (or larger!) you can end up with an extremely narrow DOF, so narrow that both of a subject’s eyes may not be in focus, etc. That kind of DOF can be used effectively, but more often I think we’d find that a slightly smaller aperture turns out to be the better choice. That’s certainly my experience with street photography.
- - -
Again, I think the important thing here is to avoid falling into the “bigger is always better” trap when it comes to aperture. (Along with a bunch of other photographic stuff, by the way.) It MAY be better in some situations and if your photography focuses on those things… but the value may be quite marginal or even negative on balance if not.
As with so many questions of this type, neither “yes” nor “no” answer the question correctly. The better answer is “it depends.”
- - -
FWIW, my most-used street photography lens, including for my urban night photographs is a very small f/2.8 lens that is optically excellent. Again, “it depends.”
- - -
My eyes glaze over immediately when I see someone resort to the “better rendering” stuff. ;-)...Show more →
Dan,
I said bird forum because IMO for a Canon gear forum there sure seems to be a ton of bird photographers who post bird shots at small apertures.
As for large aperture preference everyone is different. You might not think f/1.2 is the best aperture for your style but I know plenty of people who wouldn't care if their lenses were locked at f/1.2 or whatever the max aperture is. I had my EF 135/2 glued to one of my 5D's for years and I wouldn't have cared if that lens was a fixed f/2. That's why they buy these lenses, so they can use them at those large apertures. They wouldn't exist if everyone thought it was best to shoot at smaller apertures like you.
Why does an EF 200 f/2 exist and fetch $3500 when you can just buy an RF 100-400 for $650 and shoot 200mm at F8 and have all the other focal lengths included? What a bargain, why would anyone ever buy a 200 f/2?
gdanmitchell wrote:
My eyes glaze over immediately when I see someone resort to the “better rendering” stuff. ;-)
And to that I would say enjoy your laugh, but this effect is easily demonstrable and not really subtle. At least, if you are paying attention.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that disavowing rendering as an aspect of lens quality is a bit like disavowing tonality and luminosity in a fine print... Maybe someone else won't notice, but I do.
PIOK wrote:
You can take good photos with a slightly cheaper lens. All you need is a little talent
&t=10s
You don't even need to spend that much, you could use an old EF 85 1.8 and a 5D for less than the cost of that lens alone. Or even older and cheaper yet. And we could all continue this conversation down a rabbit hole all the way beck to how Ansel Adams did with his gear. And how one could capture great images with a pinhole box. Anything is possible if you have the skills.
garyvot wrote:
And to that I would say enjoy your laugh, but this effect is easily demonstrable and not really subtle. At least, if you are paying attention.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that disavowing rendering as an aspect of lens quality is a bit like disavowing tonality and luminosity in a fine print... Maybe someone else won't notice, but I do.
This^^^^ If someone can't see a difference with bokeh, bokeh balls, flare, color, contrast, etc then they are trying really hard not to see it.
PIOK wrote:
You can take good photos with a slightly cheaper lens. All you need is a little talent
artsupreme wrote:
You don't even need to spend that much, you could use an old EF 85 1.8 and a 5D for less than the cost of that lens alone. Or even older and cheaper yet. And we could all continue this conversation down a rabbit hole all the way beck to how Ansel Adams did with his gear. And how one could capture great images with a pinhole box. Anything is possible if you have the skills.
I wonder how many of her 855K subscribers are even looking at the background? By that I mean most people seem to look at the *people* in photos and don't seem to give much thought to the amount of background blur. It's us photographers who appear to mostly obsess over it.
gdanmitchell wrote:
My eyes glaze over immediately when I see someone resort to the “better rendering” stuff. ;-)
garyvot wrote:
And to that I would say enjoy your laugh, but this effect is easily demonstrable and not really subtle. At least, if you are paying attention.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that disavowing rendering as an aspect of lens quality is a bit like disavowing tonality and luminosity in a fine print... Maybe someone else won't notice, but I do.
