Wow I was really surprised by the difference! I figured f4 would be fine since you'd want to see the background in the first place, but it does look better at f/1.4. More noticeably though, the foreground elements were far less distracting and they looked way softer and better at 1.4 vs 2.8 and definitely vs f/4.
I think the real topic is how small the difference is between f2.8 and f4. The difference from f1.4 is going to be significant, especially at 50mm+ but the jump from 2.8 to 4, not so much
It’s all about directing the eye to the subject for me. Close up you can shoot f4 at 50-70mm on a zoom fairly close up but mid distance the F1.4 really shines for me in separation. But my Sony 24-70 f4 OSS is more useful for stability and I work around the depth of field limitations.
I like all 3. It's all subjective. Sometimes shallow DOF can get tiresome. I like to see a mix. As much as the shallow DOF looks more cinematic, I can't recall anyone every saying "Gee your video looks so cinematic." Appreciate the video.
This is absolutely the kind of professional information that will help a small channel like me, who is not a video master to focus less on gear and more in a story. Thank you for the hard work you do.
Honestly, the 1.4 footage makes the F4 clips look like bootleg toilet cam videos when compared side to side... not that I've ever watched any of those.
For versatility, I went with Tamron F 2.8 28-75 (which goes to about 112.5mm with Sony Clear Image Zoom). This is for run & gun. In wider shots or where there's some distance between you and the subject it may be less critical if the viewer can still focus on the subject. For stand-up interviews where the background may distract or context doesn't have to be sharp to be understood shallower can help. Hence the decision to go with F 2.8 Zoom lens. Also, F 2.8 can help with dark or night run & gun over F 4 given improved low-light performance. F 1.4 is suitable for controlled interviews (having time to change lenses) in locations where the background can be a distraction otherwise it may even be too shallow if the context/location of the interview is important to the story. F 4 is good if you're shooting during the day on longer shots or shots where you want to keep the context in focus. Otherwise, I'd find F 4 a bit limiting if I can't get the shallow depth field I want and don't have time to change lenses. F 2.8 zoom seems to be the sweet spot for run & gun documentary work. Fast Primes are only important when you want to avoid context and can control camera distance or light conditions that are so low that the other limits are less critical. I think the idea lens combo is F 2.8 mid zoom for versatility. Wide or wide zoom when you need the broadest area. Fast primes for structured interviews.
Great conversation and key points. As a graphic designer, occasionally needing to take "premium" video/photo, phone wide-angle is often too much for me. (setup) a6400 APSC definitely tougher to work with full-frame lenses...50mm EF 1.8 is my default...Currently building a variety pack of SLR, non-Sony lenses to play with this idea without skipping rent. ***Proper optical zoom + Auto-focus*** is the game changer for "on-the-fly" capture. Thank you for sharing your thought process and experience with the two options thus far. PS: @ 8:04 I notice vignetting for both lenses in the final thoughts/handheld section (post split-view comparison). Reasonably less for f/4. Since we're thinking out-loud here about "f/stop trade-off comparison for video capture", why not mention this affect as well? Would love to hear your opinion! Cheers.
That's my former radio station site in the background in your introduction of the video (and at 6:40)! I have the 24-105 f4 on my Canon R5C and that works for 99.9% of what I do. I've had a 16-35 f2.8 for a while, but the versatility of the 24-105 just can't be beat.
I think f4 is better for outdoor vlog-style content because you can see and feel the landscape around you. If there is a perfect lake behind you and it is completely blurred out I just don't see any sense ...
Really enjoyed your video. I recently purchased the 20-70 f4 & had 2nd thoughts after seeing mostly everyone bashing the slower aperture, especially compared to its Tamron competitor albeit having a slightly different zoom range. I took away from your video this lens is versatile and well-capable of capturing a beautiful image despite what some might see as a limitation. Also, interesting to see how little difference there was between f2.8 and f4.
