50mm f1.4 vs f1.8?

Fuji Dave said:
@snerkler just so I know, do you want them as Sooc, or do you mind cropped ?
Click to expand...
My preference would be SOOC with the same framing from each so that I can compare what the image would look like if I took the same shot with each lens. I appreciate that it will require different camera to subject distances due to the 5mm difference in focal length, but honestly don't worry too much about it I just appreciate you going to the trouble (y)
 
A few years ago, when my GAS was fairly rampant, I was tempted to upgrade my old Nikon 50mm f/1.8 to a newer f/1.4 variant and was advised both times (different shops) not to bother unless I needed the extra 1/2 stop or so of speed or the reduced DoF and if I wanted to see a significant difference in the DoF, to go for the old f/1.2 MF option. Despite my GAS, I followed the advice and have never regretted it!
 
Last edited:
A worry for me would be if the focusing would be ok on my creaking old A7.
 
The answer would definitely be brand specific.

I see you shoot Sony and I have no idea about their lenses.

But if it was Nikon I’d say the 1.4 is worth it, but if you shot Canon, then the Canon 1.4 is definitely not worth getting (the latest 1.8 is better) so if you really want
1.4 you’d have to get the Sigma.
 
f/2.8 said:
He never gives Samyang lenses anything but ridiculously good reviews. He did the same with the old 50mm Samyang and got called out on it and replaced the review with a more realistic one that mentioned the issues it had that he had ignored / omitted previously.

Samyang must be paying him a fortune.
Click to expand...


I did watch his review on the AF24mm, and nearly got one but I have the little Sony FE28mm so changed my mind.
 
woof woof said:
A worry for me would be if the focusing would be ok on my creaking old A7.
Click to expand...
I think the focussing will be fine on my A9-II tbh, at least for my needs. I obviously don't want missed focus but if I get the odd one here and there it's not the end of the world, it would of course be a different matter if it was paid work.

I think it will in the end come back to my original question of whether or not the difference in depth of field and bokeh is worth it, also the 3D rendering which to me is slightly different to just depth of field. I wish other manufacturers were like Olympus and offered a 'try before you buy' scheme as that's the only way you'll ever truly know, I'm not willing to rent just to try a lens out before buying ;)
 
snerkler said:
I think the focussing will be fine on my A9-II tbh, at least for my needs. I obviously don't want missed focus but if I get the odd one here and there it's not the end of the world, it would of course be a different matter if it was paid work.

I think it will in the end come back to my original question of whether or not the difference in depth of field and bokeh is worth it, also the 3D rendering which to me is slightly different to just depth of field. I wish other manufacturers were like Olympus and offered a 'try before you buy' scheme as that's the only way you'll ever truly know, I'm not willing to rent just to try a lens out before buying ;)
Click to expand...

I think even if it happens some missed focus on the eye shots could be pretty much unnoticeable for many people unless the picture is zoomed in and it's pointed out to them. I seem to get by with just face detect with my A7.
 
woof woof said:
I think even if it happens some missed focus on the eye shots could be pretty much unnoticeable for many people unless the picture is zoomed in and it's pointed out to them. I seem to get by with just face detect with my A7.
Click to expand...
This is true, however the photos are for me and I get annoyed if they're not tack sharp :runaway:
 
Fuji Dave said:
I'd say your 45mm shots are plenty sharp enough, but it is a great little lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks, yeah I shouldn't have said tack sharp I should have really said nailed focus. I have no issue with the 45mm in this regard either. If I just end up keeping the 45mm I'll be happy, but of course we always want the next thing an I am a sucker for pop and background blur ;)
 
snerkler said:
It's an option, but it's heavier than I'd ideally like.
Click to expand...
It's really not that bad, I've done a few 3-5 mile walks recently with A7RIII+50 Zeiss 1.4 just holding it with a wrist strap for safety, it balances well with the body and it's a great lens.

I wouldn't swap it for the GM given the huge price difference, even when the GM has been around a while and dropped in price used it's debatable whether it's worth the extra.

Why not get the 35GM and walk forward a bit and walk backwards when using the 85 ? :cool: I think we get hung up on having a range of primes in the bag these days, i've actually enjoyed having less kit recently.
 
imattersuk said:
It's really not that bad, I've done a few 3-5 mile walks recently with A7RIII+50 Zeiss 1.4 just holding it with a wrist strap for safety, it balances well with the body and it's a great lens.

I wouldn't swap it for the GM given the huge price difference, even when the GM has been around a while and dropped in price used it's debatable whether it's worth the extra.

Why not get the 35GM and walk forward a bit and walk backwards when using the 85 ? :cool: I think we get hung up on having a range of primes in the bag these days, i've actually enjoyed having less kit recently.
Click to expand...
I know what you’re saying about loads of kit. The 35GM is too expensive too, plus it’s not my first choice for portrait due to the potential distortion.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, yeah I shouldn't have said tack sharp I should have really said nailed focus. I have no issue with the 45mm in this regard either. If I just end up keeping the 45mm I'll be happy, but of course we always want the next thing an I am a sucker for pop and background blur ;)
Click to expand...


