Lenses with F1.4 are not worth it
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- In this video I wanted to explain why Lenses with F1.4 are not worth it.
GOOD VIDEOS:
My Favorite Sony Lenses → • My Top 5 Sony Full fra...
Whats In My Camera Bag → • Whats In My Camera Bag...
Camera Guide For Beginner TH-camrs → • BEST Camera For YouTub...
100 answered questions about me (Q&A) → • Everything you want to...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
MY OTHER CHANNELS:
My personal vlog → / tomscryleus
My tech channel → / tstechgear
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
MY CAMERA GEAR:
📷 Sony A7C: amzn.to/3aROdlO
🔭 Favorite lens 1: amzn.to/3v6l7Gp
🔭 Favorite lens 2: amzn.to/3v5KQyu
📹 Sony ZV-1: amzn.to/3aXDXIP
📸 GoPro Hero 10: amzn.to/3zoj5Ea
💾 Favorite SD-card: amzn.to/3OnVUOk
💾 Favorite Micro-SD card: amzn.to/3PKtWxu
🎙️ Rode Wireless go: amzn.to/3PNYAGl
🎙️ Rode smart lav: amzn.to/3OqckWx
🔭 Tripod: amzn.to/3ofTXZQ
🔭 Selfie stick: amzn.to/3J9kv8R
MY EDITING GEAR:
🖥️ Monitor: amzn.to/3PHKarc
💻 Computer: amzn.to/3yZo2Sc
⌨️ Keyboard 1: amzn.to/3PJ2gZP
⌨️ Keyboard 2: amzn.to/3PnVTv3
🖱️ Mouse: amzn.to/3zoOaaN
🛋️ Card reader: amzn.to/3b1F22a
💾 External harddrive: amzn.to/3IVSq4x
🎧 Headphones: amzn.to/3okmz46
EDC GEAR:
📱 Smartphone: amzn.to/3nkE4V7
🎧 Headphones: amzn.to/3VonJey
👂 Earphones: amzn.to/3HwYr8n
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
f1.4 not only for blury background you can always set it to smaller aperture as you want but sometimes in low light condition f1.4 can really help me lower the iso to make the footage usable and this can happen quite often.
Thanks. There are things way more important than the f number in lenses. The overall rendition, the sharpness or the way it delivers blurry background, the macro or closeup capabilities, the flares, the quality of the body, the way its focus, and overall (for me) the size and weight.
I don't make many videos, so I don't really care about clinical sharpness/aperture. But I do go out and shoot almost every day. For my personal photos, I pretty much use all manual focus lenses. Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AIS, the 28mm f/2 and on the Z system the Loawa 35mm f/0.95 I like the way the photos come out. They are very distinctive with my style. If someone's paying me for a photo shoot I just bring the whole auto focus holy trinity f2.8's and just get the job done. Those are 2 different contexts. Nothing special or interesting about any of those 3 zoom auto focus lenses (for any camera system for that matter) 🥱
I like to take interesting and unique photos. Having a low f/ lens is just another tool in the bag that I can use to achieve that.
interesting and unique photos have nothing to do with the extra background blur, its got more to do with your skills, composition, color, lighting etc
The depth of blur on my vintage lenses can be sublime. They are not 1.4 but starting at 1.8 up to 3.5.
Totally agree - I shoot Fujifilm and have F1.4 and F2 lenses. The F1.4 sits gathering dust - it is tricky to get things right with it, and is also massive and heavy by comparison.
And the Fuji f2 lenses are nicely small and compact and are very usable from wide open. Apart from low light, the use cases for that low f1.4 depth of field is not a lot. It’s a nice to have.
Well, my 50mm 1.4 super takumar is very light, compact, pretty sharp wide open and quite inexpensive. Focusing at 1.4 is fairly easy.
I payed $60 for a decently preserved copy.
However I totally agree with you in regards of a modern lens.
I’ve got two RF lenses 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 2.0, they are the best value for money. I see no point buying their faster versions.
Focal capacity aka Focal plane. Starsson, var har du tagit vägen?
If you're buying an f1.4 lens for bokeh, then you're buying it for the wrong reason. That said, It is nice to have one in the bag for low light situations. Nowadays F1.4 isn't even you're best option for low light, that award would go to the f1.2 lenses which are even bigger and heavier. It's all relative...
no. lenses are like pokemons to me even though i'm a beginner 😂
f1.4 is not for bragging :) Low light scenes are the places where the f1.4 lens comes into play. Shooting at f1.4 allows you to use low iso setting and therefore low noise in your image while maintaining a faster shutter speed, compared to any slower lenses such as f/1.8, f2, f2.8 etc.