Nothing beats that 20mm 1.8 though. by far the best looking lens for youtube without any of that distortion found in zooms. also the bokeh is really really smooth
As you say, lens choice is going to depend on style of content presentation. Shallow depth of field is about isolating the subject from both the foreground & background. This was apparent when you had brush in the foreground while you were walking the trail and in the shot from the overlook above the town. Blurred background reduces/eliminates distraction and hides some compositional mistakes. Comparing a wide aperture prime to a narrower aperture zoom is kinda apples and oranges. Zoom is going to give you greater versatility hands down. If you want to get the best of both worlds, or at least a one stop compromise, then you've got to pony up the cash for a 2.8 zoom which is also heavier than your f4 zoom of the same length. There are also some debates about the glass and optics being better on a prime or wider aperture zoom than an f4 zoom, but the biggest and most important point you make is that without good content depth of field is pretty much meaningless. Great video.
In the part of thel world I am. Clients tents to embrace shallow depth of field with super houri background. Buty you didn't seem to point to the use of variable ND filter for outdoor shoot. In stepping down your iso This can influence the bouquet in your shots
I am planning on get Lumix S5 mark 2 with 20-60 kit lens. I hope it will have similar output. I will get one 50 mm f1.8 for bokeh to complete my travel kit
Great comparison For general video, you can’t beat the Sony 24-105 F4. Want more bokeh, just have the camera further back and get some nice compression. Sometimes people get too carried away with blurring out the back ground, if you film a lovely place, let us see it. B roll, 24mm G Master 🔥
It depends for myself. Out doors stuff I prefer f4+ unless I have a subject I want to isolate or if the background to the object I want to shoot is a distraction or just not pleasing. But idk anything and this is the internet so that’s my opinion.
Personally I think the f4 looks better. Background is still blurred enough to separate you from the background but its not so blurred out at times that you cant tell what the background is. Just my opinion. Plus the f4 is a lot lighter to be carrying around all day.
Sounds a bit vague but there is a different feel to the shallow primes. If your making a cinematic sequence then the others look like phone footage. I use both lenses but my sigma 85 1.4 is something else and definitely looks better. Just my opinion 🤙. Light is king
First off. For TH-cam I agree it's hard to justify a fast prime as mostly it's phone viewers. Also the depth of field requires an dark nd filter in bright conditions, which comes with its own issues. The focal length has a lot to do with blurring background, so a 20mm even with 1.4 is hard to blur, while a 50mm f4 can get good results if you get a bit further from camera. That 20 to 70 is perfect on ff for vlogging, and put the extra time saved into better thinking out the shot. For professional work where you are behind the camera and expecting the work to go on the big screen then have fun with primes, anamorphic etc. This just my opinion.
It not only matters but you need to stop down to f2.8 or f4 for your type of wide shots to show the surroundings. F1.4 looks the worst because it defeats the point of this video to show the location.. The purpose of blurry background is to isolate the subject when needed for close up or detail shots but not to run the lens on max aperture always.
Thanks, Jeven. It was very interesting seeing the comparison with the different f-stops/lenses. I completely agree with everything you're saying 100%. If you have the time, use prime lenses if you're doing a shoot on-site the zooms are probably more appropriate and a lot lighter. Have a great day. 😀
Tbh the compression on the 1.4 gives an almost plastic feel, which is great if you are going for that kind of thing. Seems to me that on some photo gigs, all I really need is all 3 people to be in focus, and then suddenly the 1.4 is stopped down to f4 anyway... as far as the f4 lenses... that's a price to ability ratio, if you don't own anything longer than 70 mm then suddenly a pawn store 200 mm f4-5 kit lens for $60 bucks seems 🤔 reasonable when put up against the waiting period of a $2,500 piece of glass on layaway.
I film on my phone but thanks to Jeven I have the gear I need. Following some of his reviews I have chosen what works for me. (DJI Mics, DJI Gimbal etc...) When I finally get a camera then the Lense chase will start.
Late to this video, great content. I see a place for each (f1.4, f2.8, f4) but agree versatility is key especially in an outdoor environment. Think the 20-70 looks great. I'd be super happy with it especially for documentary, travel work. For portraits, I'd grab a 50mm f1.4.