I agree that rendering/character is a discernible thing. It's a major reason I opted for the massive, heavy, 28-70/2 over the RF 24-70/2.8, because I disliked the latter's wider aperture rendering/character in out of focus regions. And by that, not because the bokeh balls from the 28-70 were larger, but because they were smoother/calmer so that overall background 'rendering' doesn't distract the way more nervous rendering can. I use that lens stopped down quite a lot - half a stop, full stop. 1.5 stops, etc., and its out of focus rendering remains very consistently pleasing.
That said, I used the EF 24-70/2.8 II for a long time and no one complained about the photos. And no one has mentioned anything about the look of my photos from the 28-70. So I could have saved a lot of money and just bought the 24-105/4 instead. But I still had myself to please.
I like thin DOF. Not in all photos, but I do prefer it, as it gives the photo a spatial illusion. DOF is widening the further I focus from the camera. If I want e.g. to put standing person(s) on a landscape oriented photo, I need to be further away, and the DOF will be wider. Hence f/1.2-1.4 lenses which will isolate subjects even at a bit longer distances. I could get the same effect by shooting tele, but that might make me impractically away from the scene for the photoshoot.
artsupreme wrote:
So yes like Sy said, it depends.
Actually… that was my point. In several posts in this thread. ;-)
garyvot wrote:
And to that I would say enjoy your laugh, but this effect is easily demonstrable and not really subtle. At least, if you are paying attention.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that disavowing rendering as an aspect of lens quality is a bit like disavowing tonality and luminosity in a fine print... Maybe someone else won't notice, but I do.
It isn’t easily demonstrable in any but the grossest cases, and most often when someone uses the term in photography forums it is a stand-in for “I like this lens, but I don’t have objective explanations for why it is supposed to superior, so I say I like the rendering.”
Whatever rendering is, it isn’t an objective good/bad thing. At best, it is a way of saying that I like the image that the lens projects, with the emphasis on “I like.”
For fun, what is the definition of “rendering” in the context of a lens, and how is it evaluated? It isn’t a single objective thing like MFT or field curvature or corner falloff, etc.
In any case, whatever “rendering” is or isn’t, there are lenses wiht large, small, and unremarkable maximum apertures that are said by some to possess it.
If they were not of any use to anyone, nobody would be buying them and Canon would not make them. Not for you? I don’t think Canon cares, nor do those that like them.
Imagemaster wrote:
If they were not of any use to anyone, nobody would be buying them and Canon would not make them. Not for you? I don’t think Canon cares, nor do those that like them.
The same can be said for a wide variety of vanity or luxury goods. Doesn’t mean they are objectively superior to more commonplace versions thereof.
A $400 Louis Vuitton wallet can hold my cards as well as a $25 Fossil wallet. Does being 16x more expensive make it objectively better? I mean, there’s a certain warm and fuzzy feeling I get from my LV wallet, but I don’t doubt the Fossil wallet is just as good at holding cards.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Actually… that was my point. In several posts in this thread. ;-)
It isn’t easily demonstrable in any but the grossest cases, and most often when someone uses the term in photography forums it is a stand-in for “I like this lens, but I don’t have objective explanations for why it is supposed to superior, so I say I like the rendering.”
Whatever rendering is, it isn’t an objective good/bad thing. At best, it is a way of saying that I like the image that the lens projects, with the emphasis on “I like.”
For fun, what is the definition of “rendering” in the context of a lens, and how is it evaluated? It isn’t a single objective thing like MFT or field curvature or corner falloff, etc.
In any case, whatever “rendering” is or isn’t, there are lenses wiht large, small, and unremarkable maximum apertures that are said by some to possess it.
One can get an idea of how rendering/character of certain aspects of a lens may appear in images based on MTF curves. For example, divergent sagittal and tangential lines towards the image periphery likely will be astigmatism, which in out of focus regions usually manifests as 'nervous' blur or Nisen bokeh (double edged lines). Field curvature will also affect out of focus regions, as will corner falloff. Optical vignetting typically decreases the amount/size of blur circles at the image periphery relative to the image center, which means blur quality decreases away from the center. Sometimes this results in a peripheral swirling effect. Specific lenses are marketed to achieve such swirling effects, or 'soap bubble' blur circles (ones with hard edge outlining) like the recent TTArtisans 100/2.8 'Trioplan' clone.
