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

1 2

4 5 6 end

The f/1.2 "Look"

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

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Okay lets say it this way a 35mm over a 85mm at 1.2 or 1.4 will have less blur overall than a longer focal length. Wider lenses are much harder to get Bokeh with because of this. Why I would not buy a 1.2 over a 1.4 with a 85mm as that difference is mostly nill but a 35mm lens between 1.2 and 1.4 would have more effect. And what does zooming have anything to do with this. This is all about Aperture and focal lengths

The LOOK will be less in a 85mm lens than a 35mm lens between 1.4 and 1.2

Aug 29, 2024 at 11:11 AM

j4nu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · The f/1.2 "Look"

It's kinda hard to answer without some specifics, i.e. 35/1.2DN vs 35GM difference is more visible than 50/1.4 vs 50/1.2 GMs IMHO... And it's not about that half a stop or something, but rather that the lenses themselves do not render identically...

Aug 29, 2024 at 11:43 AM

Justin Stone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · The f/1.2 "Look"

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

Edited on Aug 29, 2024 at 08:02 PM · View previous versions

Aug 29, 2024 at 12:37 PM

NJPhotographer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · The f/1.2 "Look"

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

It has two. Sony's product page for the new 85/1.4 says "Two XD linear motors for fast, precise, and quiet autofocus for stills and movies"

Aug 29, 2024 at 12:45 PM

steamtrain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · The f/1.2 "Look"

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

The best thing to do is a blind test with clients, showing them results from both f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses.
Not an easy test to create if you want to rule out all other factors. The loveliest smile wins, no matter max aperture, high ISO noise, misfocus, etc.

For me - not as a client obviously - , the f/1.2 GM not just wins because of best AF (to get that loveliest smile in focus), but also because the round bokeh ball aperture setting is around f/1.8 or f/2.0 or so, whereas the 50mm f/1.4 GM lens needs to be stopped down around f/2.8 or so. It's not really about creating round balls (the OOF lights from a Christmas tree come to mind), but I - generally - simply like the overall rendering at that aperture setting the best (unless I really want a more swirly look).
f/1.2 can be easily overkill, but f/1.8 or f/2.0 in stead of f/2.8 is way less often overkill.

To complicate things even further, there are also f/1.4 lenses giving round bokeh balls at f/2.0, and in those cases the f/1.2 lenses don't bring an advantage from round bokeh perspective.

f/1.2 lenses can suck in more light, but that's mostly in the centre of the frame, not so much in the rest of the frame. The capability is also limited by the minimum amount of preferred DOF. At 50mm and f/1.2 it's best to shoot the portraits environmentally if you don't want to overthink DOF issues.

The last thing to mention is the focal length matters as well. Shooting an environmental portrait at 50mm can require f/1.2 to get the preferred subject separation, whereas doing the same thing with an 85mm the f/1.4 aperture can be easily enough for to get enough subject separation. And maybe that's the biggest advantage from a larger aperture lens: you can have a shorter and therefor more flexible focal length yet getting enough subject separation in cases the shortness of the distance between camera and subject won't do that job for you.

Aug 29, 2024 at 01:28 PM

gocolts
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · The f/1.2 "Look"

For me, f/1.2 also helps keep ISO's reasonable for shooting in low light situations. Got informal shots of a whole bunch of kids/families at a July 4th party and everyone loved the results I sent them...then again everyone else only had a cell phone so I didn't have a lot of competition.

DSC02186_filtered by Matt Ebersole, on Flickr

Aug 29, 2024 at 04:27 PM

smpetty
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · The f/1.2 "Look"

steamtrain wrote:
The best thing to do is a blind test with clients, showing them results from both f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses.
Not an easy test to create if you want to rule out all other factors. The loveliest smile wins, no matter max aperture, high ISO noise, misfocus, etc.

For me - not as a client obviously - , the f/1.2 GM not just wins because of best AF (to get that loveliest smile in focus), but also because the round bokeh ball aperture setting is around f/1.8 or f/2.0 or so, whereas the 50mm f/1.4 GM lens needs to be...Show more →

All great points - thank you.

