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 3

5 6 end

The f/1.2 "Look"

steamtrain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · The f/1.2 "Look"

smpetty wrote:
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?

There are advantages. It helps to keep noise down, at least in the centre, and it can also have less vignetting at same apertures (although that might not be true once you compare the 50mm f/1.2 GM to the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 Art).

More subject separation can also be nice with other subjects, but in my opinion these subjects (flowers etc.) are generally better served with a longer focal length and/or with a shorter minimum focus distance (for Canon there's the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm for instance, with it's 0.5 times magnification, that's a nice lens if you want to do both flowers and portraits). If magnifiction factor is important to you, keep in mind the FE Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 has a 0.25 times magnification at 45mm.

You're coming up with the f/1.2 vs f/1.4 difference, but there are more important aspects. I've mentioned the minimum focus distance and magnification factor, and 50mm macro(-ish) lenses generally have darker apertures. If you're not into portraits but you want to just scapes and flowers, the f/1.4 requirement should be reconsidered imo. Another reason to go darker is saving weight. The Sigma f/2.0 is still less heavy than the f/1.4 GM, and with the Samyang 45mm f/1.8 it gets even better. And you can still make nice head and shoulder portraits with these lenses with plenty of BG blur. And even full body portraits can work as long as the distance to the back ground is large enough.

But the f/1.4 GM is a solid option, as it provides that f/1.4 aperture at a pretty low weight. Kind of sweet spot if you ask me. It's also said to be a little bit sharper and contrasty, so for non portrait pictures at 60+Mp it's probably the better lens to get.

Aug 30, 2024 at 11:19 AM

MARKFER
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I find this post and some of the responses odd. This is a place where people study and debate the most narrow and nearly non-existent of spec differences, and image quality performance. How some have settled on- this is where the line is drawn of what is needed and what is folly- makes me laugh. I have had a few 1.2 lenses. I have one now. Could I do without it? Sure, then again, I am here because I sort of care about the narrow and nearly non-existent.

Aug 30, 2024 at 11:24 AM

RustyRus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · The f/1.2 "Look"

The aperture doesn't make the lens have character- Choose a lens on what you want out of it vs what aperture it has-

I know this is a Sony thread but I 100% think lenses have looks. Its not the aperture that gives it that look though. For example in the Sony world, I Can't stand the 35 1.4 GM- Its just clinical and boring to me. I can't shoot with it- Other people love it

I did however love the 24 1.4 from Sony- Very differnt looks to those lenses

I wish they would add some character into there lenses. For example what Nikon just did with their 35 1.4- Tons of character but not perfectly sharp and corrected.

Also I can't stand threads like this without pictures- Here is two 50 1.4 Lenses form Leica-

Very different look to them IMO- Do I want a modern smooth draw or a more structured and swirly OOF area. I thin Sony has done such a good job designing lenses that they all sorta look the same-
First 3 are the Modern Leica 50 1.4 Summilux- All shot wide open

Last 3 are all the Leica 50 1.4 Summilux pre-asph 1970's ish design but lens from 1998

Aperture doesn't give the look- Its a part of the equation.

(don't look at exif) All screwed up since the older lens isn't coded and aperture is always a guess for everything Leica

LEICA M11 Monochrom Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH. lens 50mm f/2.4 1/1250s 125 ISO 0.0 EV

LEICA M11 Monochrom Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH. lens 50mm f/3.4 1/2000s 125 ISO 0.0 EV

LEICA M11-P Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH. lens 50mm f/3.4 1/250s 125 ISO +1.3 EV

LEICA M11 Monochrom Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 lens 50mm f/2.4 1/250s 200 ISO 0.0 EV

LEICA M11 Monochrom Summilux-M 1:1.4/75 lens 75mm f/1.7 1/1000s 125 ISO 0.0 EV

LEICA M11 Monochrom Summilux-M 1:1.4/75 lens 75mm f/3.4 1/1500s 125 ISO 0.0 EV

Edited on Aug 30, 2024 at 01:17 PM · View previous versions

Aug 30, 2024 at 11:52 AM

Lt.Deadeye
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · 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'd appeal to the law of diminishing returns. I'd happily shoot at 0.95 if I had reliable and accurate auto focus. I'd like to minimize my creative boudaries. As I understand it, 1.4 seems arbitrary if weight and size are the reasons. Why not 1.8 seeing as those are even smaller and lighter.

Aug 30, 2024 at 01:13 PM

ramesesthe2nd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · The f/1.2 "Look"

If cost of f/1.4 and f/1.2 were the same and size was about the same, which lens would you pick? I know I would pick f/1.2 every single time. I do feel that my Sigma 35/1.2 and Voigtlander 50/1.2 consistently produced images that I loved more than my non f/1.2 lenses.

