JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
rscheffler wrote:
Exactly!
What you're describing is the content in the photos being the most important and technical parameters that contribute to an aesthetic look of the image being secondary. I think this is how most third party viewers react to images. Content is the most important and whatever 'craft' went into the look of the images, due to lens character, post processing, etc., secondarily adds or detracts from images, but doesn't override the actual content value.
But we're all going to react to that content somewhat differently and I think this is especially true when we are creating images for ourselves. We will value content with a potentially very different bias, having experienced those moments in person with all the various influences on those moments that are not evident in the photos when viewed by those who were not present at the time. It can be difficult to separate such emotional, nostalgic attachments from content valuation. And if photographing for oneself, it isn't necessary at all. Therefore, from the perspective of a true 'amateur' if one wants an f/1.2 lens for whatever reason, then it's a legitimate reason. On the other hand, what you commented on at the top is also valid when doing work for others - the end 'consumer' of one's work likely won't care about the technical decisions that went into creating the work and would be equally happy whether that image was made with an f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2.0, etc., lens.
Anyway, we're on a technical forum so of course faster is better, sharper is better, etc.  ...Show more →
@kf86174 -
To expound further as a proponent on the whole issue of the 1.2, it should be noted that at least for me, I don't necessarily care about something simply being faster for the sake of being faster. If that were the case, I would've never gotten rid of the EF 50/1.0.
Some of the 1.2 lenses on the market just also happen to have a look that they produce, that many of us fancy. Such was the case when I tried out the Sony GM 35/1.4 for a week, when I was hoping to like it enough to dump the Sigma 35/1.2. While an amazing piece of glass, the Sony GM just wasn't giving me the look I was accustomed to with the slightly faster Sigma.
With regard to clients never asking why something wasn't shot on a faster piece of glass, I tend to agree. However, while most consumers are perfectly content with well-executed shots at 1.8, or even f/8, I don't think that is a very useful point around these parts, as we are gear heads and image connoisseurs. Playing devils advocate to your point, I'm fairly certain one doesn't need 1.8 for most clients either. But such is a logical slope that is rather slippery.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is, whether capturing moments for yourself or clients, one can always make do with something as minimalist as their phones. I'm fairly confident I could produce work for people with my current phone that they would be perfectly content with (especially if care is taken with lighting and composition). But that's not what we are all here for.
Personally, I was hoping Canon would use the RF 35L as their opportunity for yet another statement lens. Especially considering the rumor mill had it as a 1.2. The only other way for you to get a high performing AF 35/1.2 is with a third party lens on Sony or Leica. As such, I was hoping Canon would really metaphorically slap their wieners on the table with the release of their own groundbreaking 35. As it stands, it appears to just be another good enough lens at an FL they needed to check off the to do list.
|