The only lens that ever gave me total pop out of the screen and fantastic blur was the Fuji 90mm, totally a fantastic lens that one.
 
Back to the original question, Toby I see very little difference between f1.4 and f1.8 all other things being equal. Probably only other photographers looking for the difference could tell with real world examples.

However, f1.4 or 1.2 lenses are usually better overall. FWIW I have Canon 1.8 and Sigma 1.4 and almost always pack the Sigma as most shoots are indoor low light events so the extra light is a benefit.
 
I've owned several 50/1.4 and 50/1.8s, and it's always been the superior optics that have drawn me to the brighter lenses.

I mostly shoot a Lumix 50/1.8 lens on the Panasonic cameras I use now though and back in my Nikon days, I tended to use the f/1.8G in preference to the Sigma Art f/1.4, mostly due to the Nikon's more dependable AF as well as lighter weight.

Personally, I'm not massively keen on bokeh and normally shoot stopped down anyway. I rarely go brighter than f/2.8, and most of my photos are shot between f/4 and f/11; I can't remember the last time I reviewed one of my images and found myself wishing less was in focus!

Modern 50/1.8s are usually extremely sharp and plenty good enough for anything, so unless you really need the extra 2/3 stop of light or the extra bit of blurriness, I'd go with the 1.8. My grail lens would probably be an Otus grade 50/2.8.
 
TimHughes said:
Back to the original question, Toby I see very little difference between f1.4 and f1.8 all other things being equal. Probably only other photographers looking for the difference could tell with real world examples.

However, f1.4 or 1.2 lenses are usually better overall. FWIW I have Canon 1.8 and Sigma 1.4 and almost always pack the Sigma as most shoots are indoor low light events so the extra light is a benefit.
Click to expand...

alexcarnes said:
I've owned several 50/1.4 and 50/1.8s, and it's always been the superior optics that have drawn me to the brighter lenses.

I mostly shoot a Lumix 50/1.8 lens on the Panasonic cameras I use now though and back in my Nikon days, I tended to use the f/1.8G in preference to the Sigma Art f/1.4, mostly due to the Nikon's more dependable AF as well as lighter weight.

Personally, I'm not massively keen on bokeh and normally shoot stopped down anyway. I rarely go brighter than f/2.8, and most of my photos are shot between f/4 and f/11; I can't remember the last time I reviewed one of my images and found myself wishing less was in focus!

Modern 50/1.8s are usually extremely sharp and plenty good enough for anything, so unless you really need the extra 2/3 stop of light or the extra bit of blurriness, I'd go with the 1.8. My grail lens would probably be an Otus grade 50/2.8.
Click to expand...
Thanks I appreciate the advice (y)
 
Fuji Dave said:
The only lens that ever gave me total pop out of the screen and fantastic blur was the Fuji 90mm, totally a fantastic lens that one.
Click to expand...
it's a very difficult quality to describe, and I guess we will all see it differently. These are images that I've taken that have a hint of what I'm talking about, I feel as though I could almost reach into the photo and pick the subject up if that makes sense. Almost a hint of miniaturisation or Brenizer.


A9_03003 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
NZ7_1760 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

NZ7_1291 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

NZ7_1296 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr


However, I appreciate that there's far more to it than just the lens, light, angle, framing etc etc. For example if I compare this to the first picture of the orange escort above it's a lot 'flatter' to my eyes and doesn't have as much of the 3D pop, yet it's taken with the same lens with the same settings within two minutes of each other. Clearly the latter is under cover which could very well explain the difference. Also with portraits you see more of this look with a full body shot rather than a close up head and shoulders shot even though the latter has more of a blurry background.

NZ7_1280 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr


Whilst I appreciate light and framing are all important I do believe that there are lenses that give this look more consistently, such as the Mitakon 50mm f0.95 (obviously the ridiculous aperture helps here ;)), and a reason I do have a liking for some of the Samyang lenses.

Ramble over ;)
 
Fuji Dave said:
Good set but love the first one, change of plan today I have to go to see my mother so will doing the test at hers as I know just what to take a couple of shots of.
Click to expand...
Thanks I appreciate it, but as I said don’t go out of your way (y)
 
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...
Damn you for making me look at the Zeiss :lol: I actually prefer the colour rendition of the Zeiss over the F1.2 GM on these, skin tones look nicer to my eyes :oops: :$
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n28wOhUIGq0&ab_channel=JuliaTrotti
 
Fuji Dave said:
@snerkler Here you go Toby, not great but hope it helps.

