fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

• Fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

• Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

end

Archive 2024 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Theoretically you might have a point, however, this post was very clear to me:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1841833/2#16447870

Of course you can call it subjective if someone has the opinion the rendering from the L lens is better. The problem with that level op philosophy: using descriptors like "better" is always subjective. "I like bad (rendering) lenses" or "I don't like good (rendering) lenses" is a contradixio interminus. That's not the fault of the concept "rendering" though.

That said, there's a possibility some opinions are more common than others.

And what's wrong with a descriptor like "softer"? Or "more smooth"?

But whatever descriptor would...Show more →

You still aren�t getting it.

No one said that there is anything �wrong with a descriptor like "softer"[�] Or "more smooth[�]�.

See if you can figure out what my actual point was about the term �rendering.� You may be getting closer.

Regarding �more common� opinions, I�ll bet you can think of a few of them that are quite wrong. The �commonness� of an opinion and it objective correctness are not necessarily causally related.

Jan 21, 2024 at 11:44 AM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #2 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Come on you foto fanboys, 'render' has nothing to do with photography:

Rendering means we are taking raw fat (beef and pork in this recipe) and making it shelf stable by evaporating the moisture (water) which would otherwise limit the shelf life. Water is one of the components that bacteria needs to survive and multiply, so by removing the water, we are making it safer to store.

Jan 21, 2024 at 12:39 PM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #3 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

gdanmitchell wrote:
You still aren�t getting it.

No one said that there is anything �wrong with a descriptor like "softer"[�] Or "more smooth[�]�.

See if you can figure out what my actual point was about the term �rendering.� You may be getting closer.

Regarding �more common� opinions, I�ll bet you can think of a few of them that are quite wrong. The �commonness� of an opinion and it objective correctness are not necessarily causally related.

We are probably arguing semantics at this point, Dan. (Not said to be dismissive.)

I will say that most (if not all) differences in "rendering" or "character" between lenses will be masked if shooting at f/11 vs. say, at f/1.4 or 2.0. Depending on what type of photography you favor, this term may mean a lot, or nothing at all.

Jan 21, 2024 at 01:40 PM

steamtrain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #4 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

gdanmitchell wrote:
The �commonness� of an opinion and it objective correctness are not necessarily causally related.
In cases objective correctness can't even exist it makes more sense to pay attention to commonness of opinions than to pay attention to "the necessity of causal relations" which - like that objective correctness itself - can't exist either, just like that objective correctness.

"Lens X renders better than Lens Y" might technically be a statement suggesting objectiveness, however, for everybody doing a little bit of interpretation while reading it's clear it's simply about a kind of commonness of opinion. It's not stating anything factual, however, the likelihood of commonness of opinion is strong enough to stop bothering about expressing explicit it's about opinions here. It's just how human beings use language in a somewhat lousy way. The same is true when for a statement like "Lens X is good value for money". Technically that's wrong, as you can't measure intrinsic value in itself, all you can measure is price. Nonetheless, as long as you do a little bit of interpretation while reading, it's clear it's just a statement about a commonness of opinion, which doesn't have anything to do with correctness anyway. And as a statement about commonness of opinion it can be perfectly factual. But yes, you do need to use your interpretating capabilities while using language.

If you're not willing to do that you might even want to take it one step further. If someone comes up with the statement "lens x or y has price x or y" you can deny this, because technically price isn't an attribute of the lens, but an attribute of the seller, which is based on the sellers expectations about opinions of a group of potential customers about their expectations of lens x or y. If it's your hobby to worry about the likelihood of necessity of causal relations between everyday language and objective correctness I could share that hobby with you, however, at the same time I don't think it's helpful at a photography forum to expect every forum member to use language "correctness proof."

And as such I think we can simply state the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 L has a better rendering - whatever the word rendering includes or doesn't include - than the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm. To everyone using language in an interpretative way it simply means: to most people the image looks more nice for the relation foreground-subject-background. Yes, most people, so that's just a bunch of opinions, however, denying that bunch of opinions likely exists - in the name of objective correctness while it's not a matter of objectiveness or correctness at all - sounds like a stretch to me.