I think that it might very much depend on how much ‘honing in’ that you want on the subject. If you want to really get in to the subject, then F1.4 is the tool to get everyones’ attention onto them. If you are in scenery and you want the audience to be aware of the surroundings, F4. I think that too much emphasis on that shallow depth of field becomes tiresome because it just becomes a series of portraits with less emphasis on the placing or no connection between subject and background. This video is more like a vlog, so you are focusing purely on yourself so perhaps losing the background is a good idea. However, where you were looked beautiful and it was cut out mostly because of the blur so the one shot where you were out of focus, walking away stood out to me because it was a great shot just showing the leaves and you seemed as though you were interacting with the surroundings, even though you put yourself out of focus. As you rightly said, ‘cinematic’ isn’t merely shallow depth of field, but too many videographers don’t make the choice based on what they want to depict. They just slap on a shallow depth of field which actually worked against you when you walked into shot twice and the auto focus caught the background and switched to you when you walked in. It was distracting. Great video for thought because not enough consideration is given to what actually needs to be in focus. The TH-cam ‘quality’ standard seems to be motion blur and shallow depth of field. No sense of thought about what is important to see! Shallow depth of field is often slightly wasted because so many watch on a little phone screen so they don’t see it as much either! Thank you. You’ve certainly got me rethinking ……
I choose to use a higher F lens to capture full frame detail as best as possible. I can always blur the features I don't want in post-production but you can't add detail if it wasn't captured in the first place.
For TH-cam 90% of the time prime lenses don't justify. Even with an F4 lens sometimes I have to go F5 or F8. But yeah with specific kind of work i.e commercial you do need primes!
When I look at the footage my thought is that f1.4 offers a little more mystery. It’s easier to focus on the subject themselves without being distracted from the rest of the scene. So maybe it helps aid in storytelling. Haha this video just made me want my Sony 50 1.4 to come in already! Ugh!
I really like how the F1.4 makes it a lot more natural to pick out the subject or point of focus in the shot vs the F4. Feels more purposeful when you're walking through the shot, but the last composition where the plants in the foreground were in focus and you weren't, it felt like the wrong focal point was chosen for the shot.
Submitted my original comment before getting through the whole video, so here's my follow-up... You have all the TH-cam experience. I have none, but I felt it important to communicate the difference I felt seeing the F1.4 vs F4 a bit better, especially with how it plays with the story you're trying to tell. So... I have to disagree, acknowledging my lack of experience and your depth of experience, but I totally feel a significant difference in how engaging your shots were with the more shallow depth of field and could see larger impact that would have on keeping viewers engaged in your story vs being distracted by surroundings. For example, are the details of the plants important to the part of the story your shot is helping tell? If not, the F1.4 keeps me focused on the subject much better, even if he's talking about lenses and not philosophy lol. My $0.02.
Ha ha On small media applications and fairly close to you the subject it makes little difference. Landscape it does , where you want depth of field ( literally ) . Portraits, would probably favour the fast prime lenses . F1.2 - f 2.8. A wide aperture allowing for Bokeh . A smaller aperture allows for great depth of field , bringing in foreground detail and the longer distance detail . However all photography ( video and stills ) is subjective. And it’s what you see and want for your image is the all important. It makes that image yours , also takes in composition and lighting . Best wishes .
Personally I saw this... The f4 seemed to give better color from the lens, whereas the f1.4 seem to be dull. The f1.4 definitely works better with closeups if you want to highlight the main subject, but the f4 works better for the further out shots. The f2.8 seemed almost exactly the same as the f4. Thanks for your content.