45mm Mums by Suzie Law, on Flickr

50mm Mums by Suzie Law, on Flickr

45mm Pub Lunch by Suzie Law, on Flickr

50mm Pub Lunch by Suzie Law, on Flickr
Click to expand...
That’s great thanks very much, I really appreciate it. I’m surprised how much softer the background is with the f1.4, I wasn’t expecting it to be as noticeable as it is. But what’s also VERY surprising is that with the purple flow shot both are at f1.8 according to flickr yet the background of the 50mm is so much softer so it appears that the extra 5mm focal length plays quite a part in this, or maybe there’s other parts of the design that’s influencing this? (I appreciate there’s a difference in framing too)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
That’s great thanks very much, I really appreciate it. I’m surprised how much softer the background is with the f1.4, I wasn’t expecting it to be as noticeable as it is. But what’s also VERY surprising is that with the purple flow shot both are at f1.8 according to flickr yet the background of the 50mm is so much softer so it appears that the extra 5mm focal length plays quite a part in this, or maybe there’s other parts of the design that’s influencing this? (I appreciate there’s a difference in framing too)
Click to expand...

Your welcome Toby, this coming Friday I will be using both these lenses at the jazz.
 
snerkler said:
it's a very difficult quality to describe, and I guess we will all see it differently. These are images that I've taken that have a hint of what I'm talking about, I feel as though I could almost reach into the photo and pick the subject up if that makes sense. Almost a hint of miniaturisation or Brenizer.


A9_03003 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
NZ7_1760 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

NZ7_1291 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

NZ7_1296 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr


However, I appreciate that there's far more to it than just the lens, light, angle, framing etc etc. For example if I compare this to the first picture of the orange escort above it's a lot 'flatter' to my eyes and doesn't have as much of the 3D pop, yet it's taken with the same lens with the same settings within two minutes of each other. Clearly the latter is under cover which could very well explain the difference. Also with portraits you see more of this look with a full body shot rather than a close up head and shoulders shot even though the latter has more of a blurry background.

NZ7_1280 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr


Whilst I appreciate light and framing are all important I do believe that there are lenses that give this look more consistently, such as the Mitakon 50mm f0.95 (obviously the ridiculous aperture helps here ;)), and a reason I do have a liking for some of the Samyang lenses.

Ramble over ;)
Click to expand...

In this case, if you've discounted a slightly wider field of view like a 35mm f1.4, I think you're heading in the direction of larger sensors. GFX is the most versatile option at the moment and I do love the look they create. See you over in the medium format thread :)
 
I've had a couple of f1.4s as well as f1.8s. I still use the A mount Sony 50 f1.4 because the coma gives everything a lovely glow when wide open, but it's not especially sharp even by the standards of the time. The Sammy 50 f1.4 MkI has the separation I think you're after in spades. They're also £299 on e-infinity right now. AF won't be great, but the rendering is lovely.
 
TimHughes said:
In this case, if you've discounted a slightly wider field of view like a 35mm f1.4, I think you're heading in the direction of larger sensors. GFX is the most versatile option at the moment and I do love the look they create. See you over in the medium format thread :)
Click to expand...
Medium format is lovely but I’m not going to be swapping systems ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
I've had a couple of f1.4s as well as f1.8s. I still use the A mount Sony 50 f1.4 because the coma gives everything a lovely glow when wide open, but it's not especially sharp even by the standards of the time. The Sammy 50 f1.4 MkI has the separation I think you're after in spades. They're also £299 on e-infinity right now. AF won't be great, but the rendering is lovely.
Click to expand...
Yeah the Samyangs do have this character imo. The gen II is a more favourable option due to the AF and weight though.
 
TimHughes said:
Back to the original question, Toby I see very little difference between f1.4 and f1.8 all other things being equal. Probably only other photographers looking for the difference could tell with real world examples.
Click to expand...
It's mostly all in the bokeh balls size. IMO. And even then I think most people would be guessing unless they see side by side examples. I can see the appeal in smooth bokeh though.
 
woof woof said:
It's mostly all in the bokeh balls size. IMO. And even then I think most people would be guessing unless they see side by side examples. I can see the appeal in smooth bokeh though.
Click to expand...
For me I notice it more in the smoothness of the bokeh, but as discussed it's that 3D isolation type look rather than the bokeh per se that I'm more interested in.
 
snerkler said:
For me I notice it more in the smoothness of the bokeh, but as discussed it's that 3D isolation type look rather than the bokeh per se that I'm more interested in.
Click to expand...

For me this could arguably come mostly from the lighting and the composition and special relationships etc, a lack of pop could be as much down to those things and the lighting and the colours and contrasts as anything lens related.

I'll be interested to know what you settle on and to see the results.
 
woof woof said:
For me this could arguably come mostly from the lighting and the composition and special relationships etc, a lack of pop could be as much down to those things and the lighting and the colours and contrasts as anything lens related.

I'll be interested to know what you settle on and to see the results.
Click to expand...
It definitely plays a big part, but certain lenses do have a bit of magic to them. I think I will get the Samyang Mark II at some point as curiosity will get the better of me ;) I've decided not only are the Zeiss and GM too expensive for me, I think the size and weight will put me off using them as much.

It's a shame the Samyang cashback isn't running up to my birthday, but maybe the price will drop to compensate.
 
alexcarnes said:
I like a bit of flare, and within reason, I can put up with distortion; I hate CA though!
Click to expand...
It’s annoying but I don’t worry too much these days with the corrections you can do in post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top