Jan 21, 2024 at 02:09 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

steamtrain wrote:
denying that bunch of opinions likely exists - in the name of objective correctness while it's not a matter of objectiveness or correctness at all - sounds like a stretch to me.

Who denied that a �bunch of opinions likely exist?� Who suggested that having opinions or considering them is wrong?

Also, the commonness of an opinion ma or may not be an indicator of its accuracy. Lots of people think that Mac OS is the best OS and lots of people think that Windows is the best OS. Lots of people think Ford makes the best trucks, but some smart people insist on buying other brands. Don�t even get me started on political perspectives.

A simple version of my point is that the term �rendering� is thrown around AS IF it is a factual, identifiable, objective thing that any intelligent observer would agree with ��and we�ll even get the response to criticisms of that notion along the lines of �if ou can�t see this you are obviously [deficient in some way]. �Lens X renders better than lens Y� doesn�t tell us anything about either lens, though it does tell us something (though exactly what is unclear) about the viewpoint of the person making the statement.

Again, saying a lens has �the best rendering� of a group of lenses is like saying that Joe�s pasta is the best pasta among all pastas, or that Mary�s apple orchard has the most delicious apples.

- - -

Back to the question of the thread: �Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?�

The word �any� is doing a lot of work in that question. I think that we�ve seen plenty of examples in this thread of how larger maximum apertures may have some �real use.� We�ve also seen a lot of people point out that those things may or may not be sufficient advantage for all forms of photography.

So, still, that answer is �it depends.�

Jan 21, 2024 at 03:08 PM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #6 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

gdanmitchell wrote:
Who denied that a �bunch of opinions likely exist?� Who suggested that having opinions or considering them is wrong?

Also, the commonness of an opinion ma or may not be an indicator of its accuracy. Lots of people think that Mac OS is the best OS and lots of people think that Windows is the best OS. Lots of people think Ford makes the best trucks, but some smart people insist on buying other brands. Don�t even get me started on political perspectives.

A simple version of my point is that the term �rendering� is thrown around AS IF it is a...Show more →

I don't recall anyone arguing that a certain "rendering" is somehow objectively better or worse, merely that the term refers to something readily observable.

I also think you are being intentionally obtuse in order to make your point.

When a reviewer refers to the "rendering" of a lens as being "pleasing", most photographers can understand what that means and likely agree (or disagree), based on empirically observable qualities in images.

Sometimes a precise definition of a term is not necessary. As SCOTUS once said, "you know pornography when you see it".

Jan 21, 2024 at 03:21 PM

jaygould
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Jan 21, 2024 at 05:27 PM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #8 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

jaygould wrote:
...while generally being way superior optically.

The Z lenses are great, but "way superior" is a stretch. With the exception of the RF 50 1.8 STM (which is smoked by the Nikon), the other focal lengths are pretty comparable. All these lenses are quite respectable, I feel. Canon's lenses have the advantage of IS plus half-life size focusing, for those that care.

Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM vs. Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8G S

Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM vs. Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8G S

Canon RF 85mm f/2.0 Macro IS STM vs. Nikon 85mm f/1.8G S

Lateral CA is uncorrected in these comparisons but will almost never be a problem in post.

Edit: Fixed the links.

Edited on Jan 23, 2024 at 08:50 AM · View previous versions

Jan 21, 2024 at 07:48 PM

misteracng
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #9 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Canon went the same route with primes as Nikon, f1.2 high performance I cost and cheaper 1.8 models. They just differ more in the 1.8 strategy. Canon with lower cost, regular grade build but some extra features like macro and IS that the 1.2 don�t have. Nikon went with optical performance only, no IS, larger.