Aug 30, 2024 at 01:26 PM

Mystik
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · The f/1.2 "Look"

More 35 1.4 GM vs Sigma 35 f1.2

Sigma @ 1.2:

DSC00347 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

GM @ 1.4

DSC00340 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Sigma @ 1.2

Bigma by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

GM @ 1.4

GM-2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Aug 30, 2024 at 02:00 PM

Lukacs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Always has the feeling that Sigma is kind of "twisting" the background, maybe because the distortion, but it makes a special look. Both comparisons I prefer the Sigma,especially the first one GM version kind of flat to me compared the Art.

Aug 30, 2024 at 03:20 PM

philip_pj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · The f/1.2 "Look"

When radical bokeh is 60-75% of the image, it helps to do something stand out with it. They know it will remain a specialty lens with a much reduced usage range than (in this case) the more versatile/portable Sony lens.

You are going to have to like (even love) the look of these 'always shoot wide open' lenses, because that look will invade all your images, and very few will ever see travel or countryside far from home (1090 grams worth of reasons why this is so).

The B&H reviews are hilarious:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1492968-REG/sigma_341965_35mm_f_1_2_dg_dn.html/reviews

Aug 30, 2024 at 05:24 PM

Mystik
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · The f/1.2 "Look"

7R406318 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

DSC03151 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

7R402608 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Aug 30, 2024 at 07:03 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Aug 30, 2024 at 07:58 PM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · The f/1.2 "Look"

philip_pj wrote:
When radical bokeh is 60-75% of the image, it helps to do something stand out with it. They know it will remain a specialty lens with a much reduced usage range than (in this case) the more versatile/portable Sony lens.

You are going to have to like (even love) the look of these 'always shoot wide open' lenses, because that look will invade all your images, and very few will ever see travel or countryside far from home (1090 grams worth of reasons why this is so).

The B&H reviews are hilarious:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1492968-REG/sigma_341965_35mm_f_1_2_dg_dn.html/reviews

I can't speak for any other users of the Sigma 35/1.2, but I have taken mine everywhere (travel, events, vacation, family outings, etc) since I received my preorder in 2019. It is responsible for over 50% of all photos I've taken since, and is with me in my work backpack daily.

You may be right about "few." But I can assure you, some of us don't have any issues dealing with the size and weight because of the value we place in what it produces in return.

With regard to comparing sizes with other fast/premium primes at 35mm, there's no such thing as a truly lightweight, compact 35/1.4. There's smaller and lighter. But by no means are any of them what I would consider lightweight/compact lenses. This is the reason I maintain a host of other lenses that are actually compact and lightweight like the Fujicrons and other vintage MF glass for when the scenario calls for it.

The question I always ask myself is, if I have light and compact for when I want/need it, why would my big rig include a lens that forces me to make concessions or compromises, just so I can save a little bit of size and weight to have a rig that still isn't actually that small or lightweight? Might be different if I only maintained one rig.

Aug 30, 2024 at 08:30 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · The f/1.2 "Look"

JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I can't speak for any other users of the Sigma 35/1.2, but I have taken mine everywhere (travel, events, vacation, family outings, etc) since I received my preorder in 2019. It is responsible for over 50% of all photos I've taken since, and is with me in my work backpack daily.

You may be right about "few." But I can assure you, some of us don't have any issues dealing with the size and weight because of the value we place in what it produces in return.

With regard to comparing sizes with other fast/premium primes at 35mm, there's no such...Show more →

Everyone’s view of travel is different. That can contribute to differing opinions of what is too heavy to lug with them.

Aug 30, 2024 at 08:45 PM

Mystik
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · The f/1.2 "Look"

While there isn't sufficient difference IMO between f1.4 and F1.2, the purpose of a fast aperture when used for aeathetics (vs light gathering) isn't to eliminate the background and get rid of context. If you want to do that, use a longer lens that compresses the background. The point of a fast aperture, particularly when paired with a wide lens like a 35 is to pull the background into the frame so there is context, but leveraging a shallow DOF to draw attention to the subject.

DSC00953_1 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Aug 30, 2024 at 09:08 PM

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

p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Aug 30, 2024 at 09:37 PM

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

p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Mystik wrote:
While there isn't sufficient difference IMO between f1.4 and F1.2, the purpose of a fast aperture when used for aeathetics (vs light gathering) isn't to eliminate the background and get rid of context. If you want to do that, use a longer lens that compresses the background. The point of a fast aperture, particularly when paired with a wide lens like a 35 is to pull the background into the frame so there is context, but leveraging a shallow DOF to draw attention to the subject.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49284510448_ddfee8cf07_h.jpg DSC00953_1 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

---------------------------------------------

Ross Martin wrote:
Perfectly said, and great image to bring home that point.

Whatever was he thinking when he blurred and faded the background here? (Another example of Mystik's point.)

