Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 5 6 end

The f/1.2 "Look"

smpetty
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Do you see the f/1.2 "look" that everyone is clamoring about?

I'm seeing a lot of talk on YouTube, Reddit, and this forum eagerly anticipating f/1.2 versions of all of the Sony GM primes. There are loads of videos comparing the 1.4 and 1.2 versions of the GM 50, and I struggle to see any meaningful difference in the images, at least any difference that a real life client or photography enthusiast would notice without the aid of pixel level digital magnification and digital social echo chambers.

I am 62 but have very good eyesight. Have I become a surly late baby boomer codger, throwing stones and yelling "get offa my lawn" at the Gen X'ers, Millenials, and Zoomers with their fat and fancy f/1.2 lenses? Or am I a wizened aging man with 50 years of photography experience who "looks" at things for a living (radiologist). Likely a mix of both...

Aug 28, 2024 at 09:16 AM

TimCC
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I agree, 1/3 of a stop isn't enough to influence my buying decision. I think there's as much difference within the collection of f/1.4 lenses in terms of out of focus draw than broadly between a f/1.4 and f/1.2 lens. However, if it means people will start flooding the used market with f/1.4 lenses then I'm all for it.

I think most clients wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a f/1.8 and a f/1.2 shot.

Aug 28, 2024 at 09:23 AM

hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Personally i am not sure why we question the difference between 1.2 and 1.4. It’s there in a direct comparison. Whether the difference is meaningful is up to the individual. If I spent my money on a more expensive Sony, it should be something that Sigma or other 3rd parties have not done. With Sony, it seems they even make sure the 1.2 has the best AF responsiveness, fitting to use shallow DOF in most situations. I have zero regret buying the GM 50/1.2. And it’s my go to lens since I shifted my interest to more portraiture shots.

Aug 28, 2024 at 09:37 AM

GMPhotography
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · The f/1.2 "Look"

The bigger issue with like a 1.2 compared to like a 1.4 is pretty limited by subject and focal length and the bigger issue sometimes like shooting a fisheye or infrared is it just gets boring and uninspiring or worse ugly in certain ways. It gets old Now granted they have their place in photography but anything where im looking for nice bokeh usually starts at 50 and longer and how much of a REAL difference is a 1.4 . Now take that 1.4 image and do not compare it to anything else like the same 1.2 image do you really feel a huge difference or not comparing it to a 1.2 than is the 1.4 good enough. Ive been a Pro for 50 years and honestly im not going to risk a job or client over a 1.2 shot my client may not like or not sharp enough through the zone. Its a risky lens in certain ways you miss we the viewer know you missed. First I don't want to carry that bulk anymore and second im not so sure it's worth it that much over a great 1.4 optical version. That comment about most clients would not know the difference I totally agree with , they won't trust me and they won't care either. Delivering a well taken 1.2 shot to a client guarantees nothing and if you can't carry there product in the right way with it may even cost you a client. Bottom line its a risk Professionally . Not saying they are not worth it but more bulk and weight not to mention costs on a sublime difference between 1.4 and 1.2 im not going to invest in it and given who I am and don't care about the money at all but I do care about the IQ and how much it really buys me. Also lets say you shoot a 85 1.4 and 85 1.2 shot given that focal length is there really any real world difference . Something to honestly consider as even the savings to a 1.4 could maybe even get you an extra lens money wise.

Its a tough call even that new Sigma Tim is shooting now the 28-45 1.8 is a wonderful lens but I think to save weight and size maybe even a F2 might be a better choice for Sigma. You really got to weigh in on what your really after
BTW I do like that Sigma 28-45 1.8 but I really need to start at 24mm but still has me thinking about it but F2 would be fine as well

Aug 28, 2024 at 09:38 AM

LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · The f/1.2 "Look"

smpetty wrote:
Do you see the f/1.2 "look" that everyone is clamoring about?

I'm seeing a lot of talk on YouTube, Reddit, and this forum eagerly anticipating f/1.2 versions of all of the Sony GM primes. There are loads of videos comparing the 1.4 and 1.2 versions of the GM 50, and I struggle to see any meaningful difference in the images, at least any difference that a real life client or photography enthusiast would notice without the aid of pixel level digital magnification and digital social echo chambers.

I am 62 but have very good eyesight. Have I become a surly late...Show more →

This controlled simulation might help visualize the potential differences 50 F1.2 vs F1.4 Make sure to check out and simulate how subject distance can also apply to the look.

https://dofsimulator.net/en/

It's not just about cosmetics either. Not sure many people still think about the operational benefits of faster--more light lenses in a modern digital world, but just like film, digital can benefit from more light too.

Aug 28, 2024 at 11:04 AM

steamtrain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · The f/1.2 "Look"

smpetty wrote:
Do you see the f/1.2 "look" that everyone is clamoring about?