I guess for Nikon owners can be happy they have a S grade lens at 1.8, that is both relatively light cheape compared to 1.2 primes
Canon users could see the 1.8 as a cheaper substitute, but also maybe a complementary lenses say if they want light and macro

Jan 22, 2024 at 10:09 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

rscheffler wrote:
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.

jaygould wrote:
Not just Cosina, but more importantly Nikon. They have their excellent line of f1.8 S primes (20, 24, 35, 50 and 85mm). They are relatively cheap (not far off Canon's f1.8s) while generally being way superior optically.

Yes, the Nikon line of f/1.8 S lenses is very attractive and is more along the lines of what I would have preferred from Canon. But if Canon ever release f/1.8 or f/2 L lenses in the 20-85/100mm range, I would want them to be more optically comparable to the Leica Summicron-SL, in respect to wide open performance and rendering. If you ever have a couple hours to kill, find the Peter Karbe (recently retired Leica chief lens designer) YT videos about these lenses (and also M lens design).

Jan 22, 2024 at 11:51 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]

p.5 #11 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Look at the difference in rendering!!!

Can anyone guess the lenses used?

IMG_2730sooc by AmbientMike, on Flickr

IMG_2730_DxO by AmbientMike, on Flickr

Funny how I ran across this today, this is the same exact file pp'd in 2 different processors. You can see why I prefer DPP, it did much better on the highlight. Much faster than trying to get the same result in the other processor, which I think is what I tried, desperately, to do

Jan 22, 2024 at 07:30 PM

Jeff
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #12 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Jan 22, 2024 at 10:36 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]

p.5 #13 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Jeff wrote:
Do you even shoot portraits? I honestly can't think of a single image you've posted, but you seem to frequently offer all sorts of opinions about all sorts of things. Do you have a website that shows your work? Just what is it that you shoot that you have an opinion on how good f/1.2-1.4 lenses are for shooting portraits? I shoot a lot of portraits, but I rarely shoot beyond f/5.6, and that's generally only groups using lenses that have significant field curvature (many of them happen to be f/1.8-2.8 lenses, some of them EF "L" lenses, most of...Show more →

I actually.made a very salient point, using photographs, right above your (ignorant) post.

Must have made an excellent point, since you apparently cannot refute it, and have resorted to personal attacks.

Jan 23, 2024 at 12:29 AM

sirimiri
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

I hear the whoosh of air being displaced, as a lock drops from the sky to restore harmony to FM!

Jan 23, 2024 at 12:53 AM

goalerjones
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #15 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Personally I purchased my RF85 1.2 for morning workout photos at the racetrack. Horses begin at 5am and typically there's only 1 or 2 spotlights available. I was able to maintain my necessary SS and an ISO of 5000. The added portrait shooting benefits are nice as well.

Jan 23, 2024 at 01:04 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]

p.5 #16 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

I'm not really interested in 1) posting family photos, or 2) getting proper model releases etc to post portraits online.

Picked up the mf Rokinon 85/1.4 popular on here a decade ago or so, for one thing. Decided I didn't really like the 1.4 look and tend to use more f/8 on the few portraits I do.

I've used 85/1.4 quite a bit, and, obviously, the dof is tiny. If anyone seriously tries to say I haven't posted photos on here, that'd be a pretty stupid thing to say. Of course the last time that guy went off on me, it was to criticize the 85/1.4 he may not have ever even used

Jan 23, 2024 at 01:14 AM

Jeff
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #17 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

AmbientMike wrote:
yes, moving back to shoot a full length portrait, or keeping everything (potentially very flat) in a really narrow plane can get you in focus. But these images don't contradict my opinion on 1.4 imo.

Jeff wrote:
Do you even shoot portraits? I honestly can't think of a single image you've posted, but you seem to frequently offer all sorts of opinions about all sorts of things. Do you have a website that shows your work? Just what is it that you shoot that you have an opinion on how good f/1.2-1.4 lenses are for shooting portraits? I shoot a lot of portraits, but I rarely shoot beyond f/5.6, and that's generally only groups using lenses that have significant field curvature (many of them happen to be f/1.8-2.8 lenses, some of them EF "L" lenses, most of...Show more →
AmbientMike wrote:
I actually.made a very salient point, using photographs, right above your (ignorant) post.