Aug 30, 2024 at 10:03 PM

j4nu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Wasn't it the case with "legacy" 1.2 lenses that they offered a unique look (not only due to the aperture, but the combination of its optical properties, including uncorrected aberrations wide-open) but didn't match the sharpness of their "regular" 1.4 counterparts?
I think nowadays the threshold simply shifted and we can get well corrected 1.2 lenses, which are close to their slower cousins on technical level, but offer that extra aperture, which contributes to their unique look.
The best example are 50GMs, 1.2 is very (an understatement

) sharp, but 1.4 is even sharper, not as smooth in its output though (so better "technically" I guess).
As for 35mm, it's not as clear as we have different manufacturers and even different sizes, but looking at 35/0.95 (Laowa Argus) vs 35/1.2DN vs 35/1.4GM in Sony land, the first one actually looks like a vintage lens wide open. Sigma and Sony are close on technical level but I'd still give the edge to the latter, while the rendering advantage goes to the former

Aug 31, 2024 at 06:28 AM

j4nu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Mystik wrote:
I don't recommend the Sigma 35 1.2 for casual use at all for obvious reasons, but my preference over the Sigma over the 35 GM, which I ended up selling, has nothing to do with f1.2. The overall portrait rendering is more pleasing, and I shoot with it stopped down all the time. (F1.2 vs f1.4 is probably the least important consideration for me). It's like the 85GM1 of 35mm lenses.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51964503897_b812eb09c1_h.jpg 7R406318 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50655179592_e7e546ce5f_h.jpg DSC03151 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52574170491_7031837b1e_h.jpg 7R402608 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

These are great shots and I don't want to be argumentative, but don't you think that except the middle one, they would look more or less the same on the GM?

Aug 31, 2024 at 06:32 AM

Mystik
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · The f/1.2 "Look"

For sure since even at f2.8, the middle one is leaning into out of focus rendering more and there more going on with the ambient lighting. It's an edge case scenario overall but a key scenario for me. Hence my personal preference for the Sigma. YMMV and you'd have to really care about those rendering characteristics to choose the Sigma because it's a stupidly big lens for a 35mm prime.

My most used 35mm for personal shooting is the 35i.

j4nu wrote:
These are great shots and I don't want to be argumentative, but don't you think that except the middle one, they would look more or less the same on the GM?

Aug 31, 2024 at 09:15 AM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Mystik wrote:
While there isn't sufficient difference IMO between f1.4 and F1.2, the purpose of a fast aperture when used for aeathetics (vs light gathering) isn't to eliminate the background and get rid of context. If you want to do that, use a longer lens that compresses the background. The point of a fast aperture, particularly when paired with a wide lens like a 35 is to pull the background into the frame so there is context, but leveraging a shallow DOF to draw attention to the subject.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49284510448_ddfee8cf07_h.jpg DSC00953_1 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

There is another tricky part to this shot besides the aperture and that's the light on bride and groom which is brighter than the folks in background and that gives it more of a punch. It's great but there is so much more to an image than aperture and that's on the photog to make it memorable . I wish you all took the light into play more than aperture in all your thinking as without light you got shit. Been doing this forever and what's kept me in business is not the aperture but the style and what goes into an image.

Mystik you nailed that one

Aug 31, 2024 at 09:35 AM

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

p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · The f/1.2 "Look"

j4nu wrote:
These are great shots and I don't want to be argumentative, but don't you think that except the middle one, they would look more or less the same on the GM?

---------------------------------------------

Mystik wrote:
For sure since even at f2.8, the middle one is leaning into out of focus rendering more and there more going on with the ambient lighting. It's an edge case scenario overall but a key scenario for me. Hence my personal preference for the Sigma. YMMV and you'd have to really care about those rendering characteristics to choose the Sigma because it's a stupidly big lens for a 35mm prime.

My most used 35mm for personal shooting is the 35i.

Certainly j4nu is perceptive and right on the issue of the degree to which there are out-of-focus areas in these three pictures and whether the 1.4 GM would show any differently in terms of what is out-of focus.

However, I also think that the two lenses would still portray the scenes with subtle but important differences apart from the issue of what is out-of-focus.

There have been many comparisons on the Forum of the same or similar focal length lenses shot at the same apertures and yielding different renderings of the scene. This doesn't surprise us since every lens has a unique optical formula with a different set of unique glass surfaces in the path of the light.

I am unlikely ever to own the Sigma 35/1.2 because of its size and reported weak autofocus, which I know would annoy me enormously (though I'm not sure to what extent the AF issues are better or nonexistent with some camera bodies). But I do think that the Sigma 35/1.2 lens, even with apertures smaller than f1.2, has unique rendering characteristics that are quite beautiful.

Aug 31, 2024 at 09:51 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.