*I noticed it in somethings but in others I did. But I shoot on the Sigma 16mm f1.4 and I also have the 11mm f1.8 so I'll have to see the difference myself*
Hey Jeven, can't wait to see what you plan to do when reaching 1M subscribers, make it epic somewhere interesting, maybe hookup with Jake, then get back to business
Pronounced depth of field shift especially in front to mid ground , I find the F4 more pleasing for some reason , the start section close ups on the Sony looked super sharp , even looked over over sharp
Yeah I never said it was because of more light. I said that you can get more a light with faster lenses and you can get a blurry background because of the wider aperture
@@JevenDovey direct quote: "but what you get for that one focal length is wider apertures which allows you to let more light into your sensor which gives you more of the blurry background when you shoot wide open"
Learn how to use any camera to get Cinematic Footage and also how to tell stories: geni.us/CreatorFilmSchool
Wow I was really surprised by the difference! I figured f4 would be fine since you'd want to see the background in the first place, but it does look better at f/1.4. More noticeably though, the foreground elements were far less distracting and they looked way softer and better at 1.4 vs 2.8 and definitely vs f/4.
I think the real topic is how small the difference is between f2.8 and f4. The difference from f1.4 is going to be significant, especially at 50mm+ but the jump from 2.8 to 4, not so much
It’s all about directing the eye to the subject for me. Close up you can shoot f4 at 50-70mm on a zoom fairly close up but mid distance the F1.4 really shines for me in separation. But my Sony 24-70 f4 OSS is more useful for stability and I work around the depth of field limitations.
I like all 3. It's all subjective. Sometimes shallow DOF can get tiresome. I like to see a mix. As much as the shallow DOF looks more cinematic, I can't recall anyone every saying "Gee your video looks so cinematic."
Appreciate the video.
This is absolutely the kind of professional information that will help a small channel like me, who is not a video master to focus less on gear and more in a story. Thank you for the hard work you do.
Honestly, the 1.4 footage makes the F4 clips look like bootleg toilet cam videos when compared side to side... not that I've ever watched any of those.
For versatility, I went with Tamron F 2.8 28-75 (which goes to about 112.5mm with Sony Clear Image Zoom). This is for run & gun. In wider shots or where there's some distance between you and the subject it may be less critical if the viewer can still focus on the subject. For stand-up interviews where the background may distract or context doesn't have to be sharp to be understood shallower can help. Hence the decision to go with F 2.8 Zoom lens. Also, F 2.8 can help with dark or night run & gun over F 4 given improved low-light performance.
F 1.4 is suitable for controlled interviews (having time to change lenses) in locations where the background can be a distraction otherwise it may even be too shallow if the context/location of the interview is important to the story.
F 4 is good if you're shooting during the day on longer shots or shots where you want to keep the context in focus. Otherwise, I'd find F 4 a bit limiting if I can't get the shallow depth field I want and don't have time to change lenses.
F 2.8 zoom seems to be the sweet spot for run & gun documentary work.
Fast Primes are only important when you want to avoid context and can control camera distance or light conditions that are so low that the other limits are less critical.
I think the idea lens combo is F 2.8 mid zoom for versatility. Wide or wide zoom when you need the broadest area. Fast primes for structured interviews.
Stevie Wonder & Ray Charles could see the difference!
Great conversation and key points. As a graphic designer, occasionally needing to take "premium" video/photo, phone wide-angle is often too much for me. (setup) a6400 APSC definitely tougher to work with full-frame lenses...50mm EF 1.8 is my default...Currently building a variety pack of SLR, non-Sony lenses to play with this idea without skipping rent. ***Proper optical zoom + Auto-focus*** is the game changer for "on-the-fly" capture. Thank you for sharing your thought process and experience with the two options thus far.
PS: @ 8:04 I notice vignetting for both lenses in the final thoughts/handheld section (post split-view comparison). Reasonably less for f/4. Since we're thinking out-loud here about "f/stop trade-off comparison for video capture", why not mention this affect as well? Would love to hear your opinion! Cheers.
That's my former radio station site in the background in your introduction of the video (and at 6:40)! I have the 24-105 f4 on my Canon R5C and that works for 99.9% of what I do. I've had a 16-35 f2.8 for a while, but the versatility of the 24-105 just can't be beat.
I think f4 is better for outdoor vlog-style content because you can see and feel the landscape around you. If there is a perfect lake behind you and it is completely blurred out I just don't see any sense ...