I'm seeing a lot of talk on YouTube, Reddit, and this forum eagerly anticipating f/1.2 versions of all of the Sony GM primes. There are loads of videos comparing the 1.4 and 1.2 versions of the GM 50, and I struggle to see any meaningful difference in the images,

If you don't see a meaningful difference >> get another lens. It's that simple.
smpetty wrote
at least any difference that a real life client

Clients don't have any meaningful opinion on aesthetics. They just pay, and that's where clients are for.

smpetty wrote
or photography enthusiast

If it has to become your lens there's only one relevant enthusiast, and that's you.
smpetty wrote
would notice without the aid of pixel level digital magnification and digital social echo chambers.

I am 62 but have very good eyesight. Have I become a surly late baby boomer codger, throwing stones and yelling "get offa my lawn" at the Gen X'ers, Millenials, and Zoomers with their fat and fancy f/1.2 lenses? Or am I a wizened aging man with 50 years of photography experience who "looks" at things for a living (radiologist). Likely a mix of both...
Your lenses aren't your identity.

Aug 28, 2024 at 11:22 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · The f/1.2 "Look"

It's difficult to get anything oof using 50mm fl, and I can see 1/3 stop difference in bokeh much of the time so there's definitely an argument for 1.2

If I was using 5.6-8 I'd probably just get inexpensive 1.8-2 like I've used in the past. Expensive heavy ones probably better here I suppose, but even the 50+ year old 50/2 I got off ebay <$20 seems quite good here and the new expensive ones are too heavy for my use since I need other lenses

Aug 28, 2024 at 11:52 AM

Ross Martin
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · The f/1.2 "Look"

This is a fun poll :-)

While we know from the physics that f/1.2 gathers more light, and allows for more shallow depth of field, compared to F/1.4 or any slower aperture, these factual differences may or may not matter to every individual. People do get excited over the subtleties of different pieces of gear, and often hype one over another, thus forums and YouTube exist :-)

Personally, I get a lot of inspiration out of shooting my 50/1.2 GM especially when photographing my nephews and nieces (mine is a superb copy that was one of the many that went through smpetty’s hands and tested great by him, thanks!) and have no interest in the f/1.4 version. But many others value the 1.4’s smaller size, lighter weight, and lower price. It’s nice to have choices.

My first f/1.2 lens was purchased back in college when I was in the photojournalism program, nearly 40 years ago now, so it has specialness to me that goes beyond facts and logic.

ILCE-7RM5 FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens 50mm f/1.2 1/50s 500 ISO -0.3 EV

Edited on Sep 01, 2024 at 08:17 PM · View previous versions

Aug 28, 2024 at 12:09 PM

akashyap
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · The f/1.2 "Look"

In my 5 years of experience with the CV 40 f1.2, I thought there was a noticeable enough difference so I used 1.2 very intentionally and otherwise floated around f1.4 to f1.7 for general use. I appreciated the softer plane of focus for f1.2 more than the extra subject isolation / extra bokeh that comes with it.

Aug 28, 2024 at 12:30 PM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Much like many of our other polls we’ve had in the past, there is much more nuance to this conversation than can be conveyed through several choices.

I believe there is a difference. However, I don’t believe it is a magic bullet factor that inherently makes any lens better than another, nor does it mean that a given 1.2 lens is going to consistently produce tangibly and perceivably meaningful or differing results under all shooting conditions at all times.

I can only speak to the lenses I’ve personally used. And in that regard, I can say that in most shooting scenarios, I prefer the “look” of my Sigma 35/1.2 vs the GM 35/1.4, the 40/1.2 out of the two Voigtlanders, and I have generally preferred the 1.2 versions of 50mm across multiple brands/mounts.

Lastly, at least personally, I don’t like lenses to be 1.2 just for the sake of being 1.2, nor do I like them for obliterating all outside of subject detail type shooting from close distances. For my use case, I like what they can do at mid distance, at least at 35 and 50mm. I also recognize that there are likely instances where I’d prefer the look of the slower lens, I just haven’t found any yet. That being said, I also own and love plenty of non-1.2 lenses.

Aug 28, 2024 at 12:33 PM

smpetty
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · The f/1.2 "Look"

steamtrain wrote:
If you don't see a meaningful difference >> get another lens. It's that simple.

Clients don't have any meaningful opinion on aesthetics. They just pay, and that's where clients are for.

If it has to become your lens there's only one relevant enthusiast, and that's you.

Your lenses aren't your identity.

What do I owe you for this counseling session?

Seriously, don’t take lens opinions so seriously. None of this is personal…

But one thing that you should take seriously, if you do photography as a business, is your clients opinions on aesthetics.

Aug 28, 2024 at 12:40 PM

smpetty
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · The f/1.2 "Look"

JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Much like many of our other polls we’ve had in the past, there is much more nuance to this conversation than can be conveyed through several choices.

I believe there is a difference. However, I don’t believe it is a magic bullet factor that inherently makes any lens better than another, nor does it mean that a given 1.2 lens is going to consistently produce tangibly and perceivably meaningful or differing results under all shooting conditions at all times.

I can only speak to the lenses I’ve personally used. And in that regard, I can say that in most shooting...Show more →

This ^^^^ is excellent. Thank you.