But yes, if i say I like the rendering of a given lens, it's not a quantitative description. It's subjective. It opens a can of worms like saying Zeiss microcontrast and Zeiss 3D pop does on the Canon board.
kakomu wrote:
The same can be said for a wide variety of vanity or luxury goods. Doesn’t mean they are objectively superior to more commonplace versions thereof.
I didn't say they were objectively superior to more commonplace versions thereof , did I?
And I don't complain about how much you spend on any wallet. So who are you or anyone else to say that an f/1.2 or f/1.4 is not of any real use for someone else?
Interesting post
I’ve actually stepped away from canon in the past few months because of this very issue.
On the one hand we have all these super fast, bulky and crazy expensive L lenses whereas on the other hand we’ve got still expensive but stupidly slow plastic consumer lenses…there’s no middle ground.
I’ve been a canon user for over 30yrs, I admit I was once a brand snob…it had to be canon or nothing.
But since they took away all the options and instead rammed the R line down our throats…I’ve simply walked away.
Both ef-s and ef-m - especially ef-m - were promising, yet both were let down by canons dire lens offering. We are now expected to start over again on the RF-s line yet the lens selection is even worse. No sign of nice primes or fast zooms just the same old slow zooms at even higher prices.
My canon gear is now mothballed up, not sure what I’ll do with it all (passed caring tbh). I have no loyalty whatsoever towards canon these days. It’s almost like all the lower cost stuff 😂 (too funny) is basically there to suck you in, knowing that once invested you’ll soon become frustrated and want better…. I suspect canon really wants ALL RF-s users to eventually move up to full frame and the BIG L glass.
They obviously didn’t realise that many don’t want the big stuff, but would prefer a smaller system.
In your shoes I’d take a good look elsewhere before buying into the Canon ecosystem….I really would.
rscheffler wrote:
One can get an idea of how rendering/character of certain aspects of a lens may appear in images based on MTF curves. For example, divergent sagittal and tangential lines towards the image periphery likely will be astigmatism, which in out of focus regions usually manifests as 'nervous' blur or Nisen bokeh (double edged lines). Field curvature will also affect out of focus regions, as will corner falloff. Optical vignetting typically decreases the amount/size of blur circles at the image periphery relative to the image center, which means blur quality decreases away from the center. Sometimes this results in a peripheral swirling effect. Specific lenses are marketed to achieve such swirling effects, or 'soap bubble' blur circles (ones with hard edge outlining) like the recent TTArtisans 100/2.8 'Trioplan' clone.
But yes, if i say I like the rendering of a given lens, it's not a quantitative description. It's subjective. It opens a can of worms like saying Zeiss microcontrast and Zeiss 3D pop does on the Canon board. ...Show more →
I agree that how one *perceives* different rendering is subjective, but the differences are not illusory. (Ron, I know you and I agree about this.)
As a quick and dirty example to illustrate my earlier point, here are two snapshots taken in my kitchen with my R6 Mark II. The top frame is with an EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, and the bottom frame with the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM. Both are captured at f/2.0.
If we were to zoom into the center, you would see the expected reduced softness and increased chromatic aberration in the nifty fifty example. But more germane is the difference in background rendering, which can be easily seen in how each lens draws the out of focus string lights hanging from the railing on my deck.
Since both of these images are shot at the same f/2 aperture from the same distance using a common focal length, you would expect a similar appearance in the defocused background. But the more expensive lens draws the out of focus region in a decidedly softer (dare I say, "more pleasing") manner. This is an aspect of "rendering".
(It's worth noting that the zoom is actually at a bit of a disadvantage here, because magnification is reduced some at this distance due to focus breathing, and I cropped a bit to compensate.)
Top: EF 50mm f/1.8 STM; Bottom: RF 28-70mm f/2L USM
Also for the "3 eyelash" crowd, that's how you use f/1.2. I'm sure most of these were shot wide open, but if you still have doubt you can see on page two Elijah included the exif. Are only 3 of their eyelashes in focus?