Really enjoyed your video. I recently purchased the 20-70 f4 & had 2nd thoughts after seeing mostly everyone bashing the slower aperture, especially compared to its Tamron competitor albeit having a slightly different zoom range. I took away from your video this lens is versatile and well-capable of capturing a beautiful image despite what some might see as a limitation.
Also, interesting to see how little difference there was between f2.8 and f4.
Nothing beats that 20mm 1.8 though. by far the best looking lens for youtube without any of that distortion found in zooms. also the bokeh is really really smooth
As you say, lens choice is going to depend on style of content presentation. Shallow depth of field is about isolating the subject from both the foreground & background. This was apparent when you had brush in the foreground while you were walking the trail and in the shot from the overlook above the town. Blurred background reduces/eliminates distraction and hides some compositional mistakes.
Comparing a wide aperture prime to a narrower aperture zoom is kinda apples and oranges. Zoom is going to give you greater versatility hands down. If you want to get the best of both worlds, or at least a one stop compromise, then you've got to pony up the cash for a 2.8 zoom which is also heavier than your f4 zoom of the same length.
There are also some debates about the glass and optics being better on a prime or wider aperture zoom than an f4 zoom, but the biggest and most important point you make is that without good content depth of field is pretty much meaningless.
Great video.
i'm watching this on the TV so no timestamps, would be nice to see a caption on screen as well when using which lens.
There is a caption on screen when I talk about which FStop I'm using?
In the part of thel world I am.
Clients tents to embrace shallow depth of field with super houri background.
Buty you didn't seem to point to the use of variable ND filter for outdoor shoot. In stepping down your iso
This can influence the bouquet in your shots
Not to mention the VND. At 1.4 in bright sunlight like in your case, I guess you almost need a 10 stop ND if you want to stick to the 180 degree rule
I am planning on get Lumix S5 mark 2 with 20-60 kit lens. I hope it will have similar output. I will get one 50 mm f1.8 for bokeh to complete my travel kit
Great combo
You are forgetting about compression when you zoom in with a f4 zoom lens this increases background blur too
Everything was shot at 50mm so the compression was the same between all the samples
Really depends on the size of the sensor as you say. On my medium format even f4 gives shallow dof
I'm not sure if medium format vlogging is going to take off...
I love screwing around with aperture but am still learning😅 but I can’t find what f-number is on my lens lol
Great comparison
For general video, you can’t beat the Sony 24-105 F4. Want more bokeh, just have the camera further back and get some nice compression. Sometimes people get too carried away with blurring out the back ground, if you film a lovely place, let us see it.
B roll, 24mm G Master 🔥
Agreed with this! I'm not a fan of the blurred out backgrounds, I'd still like the get an idea of where someone is at.
It depends for myself. Out doors stuff I prefer f4+ unless I have a subject I want to isolate or if the background to the object I want to shoot is a distraction or just not pleasing. But idk anything and this is the internet so that’s my opinion.
Personally I think the f4 looks better. Background is still blurred enough to separate you from the background but its not so blurred out at times that you cant tell what the background is. Just my opinion. Plus the f4 is a lot lighter to be carrying around all day.
Yup exactly and f4 are more versatile lenses. You can get better zoom ranges
Sounds a bit vague but there is a different feel to the shallow primes. If your making a cinematic sequence then the others look like phone footage. I use both lenses but my sigma 85 1.4 is something else and definitely looks better. Just my opinion 🤙. Light is king
I love 2.8
The vlog part was by far best in F4. The vignetting at 1.4 wobbles all over the place due to image stabilisation that it becomes distracting.
Great video and advice!
First off. For TH-cam I agree it's hard to justify a fast prime as mostly it's phone viewers. Also the depth of field requires an dark nd filter in bright conditions, which comes with its own issues. The focal length has a lot to do with blurring background, so a 20mm even with 1.4 is hard to blur, while a 50mm f4 can get good results if you get a bit further from camera. That 20 to 70 is perfect on ff for vlogging, and put the extra time saved into better thinking out the shot. For professional work where you are behind the camera and expecting the work to go on the big screen then have fun with primes, anamorphic etc. This just my opinion.