Looking at images from my 40/1.2 and 50/1.2 Noktons, I definitely love the look of both lenses’ images at 1.2. I never shot them at 1.4, so not sure how the f/stops would compare. The Noktons are spectacular.

Aug 28, 2024 at 12:47 PM

JadedWriter
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I shoot with 50 1.2 often and my 85 1.2 when I need that focal length. Not going back till the added weight breaks my wrists.

Aug 28, 2024 at 01:41 PM

johnvanr
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · The f/1.2 "Look"

It depends on the subject. But it also depends on whether the f/1.2 lens, generally being the superior lens in other aspects, is just better less wide open as well. I’m not a Sony shooter, but my Canon RF 50/1.2 is nicer overall than my 50/1.8 for portrait work.

Aug 28, 2024 at 01:42 PM

Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · The f/1.2 "Look"

• Yes, f/1.2 images have a distinct "look" that can't be produced with an f/1.4 lens
• Yes, but only when pixel peeping images. There is no significant "real world" difference
• No, this is all marketing hype and BS... now get offa my lawn

Had it been possible I think I could have ticked all options.
I'm mainly a 50mm shooter and if I compare the two 50mm GM lenses this is what you get:

• the first option - distinct look
Yes, sometimes. Mainly regarding bokeh balls towards the edges of the frame where the f/1.2 version produces rounder balls. If this is important it may be worth the extra weight and higher price.
But, that's the only meaningful difference I have seen between these two lenses. One can discuss the extra light (both f- and T-values) and what it can make for the image but it will very seldom result into any significant for the end result.

• the second option - pixel peeping
Yes, sometimes. The 1.4 version is sharper. Just a tad. Not really meaningful difference.
The 1.2 version can sometimes make OOF details a little rounder, a little softer. This is again not anything having a real impact on the finished image.

• the third option - BS
Yes. At least to my eyes and about these two specific lenses. I say that after having seen A/B comparisons. Then again, there may samples showing a real difference - I just haven't seen any.

But hey, that's from me. I bought the 1.4 GM and may be defending my decision. For other and better photographers the 1.2 version may be a lot better. In my experience the fast 50/1.4 lenses in general are better over all than slower 50mm lenses from the same brand. There are exceptions but in general that's the way it used to be.

While having owned and used several 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.4 (and f/2) lenses I have never used a 35/1.2 or 85/1.2. I can't really speculate much about those.

Aug 28, 2024 at 01:47 PM

foto16
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I've compared f1.4 vs. f1.8.

If you shoot the same test scene and compare the two images side by side, yes there is a difference.

If you only have one image, will you be able to guess which aperture it uses? If you are experienced and look for it, you may be able to do it. But if all you want is a good image, this difference hardly matters in most cases. The viewer's focus will be on the subject, not on some minute difference in background blur.

There are cases when a more pronounced background blur is beneficial, such as when you shoot a full body portrait and the background is close and really busy, but whether 1/2 stop makes a meaningful difference is subjective and questionable. In the end a good image has many contributing factors, and background blur is only one of them, and a less important one. Don't look at forum examples, look at the great portrait photographs in the history. Does it matter if they were shot at f1.2 or f1.4?

Aug 28, 2024 at 01:49 PM

Lukacs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · The f/1.2 "Look"

1.4 is a workhorse, low light, background separation because of the compact size.
1.2 is the enthusiastic aperture for the ultimate pop.

Aug 28, 2024 at 01:57 PM

Nifty Fifty
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Just move the slider for the comparison images. If you can't see the difference, 10 pages of discussion won't help you. I think the difference is clear and obvious. And it's obvious to me that the 1.2 has a much more vivid image!
https://education.magicweddingphotographer.com/sony-50mm-f-1-4-gm-vs-sony-50mm-f-1-2-gm/

Aug 28, 2024 at 02:56 PM

KarmaKramer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Its 100% not worth the additional cost to get 1.2 over 1.4. Barely noticeable and I often say clients will definitely not notice so why bother? If you’re more of a collector/lens tester have at it, but to the shooters among us, naw. I have the GM35 and Sigma 85/1.4. They’re excellent,with all the separation I’d ever need.

smpetty wrote:
Do you see the f/1.2 "look" that everyone is clamoring about?

I'm seeing a lot of talk on YouTube, Reddit, and this forum eagerly anticipating f/1.2 versions of all of the Sony GM primes. There are loads of videos comparing the 1.4 and 1.2 versions of the GM 50, and I struggle to see any meaningful difference in the images, at least any difference that a real life client or photography enthusiast would notice without the aid of pixel level digital magnification and digital social echo chambers.

I am 62 but have very good eyesight. Have I become a surly late...Show more →

Aug 28, 2024 at 02:57 PM

RustyRus
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · The f/1.2 "Look"

The poll should have been:

Did you buy a 1.2 lens
Did you buy a 1.4 lens
Get off my lawn

Aug 28, 2024 at 03:22 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.