The point was - you've got to know when and how to use that shallow DOF to your advantage. Distance to your subject. Having everything you want in-focus in the same plane, choosing the right focus point (and having a camera that can reliably hit that point). There are photographers who do it all the time. And a some newer ones or those new to wide apertures who miss.
It also depends on how closely you view some of the photos. A few of those examples, if you had full res on a big monitor, I'm sure you could see that one or more of the faces was in soft focus due to DOF. So if you're a pixel peeper, you may not be happy with that. The overall presentation is beautiful, but some require technical perfection. So your willingness to accept the soft fade of the DOF will also determine how often and how aggressively you use your ultra wide aperture.
Its a tool in the tool box. Worth having if you ask me, but which can be over or mis-used.
I have the old EF 85 1.2 L. I rarely use it - especially at f1.2.
At f1.2 the dof is so small that if you get one eye focussed the other is not.
At f1.2 the dof is so small that your focus has to be perfect and if the subject is moving it might not be
At f2.0 on the same lens it is sharper. Most lens are sharper when stopped down 1-2 stops. Thus at 1.4 it is sharper than a 1.4 or 1.8.
The lens is sharp in the middle but less at the edges at f1.2 - which is likely caused by the pursuit of 1.2 and its audience is portraiture where the subject is large in the middle and the edges don't matter.
It has nice bokeh.
So my view (landscape focussed and sometimes grandpa shooting grandson) is f1.2 advantages are:
For those that shoot in studio where they can control the subject movement and pose - portraiture.
But for me, f1.2 is too tight handheld with my grandson and I don't like the eye in focus with the nose blurred.
At f2 it's really sharp and most lens sharpen up when stopped down. So shooting a scene in the dark at f2 with this lens results in sharp pictures and low ISO. And for my grandson, at f2 it become wide dof and is useful in low light.
I keep the lens because it's not worth much anymore and sometimes it's useful. But f1.4 would. be just about as good - for my uses.
You can easily use the same lens at f1.2 taking a few steps back and get the look of a 1.2 lens.
I have a 600mm f4 lens and 99% of the time it stays at f4. The dof is super shallow for tiny birds at close range, but large for bigger subjects at greater distance. I can shoot it at f8 or f11 for those subjects at close range, but I still favor the look of a 600mm f4 over getting the whole bird in focus.
Sure, I'd rather have the option of 1.2, in case I need to get rid of a bad bg etc, but it is more of a head shot FL for me, and that leaves about 3 eyelashes in focus or one eye. most of the photos in the thread posted are further back.
I am at least a little surprised no one has mentioned it is generally a bad idea to pose people flat to the camera. Faces maybe OK, body almost never. Posing people flat to the camera one way to mitigate the shallow dof
I have no idea what rendering is, exactly, maybe some, is it bokeh, color etc (?) ,so I looked at a rendering thread. They didn't seem to have any idea, either, no definitive samples posted demonstrating it IIRC. If anyone has samples I'd be interested
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,
If the subject is reasonably close, yes. Sometimes subjects are unreasonably far away. :-)
sencarna wrote:
then higher apertures are required if you want the plane of focus to encompass the subject's depth
If that's what you want, yes, that's a limiting factor when using larger apertures. A longer FL helps. And I don't always need that plane of focus to encompass the subject. Strictly speaking a plane can't even do that. And strictly speaking there's no depth of field anyway. So it's all about what sharpness levels are acceptable to the viewer. Some might want to have the ears in focus sometimes. But it's also a matter of perception: If the plane of focus is right the perceived sharpness levels beyond and in front of it can be easily enough as our perception can be very forgiving in this regard.
sencarna wrote:
- 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,
I guess that's an answer. It can be nice sometimes.
sencarna wrote:
but context is also great for storytelling.
Yes, and context can be very annoying, and a large aperture at least gives you the option to have some control over it.
sencarna wrote:
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.
I think the RF 35&85mm stm lenses do give a pretty good IQ performance wide open for the size and price. I would want L for better AF, but not so much for IQ.
Archive 2024 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?