It not only matters but you need to stop down to f2.8 or f4 for your type of wide shots to show the surroundings. F1.4 looks the worst because it defeats the point of this video to show the location.. The purpose of blurry background is to isolate the subject when needed for close up or detail shots but not to run the lens on max aperture always.
Should compare the 20-70 f4 to the 16-55 f2.8 to see if the faster lens, but on a zoom, is worth the extra ~20%.
Yes, obviously. Now it's up to you to decide if you want the blur. Personally, I like deep focus.
There were a few differences with DOF, but equally some shots i couldn’t see the difference.
Thanks, Jeven. It was very interesting seeing the comparison with the different f-stops/lenses. I completely agree with everything you're saying 100%. If you have the time, use prime lenses if you're doing a shoot on-site the zooms are probably more appropriate and a lot lighter. Have a great day. 😀
The blur on 1.4 is the best ❤ I love it
I’ve always thought 2.8 is the best look. That’s just my preference though. The look of 1.4 seems odd to me like it’s not as natural a look.
I have an RF 28-70 f2.
And a RF 24-105 f4.
And I can definitely see the difference.
Tbh the compression on the 1.4 gives an almost plastic feel, which is great if you are going for that kind of thing. Seems to me that on some photo gigs, all I really need is all 3 people to be in focus, and then suddenly the 1.4 is stopped down to f4 anyway... as far as the f4 lenses... that's a price to ability ratio, if you don't own anything longer than 70 mm then suddenly a pawn store 200 mm f4-5 kit lens for $60 bucks seems 🤔 reasonable when put up against the waiting period of a $2,500 piece of glass on layaway.
I film on my phone but thanks to Jeven I have the gear I need. Following some of his reviews I have chosen what works for me. (DJI Mics, DJI Gimbal etc...) When I finally get a camera then the Lense chase will start.
Late to this video, great content. I see a place for each (f1.4, f2.8, f4) but agree versatility is key especially in an outdoor environment. Think the 20-70 looks great. I'd be super happy with it especially for documentary, travel work. For portraits, I'd grab a 50mm f1.4.
I think shallow dop in broad daylight looks weird. So this 20-70mm f4 is very sensible when there is plenty of daylight.
I suggest using ND Filters...
Every shot has an ND filter on....
@@JevenDovey use darker ones when in high contrast... e.g. ND 16 instead of ND 4, or what have you
My preferences are f1.4 and f4, f2.8 feels like an in between thing
Nice information👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Definitely some differences, but think so much of photography and videography is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes it is
I think that it might very much depend on how much ‘honing in’ that you want on the subject. If you want to really get in to the subject, then F1.4 is the tool to get everyones’ attention onto them. If you are in scenery and you want the audience to be aware of the surroundings, F4.
I think that too much emphasis on that shallow depth of field becomes tiresome because it just becomes a series of portraits with less emphasis on the placing or no connection between subject and background.
This video is more like a vlog, so you are focusing purely on yourself so perhaps losing the background is a good idea. However, where you were looked beautiful and it was cut out mostly because of the blur so the one shot where you were out of focus, walking away stood out to me because it was a great shot just showing the leaves and you seemed as though you were interacting with the surroundings, even though you put yourself out of focus.
As you rightly said, ‘cinematic’ isn’t merely shallow depth of field, but too many videographers don’t make the choice based on what they want to depict. They just slap on a shallow depth of field which actually worked against you when you walked into shot twice and the auto focus caught the background and switched to you when you walked in. It was distracting.
Great video for thought because not enough consideration is given to what actually needs to be in focus. The TH-cam ‘quality’ standard seems to be motion blur and shallow depth of field. No sense of thought about what is important to see!
Shallow depth of field is often slightly wasted because so many watch on a little phone screen so they don’t see it as much either!
Thank you. You’ve certainly got me rethinking ……
I liked 1.4 when a thing was the subject (flower, cactus). 2.8 when the person was the central theme of the shot.