Must have made an excellent point, since you apparently cannot refute it, and have resorted to personal attacks.

I never saw your 'picture' post (funny timing, actually!), I responded as soon as I read your substanceless tripe. Again, do you take pictures?

>>>>>>>>>EDIT: Now that I've read beyond Page 2: I rarely 'edit' posts, but when I do...

AmbientMike wrote:
"I'm sure I have no clue..."

I guess we'll leave that one right there.
---
Bill Gass wrote:
You guys are funny, and good posts on the last 5 replies.

Not 6?

---
AmbientMike wrote:
"I have no idea what rendering is, exactly, maybe some, is it bokeh, color etc (?) ,so I looked at a rendering thread..."

Now here's your typical post, a very common response from you. Hopefully you were able to form a cogent opinion to up your post count after the research.
---
AmbientMike wrote:
"...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"

artsupreme wrote:
We know you can't be serious. If you are, then post up all your amazing portraits so you can teach all the photographers in the 85 1.2 thread how it's done. I'm sure they would really appreciate that.

AmbientMike wrote:
It's hard to take people seriously that push 1.2 hard, and don't even mention the issues of posing people flat to the camera.

Which you've now mentioned twice, and remains ignored by the thread.
---
AmbientMike wrote:
I'm not really interested in 1) posting family photos, or 2) getting proper model releases etc to post portraits online.

Picked up the mf Rokinon 85/1.4 popular on here a decade ago or so, for one thing. Decided I didn't really like the 1.4 look and tend to use more f/8 on the few portraits I do.

I've used 85/1.4 quite a bit, and, obviously, the dof is tiny. If anyone seriously tries to say I haven't posted photos on here, that'd be a pretty stupid thing to say. Of course the last time that guy went off on me,...Show more →

Well, call me stupid, then, but go ahead and post'em up. Honestly, do you shoot portraits? It's a simple question; we're aware you have the propensity to voice lots of opinions about the subject. Seriously, is this some sort of AI-learning bot account, seeded to learn (ineffectively, I might add) how to adapt to human situations? How old are you? I understand many want to be anonymous on the internet, but you interact a lot around here, but we don't really know if you are even a photographer (some people just like to sit on their couch and learn about things and then bloviate in online forums).

It's only the second time I've used the button in 21 years at FM, but it is time to pull the trigger.

You're welcome.

Jan 23, 2024 at 01:42 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #18 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

And another thread drops to the ground�

The "hide" button is a useful way to clean up some threads. If nothing else, the need to click in order to read some posts serves as a reminder to resist engaging some forum participants.

Jan 23, 2024 at 11:53 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]

p.5 #19 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?

Jeff wrote:
I never saw your 'picture' post (funny timing, actually!), I responded as soon as I read your substanceless tripe. Again, do you take pictures?

>>>>>>>>>EDIT: Now that I've read beyond Page 2: I rarely 'edit' posts, but when I do...

I guess we'll leave that one right there.
---

Not 6?

---

Now here's your typical post, a very common response from you. Hopefully you were able to form a cogent opinion to up your post count after the research.
---

Which you've now mentioned twice, and remains ignored by the thread.
---

Well, call me stupid, then, but go ahead and post'em up. Honestly, do you shoot portraits?...Show more →

Well, you don't seem to be able to read, so I'm not sure how much difference hiding my posts is going to make.

You idiotically asked if I post photos on here and if I shoot photos. I have several assignment wins, how do you suppose that happened? I already explained the reasons I don't post portraits on here, but, there again, you'd have to actually 1) read, and 2)comprehend.

But given that you said, via pm, you tried to find me, after one of these oh so fun interactions, you're da#$ right I generally try to stay anonymous due to online lunatics. You once complained my posts "lightly asserted," what do you think, now?

Jan 23, 2024 at 01:14 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end