Do you see much (any) advantage in choosing the 50mm f/1.2 over the 50mm f/1.4 for a non-professional photographer who does little or no portrait photography?

Aug 29, 2024 at 05:13 PM

ACHILLEAS-V
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · The f/1.2 "Look"

GMPhotography wrote:
Okay lets say it this way a 35mm over a 85mm at 1.2 or 1.4 will have less blur overall than a longer focal length. Wider lenses are much harder to get Bokeh with because of this. Why I would not buy a 1.2 over a 1.4 with a 85mm as that difference is mostly nill but a 35mm lens between 1.2 and 1.4 would have more effect. And what does zooming have anything to do with this. This is all about Aperture and focal lengths

The LOOK will be less in a 85mm lens than a 35mm lens between 1.4...Show more →

The 35 and 85 will have the same DOF if you frame it the same. The difference is only in perspective. The 85 will have more background compression due to parallax. Less background will be visible. It will be more zoomed in. The blurry part also will be more zoomed in and give the impression that it has more blur. So focal length affects your aesthetic more than aperture. Why overspend for a 1.2 wide?

Aug 29, 2024 at 07:19 PM

NJPhotographer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · The f/1.2 "Look"

smpetty wrote:
Do you see much (any) advantage in choosing the 50mm f/1.2 over the 50mm f/1.4 for a non-professional photographer who does little or no portrait photography?

I don't see it. The 50/1.4 GM is already super duper great, and much easier to carry. The 50/1.2 GM is just a tiny bit better, but heavy & more costly. The difference is very, very subtle. If you do little or no portrait photography, there's probably no meaningful difference.

In my opinion, there is no "1.2 look". It's just a matter of degree, a slightly further point on a spectrum. It's nice, but it's not a different thing.

Aug 29, 2024 at 08:53 PM

Mystik
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Many moons ago I did a comparison between the 35GM and Sigma 35 1.2...thinking I would sell the former. I don't see a material difference in "look" going from f1.2 vs f1.4 I ended up keeping the Sigma mainly because of the way it renders vs the GM, but that has nothing to do with aperture.

Also. Stop listening to photography influencers. Many of these guys were reputable back in the day, but nowadays their whole livelihood is made from getting early access to gear so that they can monetize views. And they get access to gear by hyping it up

Bigma 1.2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

GM 1.4 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Aug 29, 2024 at 08:56 PM

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

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · The f/1.2 "Look"

That top image is very tough on the eyes. You know something is there but what a pain to look at it.

Aug 30, 2024 at 12:33 AM

j4nu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · The f/1.2 "Look"

ACHILLEAS-V wrote:
The 35 and 85 will have the same DOF if you frame it the same. The difference is only in perspective. The 85 will have more background compression due to parallax. Less background will be visible. It will be more zoomed in. The blurry part also will be more zoomed in and give the impression that it has more blur. So focal length affects your aesthetic more than aperture. Why overspend for a 1.2 wide?

If you frame the same at the same aperture, DoF will be the same but there will be more blur on the longer lens. You can check it via:
https://dofsimulator.net
for example...

Aug 30, 2024 at 12:36 AM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I think an important distinction to make is that there isn't technically a "1.2 look," so much as there are coincidentally, a decent number of 1.2 lenses that have the ability to create a look that a lot of people appreciate.

As @GMPhotography touched on earlier, I feel there is generally more of a rendering difference at the wider end. The one exception to this (to me), is the Canon EF 85/1.2L (loved this one for a long time). I say this because the lenses I've loved the look of the most (for Sony) have been the Sigma 35/1.2, Voigt 40/1.2, and GM 50/1.2.

Respectively, for the Fuji APSC system, I've been playing with the Viltrox 27/1.2 for about a month so far, which is now my favorite "look" producing lens for the X mount.

With Canon, I loved the EF 50/1.2, and subsequently the RF version.

All of these lenses I've mentioned have aided me in many shooting scenarios (but not all) to create a "look" that I love. I've also found that in the respective systems, there are no truly equivalent offerings that do exactly what those lenses do (in my use).

Since we're posting samples, here's a few (some previously posted elsewhere on the forum).

