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

3 … 5 6 end

The f/1.2 "Look"

RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Aug 28, 2024 at 03:28 PM

tschopp
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Nifty Fifty wrote:
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/

I honestly don't see much difference between the lenses. It may be the compression or my monitor, but I don't see a lot of difference. I do have the 50/1.2 and it lets in more light than 1.4.

As far as subject / background separation goes, the focal length and distance from subject are more important than a fraction of a stop.

As far as the new 85, I think a 1.2 from sigma could be a good opportunity for them. Not sure if I will ever trade my 50/1.2 for a 1.4 due to size. It's a bit beefy, but I like the output.

Aug 28, 2024 at 05:12 PM

Surfnsun
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · The f/1.2 "Look"

My inner gear nerd loves f/1.2! It’s definitely a thick chunk of glass. I think it’s worth the effort.

Aug 28, 2024 at 07:52 PM

tzhang4284
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I had the Sony 50mm f1.2 and also later tried the Sony 50mm f1.4. I do think the 50mm f1.2 has better wide open rendering but I don't think it has anything to do with 1.4 vs f1.2. I now use a Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH and it has a similar look to the Sony 1.2 @ f1.2 except at f1.4 - I think how vignetting falls off and bokeh is structured and other factors that I'm not fully aware of probably affects the picture more than 1.2 vs 1.4.

I did also try a Voigtlander 50mm f1.0 lens and I didn't think it was any better in "look" than a f1.2 or f1.4.

Between the two Sony options, I think the 50mm f1.2 renders better but the average person probably wouldn't notice it or care

Aug 28, 2024 at 08:10 PM

JohnJ
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · The f/1.2 "Look"

smpetty wrote:
..., 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....

Lucky you. If the difference doesn't matter to you then walk away, and with some change in your pocket. Who cares what other people say or think. You're too old to care anyway (I say that because I'm also too old to care). F1,2 lenses are not a new fad, they've been making them since the 1960s.

On the other hand, if you are trying to squeeze the last bit of character/interest/DOF etc out of a lens then opting for the fastest lens available is really the only option. Sure, not everyone shoots an F1.2 lens at F1.2 all the time but the inescapable fact is that you can only do that with an F1.2 lens in the first place.

Aug 28, 2024 at 08:13 PM

JadedWriter
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Where is the "I bought 1.8's and can't tell the difference" option?
RustyRus wrote:
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 08:22 PM

macadphotos
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I think another poll that goes
"Do you see the GM look or the third party lens look?", or
"APS-C vs FF vs MF look", or
"look from lenses with or without microcontrast", or
"12mp vs 61mp look"
would be even more interesting / divisive.

My opinion is that there is a distinct look that might be obvious when comparing the 1.2 vs 1.4 side by side, but not necessarily obvious in a stand-alone image. Also, not everyone can tell the difference, just like how most people can't tell the difference between a male and female chick. The ones who can are likely chick sexers with plenty of experience sexing chicks. Just like chick sexers, photographers who can tell the difference probably see enough photos taken by either lens. Whether the f1.2 look enhances the photo is a different question altogether.

Aug 28, 2024 at 09:22 PM

ACHILLEAS-V
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Full body shots dont look good with shallow depth of field. You must be able to see the enviroment. It tells a better story. For close ups you are bluring part of your subject. You separate nose from ears. What is the point?

Edited on Aug 29, 2024 at 10:49 AM · View previous versions

Aug 28, 2024 at 09:56 PM

philip_pj
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · The f/1.2 "Look"

It may be that many do not see that character/interest is highly correlated with lens speed. There are pretty average super fast lenses just as there are very engaging regular max aperture lenses. We are (somewhat) moving away from the 'more blur = better lens' phase of a few years back, but still have some way to go, judging from reviews.

It's interesting that many here have as their favourite lenses many fast optics that were released in the 20th century. Back then, ISO 400 was pushing it in colour film, ISO 800 was a bridge too far. The light gathering case was strong, much stronger in fact.

The term 'bokeh' was popularised only in 1997, by the editor of a photography magazine. And in a world of very high quality images taken at ISOs measured in the low thousands, blur had to be (much) more in demand than light gathering.

The PR campaigns and industry luminaries swung into action. Never mind the quality, feel the blur index - this mantra became a reality like never before. It went very well for them, they pumped resources into the fast and highly profitable products and downgraded and cheapened the others, again like never before. It was total artifice.

Aug 28, 2024 at 10:31 PM

chiron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · The f/1.2 "Look"

The Canon EF 50mm f1.2L lens lists for $1400 about two decades after it was introduced. It has nearly a thousand 5-star reviews at B&H. If one looks at the many customer images made with the lens at the B&H listing or at Flickr or elsewhere, it is obvious that the wonderful rendering of the lens and its enduring desirability has little to do with blur. Blur can be easily applied to an image like digital Vaseline. That is what the iPhone portrait mode does. The beautiful rendering of this lens and the way it handles light is way beyond that.

Aug 28, 2024 at 11:11 PM

smpetty
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Nifty Fifty wrote:
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/

I read this article a while ago but don’t remember the slider comparisons.

Wow! I really can see the difference and in all sets I liked the 1.2 version best. There is a little more pop and a little more subject separation from the background with the 1.2 images.

