50mm f1.4 vs f1.8?

snerkler

snerkler

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26,078
Name
Toby
Edit My Images
No
I'm just wondering for those that have had both f1.4 and f1.8 versions of a 50mm lens whether you've noticed a worthwhile difference in the images (disregarding light gathering)? What I'm interested in is the subject isolation, pop and background blur, and whilst I've looked at various youtube videos and blogs none seem to have decent examples as there's often a difference in framing etc which will obviously influence the image.
 
Often the F1.4 versions are more premium optics, so these tend to be better (sharper) overall.

I think that you are chasing the holy grail, as all of your criteria (subject isolation, pop and background blur) are very dependent on the working distrance to the subject. Unless you can control these you will not get that consitent look to the images that you are after.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Often the F1.4 versions are more premium optics, so these tend to be better (sharper) overall.

I think that you are chasing the holy grail, as all of your criteria (subject isolation, pop and background blur) are very dependent on the working distrance to the subject. Unless you can control these you will not get that consitent look to the images that you are after.
Click to expand...
I'm always chasing the holy grail :lol: I appreciate that you won't get a consistent look due to the variables that you've mentioned, it's more a case of whether like for like the f1.4 is going to be a noticeable difference from the f1.8, although I appreciate this is very subjective.
 
snerkler said:
I'm just wondering for those that have had both f1.4 and f1.8 versions of a 50mm lens whether you've noticed a worthwhile difference in the images (disregarding light gathering)? What I'm interested in is the subject isolation, pop and background blur, and whilst I've looked at various youtube videos and blogs none seem to have decent examples as there's often a difference in framing etc which will obviously influence the image.
Click to expand...

IMO the main difference is the size of bokeh balls.

I did a comparison from f1.2 and stopping down a while back. It's at 40mm but may be some help to you. Just to be clear. I wasn't comparing this 40mm f1.2 to any other lens, the point was just to look at the effect stopping down has at three distances. The light wasn't great on the day but hopefully the examples are a help as this wasn't really about making a beautiful picture and was instead all about looking at the differences stopping down from f1.2 though to f2.8 has.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Differences at f1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2, 2.8.

Just out of interest. The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 for DoF and bokeh has cropped up a couple of times so I thought I'd post a series of pictures. Note that I'm ignoring light gathering here and just looking at depth of field and bokeh. I looked at bokeh and depth of field years ago and...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Last edited:
trevorbray said:
Bite the bullet. 50GM. You’re never gonna settle until it happens.
Click to expand...

Fails on weight and cost................................ but it is the answer if you want AF, or perhaps the Zeiss Otus....

either that and start using some older manual Focus lenses - plenty of very decent film era lenses that will give you lovely colour rendition and a bit of punch.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Fails on weight and cost................................ but it is the answer if you want AF, or perhaps the Zeiss Otus....

either that and start using some older manual Focus lenses - plenty of very decent film era lenses that will give you lovely colour rendition and a bit of punch.
Click to expand...

One problem with older film era lenses in the 50mm sort of range is that you can get funky bokeh at wider apertures if the scene is messy / unfriendly.

I take a lot of pictures with trees, branches and foliage and things like that can be a real torture test at f1.x.
 
trevorbray said:
Bite the bullet. 50GM. You’re never gonna settle until it happens.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
IMO the main difference is the size of bokeh balls.

I did a comparison from f1.2 and stopping down a while back. It's at 40mm but may be some help to you. Just to be clear. I wasn't comparing this 40mm f1.2 to any other lens, the point was just to look at the effect stopping down has at three distances. The light wasn't great on the day but hopefully the examples are a help as this wasn't really about making a beautiful picture and was instead all about looking at the differences stopping down from f1.2 though to f2.8 has.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Differences at f1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2, 2.8.

Just out of interest. The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 for DoF and bokeh has cropped up a couple of times so I thought I'd post a series of pictures. Note that I'm ignoring light gathering here and just looking at depth of field and bokeh. I looked at bokeh and depth of field years ago and...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
Click to expand...

f/2.8 said:
He has been told before :D
Click to expand...
The GM is a pipe dream, I need to be realistic ;)

Top level AF is not an issue, I've been reading a lot about the gen II Samyang 50mm f1.4 and it's been getting very good reviews, correcting a lot of the flaws of the gen 1.
 
snerkler said:
The GM is a pipe dream, I need to be realistic ;)

Top level AF is not an issue, I've been reading a lot about the gen II Samyang 50mm f1.4 and it's been getting very good reviews, correcting a lot of the flaws of the gen 1.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the older Sammy 50mm, but the New 50mm II that I have is a cracker for my jazz shots along with my 45mm.
 