Voigt 40/1.2

A9 + VM 40/1.2 by John Dizzo, on Flickr

A9 + VM 40/1.2 by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Sigma 35/1.2

DSC05737-ARW by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Sigma 35/1.2 FE by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Canon RF 50/1.2

RF 50/1.2 by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Viltrox 27/1.2 (APSC X mount)

Viltrox 27 by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Aug 30, 2024 at 01:16 AM

j4nu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · The f/1.2 "Look"

JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I think an important distinction to make is that there isn't technically a "1.2 look," so much as there are coincidentally, a decent number of 1.2 lenses that have the ability to create a look that a lot of people appreciate.

As @GMPhotography@ touched on earlier, I feel there is generally more of a rendering difference at the wider end. The one exception to this (to me), is the Canon EF 85/1.2L (loved this one for a long time). I say this because the lenses I've loved the look of the most (for Sony) have been the Sigma 35/1.2, Voigt 40/1.2,...Show more →

Yes, I think that's an important point - not every shot will show that difference in look.
Like in the example above, the tree is quite close to the camera and the background is rather far away - that makes it easy for most lenses to handle alright...

Aug 30, 2024 at 01:31 AM

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

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Yes, very context sensitive, top put it that way.

But still, versatility counts big for many and plenty of outdoor portraits, etc. Out of focus should never disrupt visual comfort, is my view on it. You see other focus distances and light conditions where the 35/1.2 does great.

Aug 30, 2024 at 02:18 AM

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

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · The f/1.2 "Look"

If you have an f1.2 then you take pains to justify it, even if others don't notice or care much. That is the nature of the beast. Taking the argument further, is an f1.0, 0.95, or 0.8 lens even better?

Aug 30, 2024 at 09:05 AM

j4nu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · The f/1.2 "Look"

...
In my experience Laowa Argus 35/0.95 is not generally better than Sigma 35/1.2DN but when stars align it does produce a more striking image...

Aug 30, 2024 at 09:27 AM

fotografur
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Aug 30, 2024 at 09:49 AM

docusync
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · The f/1.2 "Look"

NJPhotographer wrote:
It has two. Sony's product page for the new 85/1.4 says "Two XD linear motors for fast, precise, and quiet autofocus for stills and movies"

Thank you. I was always under the impression they work in pairs. Apparently someone who wrote the press release wasn't aware

https://www.sony.com/content/sony/en/en_us/SCA/company-news/press-releases/sony-electronics/2024/sony-electronics-announces-the-highly-anticipated-fe-85mm-f14-g-master-ii-lightweight-telephoto-portrait-lens.html

Ideal for Cinematic Content Creation

The large F1.4 aperture and compact size of the FE 85mm F1.4 GM II makes it a fitting lens selection for cinematic movie creation. Internally, the lens has an XD (extreme dynamic) linear motor with internal focusing, quiet AF and linear response MF (manual focus). Focus breathing is minimal, and in-body focus breathing compensationv is supported.

Aug 30, 2024 at 11:00 AM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Robin Smith wrote:
If you have an f1.2 then you take pains to justify it, even if others don't notice or care much. That is the nature of the beast. Taking the argument further, is an f1.0, 0.95, or 0.8 lens even better?

I think there’s different buckets of users though, as I for one, take no pains to justify any of my 1.2 lenses if they don’t justify themselves to begin with, for my uses. I also have a host of lenses ranging from a little slower, to much slower, that I really love for other purposes.

I’ve actually dumped a good number of 1.2 and faster lenses over the years if they didn’t serve me in a manner I deemed necessary.

With regard to your latter question, I’d say no. Much like being at 1.2 doesn’t inherently add something special, those faster speeds don’t either. In addition, my experience with lenses from .85-1.1 is that they’re mostly falling below the threshold I have for usability/special image creation factor versus downside/pains.

While they’re fun to play with for a little bit, they’re generally pretty soft wide open, don’t have AF (sans the EF 50/1.0), don’t necessarily add any T stops, and have a slew of other optical aberrations at or near max aperture. 1.2 seems to be the sweet spot for most manufacturers with regard to usability, IQ, and actual light gathering ability.

Aug 30, 2024 at 11:03 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end

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