Very cool and thanks for this!

Aug 28, 2024 at 11:29 PM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · The f/1.2 "Look"

While this may just be me, I think there are some articulable facets to this that could be useful in further explaining how some of us may also feel about 1.2 lenses. Hopefully, this also dispels some of the assumptions about how those of us that like 1.2 lenses are just obsessed with blur/bokeh.

1. I don't want everything outside of the subject to be complete mush
2. I also don't care if everything in the frame is tack sharp, nor do I necessarily want it to be depending on what I'm shooting
3. Subject separation > bokeh madness (for me)
4. I care more about overall look of the images, which is at times, tangibly differentiated at 1.2 from 1.4
5. I don't believe 1.2 will always look different or necessarily add value in every scenario with every photographer, or with every 1.2 lens
6. Not all 1.2 lenses are great, because 1.2 in itself, doesn't actually indicate any inherent qualities
7. The look of some 1.2 lenses actually satiates my thirst for a certain look, across multiple sensor size systems where it doesn't otherwise exist with the other lenses available for that respective system.

Aug 29, 2024 at 12:57 AM

Lukacs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · The f/1.2 "Look"

KarmaKramer wrote:
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.

I wouldn't buy 1.2 lens for work. I'd choose 35GM over Sigma 35 1.2 and 50 1.4GM over 50 1.2GM for professional use, beacause weight matter when I have to shoot several hours. Clients never see the differnece.
Enthusiasts are different story, then I shoot for myself. I think the debate is about Sigma 35 1.2 Art- 35GM and the two 50GMs, beacuse as I know only theese AF lenses are close int terms of optical performance. I wish Sigma update the 35 1.2DN, closer to GM contrast, CA, but most of size cut, at 50 1.2DN size would far more acceptable.

Aug 29, 2024 at 01:21 AM

lattesweden
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · The f/1.2 "Look"

For full body portraits, 85/1.2 would in some situations be better than f1.4.
(I use the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN Art today).

Aug 29, 2024 at 03:18 AM

dieterson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Before reading this thread I was testing my Thypoch 28 f1.4 and my new Laowa 28 f1.2 to get the rendering differences between those two lenses. Knowing Bastians reviews and comparison of 28mm lenses, I was still surprised about my findings. I think with wide primes the differences are even more obvious. The sharpness and contrast of both lenses is very nice, nothing to complain. Even having not that flat field of sharpness the Laowa has the obvious softer background at 1.2 and manages to produce a more exiting transition-zone of sharp-to-soft.

Aug 29, 2024 at 08:31 AM

Robin Smith
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · The f/1.2 "Look"

In general I don't think they are "worth it" in monetary terms and I agree that clients will rarely notice and depending on the lens f1.2 will make very litttle difference from say f2, f1.4 or f1.0. I do think fast lenses are a bit of fetish, but we can't resist fetishes can we? Having said this there are some very nice very fast lenses, and it is very difficult to separate their speed from what makes them nice.

Aug 29, 2024 at 09:01 AM

docusync
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · The f/1.2 "Look"

hiepphotog wrote:
With Sony, it seems they even make sure the 1.2 has the best AF responsiveness

Indeed. The new 85/1.4 has just one XD motor. They didn't even bother to use a pair.

Aug 29, 2024 at 09:20 AM

JadedWriter
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Yes I have two 1.2 lenses in my work bag regularly because I'm a collector or lens tester

I think just yesterday one of my event shots with the 50 1.2 made the New York Daily News. Covered several graduations and I think at least two prints in my office are from the 85 1.2. One from an event shoot the other from a portrait session with a student. My stuff gets used and 1.2 isn't a gimmick. Edit, actually 3, there's a shot of a student at a college graduation from the 85 1.2 as well. I don't pick the shots that get used either so there's something about that lens that people like.
KarmaKramer wrote:
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.

Aug 29, 2024 at 09:26 AM

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

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · The f/1.2 "Look"

One thing not mentioned here and will come into play is the focal length . In general 35/50 will see a difference more between 1.4 and 1.2 than the 85 as they have more DOF as you get wider. I would not personally myself buy a 85 1.2 but a 35/50 I maybe more inclined as that DOF difference and or Bokeh would be more pronounced with a 1.2 over a 1.4 especially in the 35 focal length. On a Professional level this may not matter much to me but for an enthusiastic approach maybe more relevant to some users. But lets add here you should if possible test this out if possible. Renting maybe an option before purchase to see it.

Aug 29, 2024 at 09:51 AM

ACHILLEAS-V
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · The f/1.2 "Look"

GMPhotography wrote:
One thing not mentioned here and will come into play is the focal length . In general 35/50 will see a difference more between 1.4 and 1.2 than the 85 as they have more DOF as you get wider. I would not personally myself buy a 85 1.2 but a 35/50 I maybe more inclined as that DOF difference and or Bokeh would be more pronounced with a 1.2 over a 1.4 especially in the 35 focal length. On a Professional level this may not matter much to me but for an enthusiastic approach maybe more relevant to some users....Show more →

Focal length doesnt affect DOF. the focus distance and aperture. Zooming artificialy brings you closer to subject.

Aug 29, 2024 at 10:56 AM

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.