Fuji Dave said:
I don't know about the older Sammy 50mm, but the New 50mm II that I have is a cracker for my jazz shots along with my 45mm.
Click to expand...
I do like the look of the new one, much lighter too. It's just whether I'll see much of a difference over the 45mm to justify the cost (y) It'll mainly be for cars and bikes, but I do have a session day lined up in June that I'd like to use a 50mm type lens for.
 
snerkler said:
The GM is a pipe dream, I need to be realistic ;)

Top level AF is not an issue, I've been reading a lot about the gen II Samyang 50mm f1.4 and it's been getting very good reviews, correcting a lot of the flaws of the gen 1.
Click to expand...

It is okay as long as you don't mind eye a.f being totally unusable.
 
f/2.8 said:
It is okay as long as you don't mind eye a.f being totally unusable.
Click to expand...
I thought they had that sorted tbh :rolleyes: I've not actually tried the 45mm with eye af so maybe I should try that first ;)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@snerkler -

Are you really going to use the 45mm if you buy a decent 50mm?

Are you really going to use the 85mm F1.4 if you buy a decent 50mm? - especially if you consider the weight of carrying them both about.

So sell both of these and buy the 50mm GM
Click to expand...
Both very good questions, and questions I don't really have the answer to. The 45mm I'd consider keeping for holidays etc when weight is top priority especially considering I wouldn't get a lot for this lens, the 85mm is more questionable and without more experience with portraits I don't truly know whether I prefer the compression of an 85mm or not. If I sold the 85mm I'd still have to put £1k (grey) towards the GM which is a big ask, especially considering it's not my most used lens.

I think that's why I keep considering the Samyang, it's a halfway house and if I did find that I was using it more and more I could then look at the GM maybe sometime in the future.
 
Fuji Dave said:
I know we are all trying to help Toby, but for my jazz EYE AF works a dream on my 50mm.
Click to expand...

How often do you use the lens wide open? Not often it would seem going by the photos you post on here.

I have tried 3 different copies of the newer Samyang 50mm f/1.4 all bought by a good friend of mine who ended up returning each one as wasn't fit for purpose. None of them were usable in terms of eye a.f, with 9/10 images being focused on the subjects eyebrow or eye lash. A quick look online at reviews of the lens shows this is the same for everyone that has had one.

Even the Samyang shrills have said the same thing about the lens.

You may not be seeing these issues as going by the images you have posted on here, you tend to use smaller apertures were this well known issue wouldn't be as apparent.

@snerkler seems to be wanting to use the lens wide open based on what he has said so this lens will be a very poor choice if his subjects are people or animals, maybe not so bad for other subjects though were eye a.f is not important.
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
What you keeping the Olympus gear for then? I know I'm playing devils advocate but as someone who has far too much gear (me) I'm always looking for ways to slim it down!!!
Click to expand...
Dog walks :lol:
 
f/2.8 said:
How often do you use the lens wide open? Not often it would seem going by the photos you post on here.

I have tried 3 different copies of the newer Samyang 50mm f/1.4 all bought by a good friend of mine who ended up returning each one as wasn't fit for purpose. None of them were usable in terms of eye a.f, with 9/10 images being focused on the subjects eyebrow or eye lash. A quick look online at reviews of the lens shows this is the same for everyone that has had one.

Even the Samyang shrills have said the same thing about the lens.

You may not be seeing these issues as going by the images you have posted on here, you tend to use smaller apertures were this well known issue wouldn't be as apparent.

@snerkler seems to be wanting to use the lens wide open based on what he has said so this lens will be a very poor choice is his subjects are people or animals, maybe not so bad for other subjects though were eye a.f is not important.
Click to expand...

Not very often do I shoot wide open, but tomorrow I will be testing both 45mm and 50mm wide open. For me I think the 45mm wide open is just a bit quicker than the 50mm and the pop is better too.
 
Fuji Dave said:
Not very often do I shoot wide open, but tomorrow I will be testing both 45mm and 50mm wide open. For me I think the 45mm wide open is just a bit quicker than the 50mm and the pop is better too.
Click to expand...

The auto focus speed on either lens is not affected by using it wide open. The 45 always has quicker a.f because it is moving much less glass around.

Not sure what you mean by "pop" but If you are talking about the D.O.F fall off then no the 50mm is much better.
 
f/2.8 said:
The auto focus speed on either lens is not affected by using it wide open. The 45 always has quicker a.f because it is moving much less glass around.

Not sure what you mean by "pop" but If you are talking about the D.O.F fall off then no the 50mm is much better.
Click to expand...