I really like the Sony gm 24-70mm 2.8 mark ii.
I choose to use a higher F lens to capture full frame detail as best as possible. I can always blur the features I don't want in post-production but you can't add detail if it wasn't captured in the first place.
For TH-cam 90% of the time prime lenses don't justify. Even with an F4 lens sometimes I have to go F5 or F8. But yeah with specific kind of work i.e commercial you do need primes!
F2.8 zoom lens is the sweet spot for me.
When I look at the footage my thought is that f1.4 offers a little more mystery. It’s easier to focus on the subject themselves without being distracted from the rest of the scene. So maybe it helps aid in storytelling. Haha this video just made me want my Sony 50 1.4 to come in already! Ugh!
hahaha you just convince me to get 50mm f1.4.. the images you made are so beautiful with f1.4
great tip. like you said it depends what you are filming 😅
I really like how the F1.4 makes it a lot more natural to pick out the subject or point of focus in the shot vs the F4. Feels more purposeful when you're walking through the shot, but the last composition where the plants in the foreground were in focus and you weren't, it felt like the wrong focal point was chosen for the shot.
Submitted my original comment before getting through the whole video, so here's my follow-up...
You have all the TH-cam experience. I have none, but I felt it important to communicate the difference I felt seeing the F1.4 vs F4 a bit better, especially with how it plays with the story you're trying to tell. So... I have to disagree, acknowledging my lack of experience and your depth of experience, but I totally feel a significant difference in how engaging your shots were with the more shallow depth of field and could see larger impact that would have on keeping viewers engaged in your story vs being distracted by surroundings. For example, are the details of the plants important to the part of the story your shot is helping tell? If not, the F1.4 keeps me focused on the subject much better, even if he's talking about lenses and not philosophy lol.
My $0.02.
I love my 24-105 f4 but then again never shot with an f1.4. I own the 85mm 1.8 and 50 f1.8….There’s definitely a difference.
The higher the number is, the more it looks like "Shot on iPhone"
Who’s going out filming landscape shots at 1.4. Really.
If you’re isolating a subject you would
Love it 👍👍
Ha ha
On small media applications and fairly close to you the subject it makes little difference. Landscape it does , where you want depth of field ( literally ) . Portraits, would probably favour the fast prime lenses . F1.2 - f 2.8. A wide aperture allowing for Bokeh .
A smaller aperture allows for great depth of field , bringing in foreground detail and the longer distance detail .
However all photography ( video and stills ) is subjective. And it’s what you see and want for your image is the all important. It makes that image yours , also takes in composition and lighting . Best wishes .
The 1.4 looks a bit like a tilt shift
Personally I saw this...
The f4 seemed to give better color from the lens, whereas the f1.4 seem to be dull.
The f1.4 definitely works better with closeups if you want to highlight the main subject, but the f4 works better for the further out shots.
The f2.8 seemed almost exactly the same as the f4.
Thanks for your content.
*I noticed it in somethings but in others I did. But I shoot on the Sigma 16mm f1.4 and I also have the 11mm f1.8 so I'll have to see the difference myself*
Hey Jeven, can't wait to see what you plan to do when reaching 1M subscribers, make it epic somewhere interesting, maybe hookup with Jake, then get back to business
Pronounced depth of field shift especially in front to mid ground , I find the F4 more pleasing for some reason , the start section close ups on the Sony looked super sharp , even looked over over sharp
I prefer the video from my hero 2.
🔥
Blurred background is not the result of more light coming into the sensor. It's all about the wider aperture
Yeah I never said it was because of more light. I said that you can get more a light with faster lenses and you can get a blurry background because of the wider aperture
@@JevenDovey direct quote: "but what you get for that one focal length is wider apertures which allows you to let more light into your sensor which gives you more of the blurry background when you shoot wide open"
Not first
😎😎
👍😄👍
like213👍 Johnny
2.8 is very sharp... Very good footage.
how can you do this entire video during the day.... what a pointless video.