I have never been good with words or the jargon talk, what I mean by pop is the subject stands out out better.
 
snerkler said:
Hmm, eye AF isn't looking good here at 1:08. Strange that they've only gone one motor rather than the dual that they've been using recently. I'll keep an eye out on firmware updates.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucBbEIdsvOo&t=500s&ab_channel=JuliaTrotti
Click to expand...

Could be wrong but I thought that the only lens they have that has dual motors is the 135mm, so its the exception rather than the rule and obviously with that much glass they had to have dual motors in that lens.

50GM has 4 motors :cool:
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Dog walks :LOL:
Click to expand...

My 'internal' justification is that I have different gear for different uses, but in reality I have huge focal length overlaps in both digital and film. I know I prefer certain focal lengths but can't bring myself not to have these lengths in every system that I own!!

I started aiming for a lighter weight solutions, but have ended up with a GFX and 3 primes - how does that work?
 
Fuji Dave said:
I have never been good with words or the jargon talk, what I mean by pop is the subject stands out out better.
Click to expand...

No the subjects absolutely stand out better using the 50mm as you would expect as it can be used at f/1.4 and is also a slightly longer focal length.

In terms of sharpness if you use both at f/1.8 the 50 is also marginally better. The 50 isn't just as sharp at f/1.4 as you would expect.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
The 50 isn't just as sharp at f/1.4 as you would expect.
Click to expand...

And thats why premium glass costs - at the end of the day you get what you pay for.

I only have one Samyang lens, (EF mount manual focus 85mm F1.4), and it is not as sharp as I would have expectyed at F1.4 and indeed its noticable less sharp than a 40 year old Canon 50mm FD F1.4.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
And thats why premium glass costs - at the end of the day you get what you pay for.

I only have one Samyang lens, (EF mount manual focus 85mm F1.4), and it is not as sharp as I would have expectyed at F1.4 and indeed its noticable less sharp than a 40 year old Canon 50mm FD F1.4.
Click to expand...

Yeah lots of those had decentring issues, if you get a good copy the manual 85mm actually was exceptionally sharp back then even wide open. Had beautiful fall of that lens as well. Possibly the best lens Samyang have produced.
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
And thats why premium glass costs - at the end of the day you get what you pay for.

I only have one Samyang lens, (EF mount manual focus 85mm F1.4), and it is not as sharp as I would have expectyed at F1.4 and indeed its noticable less sharp than a 40 year old Canon 50mm FD F1.4.
Click to expand...

I do think it's a shame that the best lenses these days are sometimes the ones with the widest apertures. We've seen some outstanding lenses recently at f1.2 and f1.4 and that's all very nice but some of them are big fat honkers and I just don't want to own them as I like compact kit for two reasons, because it's lighter to carry about and also because some people don't like a big honking lens being pointed at them and I feel self conscious point it at them anyway.

So, I'd like to see really good lenses which are more compact and there are I suppose some nice compact lenses about. I can't say what's available for other systems but for Sony there's the 55mm f1.8 which I think is a good lens with just a couple of things to nit pick including some ca with some scenes (backlit especially) and the fact that it's 55mm and not 50mm. There's also the manual focus Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO with which the main thing to nit pick is a bit of vignetting.

People will doubtless disagree but I personally don't see a lot of difference image wise (not light gathering) between f1.2 and maybe as far down as f2 apart from the size of bokeh balls which may only affect a proportion of pictures depending on what you take pictures of so f1.8 or f2 and compact and good is more attractive to me than state of the art and f1.2/f1.4 and big and honking. The definition of what is compact and what is big and honking may be up to each of us.

I have a load of film era 50's including that FD f1.4 and others from f1.2/1,4 and f1.7/f1.8 and they're nice things but all have one thing in common, funky bokeh at wide apertures. IMO these lenses can't compete with more modern lenses at wide apertures if the scene is messy, unless you like funky bokeh.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
People will doubtless disagree but I personally don't see a lot of difference image wise (not light gathering) between f1.2 and maybe as far down as f2 apart from the size of bokeh balls which may only affect a proportion of pictures depending on what you take pictures of so f1.8 or f2 and compact and good is more attractive to me than state of the art and f1.2/f1.4 and big and honking. The definition of what is compact and what is big and honking may be up to each of us.
Click to expand...

It isn't just the difference between f/1.2 and f/2 in terms of light gathering or even in terms of just the d.o.f although that is a factor.

The 50GM just has remarkable rendering along with being super sharp and having excellent a.f, it also has next to no C.A. Honestly there is a huge difference between it and the 55mm even when shooting the same scene the images from the 50GM are always more pleasing and there is a very noticeable difference between the two.

Only someone who has never used the 50GM could say that they can't see a difference, this lens is exceptional, the best lens you can buy for the system bar none. I know 2 x photographers who shoot Canon and have always had f/1.2 lenses who have jumped ship to Sony just so they can use this lens.
 
f/2.8 said:
It isn't just the difference between f/1.2 and f/2 in terms of light gathering or even in terms of just the d.o.f although that is a factor.

The 50GM just has remarkable rendering along with being super sharp and having excellent a.f, it also has next to no C.A. Honestly there is a huge difference between it and the 55mm even when shooting the same scene the images from the 50GM are always more pleasing and there is a very noticeable difference between the two.

Only someone who has never used the 50GM could say that they can't see a difference, this lens is exceptional, the best lens you can buy for the system bar none. I know 2 x photographers who shoot Canon and have always had f/1.2 lenses who have jumped ship to Sony just so they can use this lens.
Click to expand...

You've missed my point on this.

The best lenses these days are usually the wide aperture ones. We've seen that in the Sony universe with the 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.4. These are better lenses than the 55 and 35mm f1.8's and that statement is nothing to do with the differences in DoF or light gathering. I'm just talking about technical ability, sharpness across the frame, ca, and yes focus speed etc. DoF is another matter, you know my views on DoF and I've provided 40mm f1.2-f2.8 examples and I know your views.

My point is that I do wish that Sony had very good 50 and 35mm f1.8's, ones that get close to the Voigtlander 50/35mm f2 which are excellent, but with AF. Ones which provide most of the technical quality of the Sony 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2 but without the wider aperture so they can be smaller.

I'm not that fussed about the IMO relatively small differences in DoF or even light gathering between f1.2 / f1.4 / f1.8 or f2.
 
@snerkler what about the zeiss 50mm f1.4. It’s not as good as the gm but it’s still excellent and you’ll be able to pick up a good used one for about £750-£800.

I imagine the 50mm Samsung eye af will eventually be sorted by firmware update.
 
f/2.8 said:
Could be wrong but I thought that the only lens they have that has dual motors is the 135mm, so its the exception rather than the rule and obviously with that much glass they had to have dual motors in that lens.

50GM has 4 motors :cool:
Click to expand...
I don't know for sure, the Samyang site is very confusing, especially when you read that the original 35mm f1.4 is "the first lens to use dual linear motors" yet the gen II looks as though it only has one from their site :thinking:
woof woof said:
I do think it's a shame that the best lenses these days are sometimes the ones with the widest apertures. We've seen some outstanding lenses recently at f1.2 and f1.4 and that's all very nice but some of them are big fat honkers and I just don't want to own them as I like compact kit for two reasons, because it's lighter to carry about and also because some people don't like a big honking lens being pointed at them and I feel self conscious point it at them anyway.

So, I'd like to see really good lenses which are more compact and there are I suppose some nice compact lenses about. I can't say what's available for other systems but for Sony there's the 55mm f1.8 which I think is a good lens with just a couple of things to nit pick including some ca with some scenes (backlit especially) and the fact that it's 55mm and not 50mm. There's also the manual focus Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO with which the main thing to nit pick is a bit of vignetting.

People will doubtless disagree but I personally don't see a lot of difference image wise (not light gathering) between f1.2 and maybe as far down as f2 apart from the size of bokeh balls which may only affect a proportion of pictures depending on what you take pictures of so f1.8 or f2 and compact and good is more attractive to me than state of the art and f1.2/f1.4 and big and honking. The definition of what is compact and what is big and honking may be up to each of us.

I have a load of film era 50's including that FD f1.4 and others from f1.2/1,4 and f1.7/f1.8 and they're nice things but all have one thing in common, funky bokeh at wide apertures. IMO these lenses can't compete with more modern lenses at wide apertures if the scene is messy, unless you like funky bokeh.
Click to expand...
That again is a big plus for the Samyang gen II, it's 'only' 420g
Fuji Dave said:
I won't put them up but on my Suzie Flickr just done the 50mm and 45mm quick test. 50mm on the A7 III and 45mm on A7C.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I very much appreciate that. I'm actually surprised how much softer/more blurred the background is with the f1.4, especially considering that the subject is smaller and therefore a noticeably larger camera to subject distance which you would expect the background to be less blurred.
 
addicknchips said:
@snerkler what about the zeiss 50mm f1.4. It’s not as good as the gm but it’s still excellent and you’ll be able to pick up a good used one for about £750-£800.

I imagine the 50mm Samsung eye af will eventually be sorted by firmware update.
Click to expand...
It's an option, but it's heavier than I'd ideally like.
 
Fuji Dave said:
Tomorrow if you want, then I can test both lenses on the A7 III as I will be taking some flower shots in town.
Click to expand...
That'd be great, look forward to seeing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top