There are no portraits lens at f1.4 hence the Hollywood don't use them.The limitation of focal length of between 85mm -300mm for portraiture will make an f1.4 very large and heavy and so, no manufacturer makes them. Ideally for portraiture you need f8 setting to have decent image sharpness
Have to disagree with this. I make a living using 24, 35, 50 and 85 1.4 lenses, often shooting wide open. If you know how to use them they're incredible, sharp, and invaluable in low light situations.The only reason I can see someone not choosing a faster lens would be cost. Faster is better I'd say from a professional stand point. Why would you want to limit your tool kit?!
Well that would depend on the type of photography, no? I think for architecture, a sharp f/4 lens with shift is probably worth a lot more than any f/1.4
@@mohanjanisthere I'm not really sure the relevance of your reply tbh. The premise of this video is essentially f1.8 aperture lenses are a better choice than f1.4 aperture lenses, which I still think is objectively false. Where you've gotten to f4 tilt-shift lenses for architecture is beyond me.
making a living with f1.4 lens doesnt mean its better. people make living also with f2.8 and f4 lenses. yes f1.4 is better in lower light, but again as he said, youre more prone to having parts of the subject out of focus. and in lower light with modern AI denoisers, id rather go with f2.8 have the subject fully infocus, and denoise any extra noise.
@@truthseeker6804 🤦♂your opinion is again subjective. I merely stated faster lenses are objectively better tools than slower lenses. You know you can stop a f1.4 lens down, right? 🍩
@@Tids_ wrong again. theyre only objectively better in lower light due to lesser noise, in bright daylight and every other scenario a smaller aperture can be objectively better. yes you can stop them down, but firstly, the point of this video is about an f1.4 lens used at f1.4 vs other smaller aperture lenses, not an f1.4 lens use at f2.8 vs f2.8 lenses. secondly, youre carrying a heavy unnecessary weight if youre going to be at f1.8 and smaller.
thirdly, in lower light where an f1.4 can be objectively better, but due to modern better camera sensors an f1.8 could as well do the job get more of the subject in focus and could be termed a better image.
so again, as the video title states f1.4 are not worth it.
Yeah. Film industry uses T2.8-4 at max on a crop sensor for movies. As you said, if you need more blurry BGs, use longer lenses (>100mm). That said the avrg 1.4 is usually sharper compared to 1.8 lenses, and for perfect sharpness you should step them down. So in the end even with 1.4 you will end up shooting 2.0ish. Still, 1.8 is smaller, lighter, and for most of us sharp enough. You hardly will notice the difference in photos, and most likely never in movies.
I agree, that lenses with aperture bigger than f2 brings only diminishing returns (usually double the price and size for just 1EV). But I would not compare video and stills, these are really different media. I shoot mainly stills, where is very nice to be able to use luxury of f1.4, specially on wide end (no, 100mm will not help you for eg. interior shots). Both, low light performance and background separation, are benefits.
The only downside for me is the size and weight. Otherwise, it's good to have 1.4, and that doesn't mean we have to shoot at 1.4 all the time, we can always reduce it to 2.8, 5.6 etc. if we wish.
So your video misleads people that they don't need 1.4, because many people will be fine with 1.4 lenses for their style and needs.
I just bought it because it came with the camera. The *"idea"* from the old days of film cameras was to have a "prime" lens for portrait shooting such as in Wedding Photography. I agree this is not your Daily Driver but of course now there is video feed for cameras so if I focus simply on a single object and can now film that "the wildlife might fly into that" creating a very high definition in effect cinematic quality Moving Picture. This from something that only costs a couple hundred bucks to include the Camera! I even got the camera cage to go with what is a micro 4/3 my second from the Brand. The OEM lens was no good but a simple switch to a panasonic lumix lens and in my opinion I've got a better hardware game than someone shooting with a $10,000 US Dollar Red which are all now dropping like a rock in price as barely used. Are any of these devices better than your cell phone? Not really as people want to post and share instantly. Definitely not something for a Livestream either. Where everything falls flat excepting GoPro however is with the editing software and tools.
Sony as a Brand has attempted more than any other to holistically integrate from camera to computer to entire output "arena" (sound, aural ambience, lighting, cinematic effect outright cinematography) but again if your *"focus"* so to speak is just on stills to me anyways as a set 50mm as I think the lens is again this has all of the attributes for being *"your Camera as a high end business."* knowing how to
Great video. I agree. For me f1.8 is fast enough, and I stop down to around f2.5-2.8 for portrait shots and for flower closeups etc. The depth of field at f1.8 is too shallow and f1.4 would be useless for me. Actually, for me f2.0 would be adequate. I don't shoot in low-light conditions. It took me a while to realize this fact, so your video is right on.
video got a bit more views than I expected. Not everyone agrees with me though.. so, its to see someone who agrees :)
You seems to ignore simple fact that industry tend to make cheap affordable "fake" fast lenses with wavefront aberrations so huge by optical design making them more like gimmic (famous F0,95 50mm anyone?), and almost all photo-video beginner (with low end gear) know rule "step down apperture to get better image". Compare it with astro world, every one know more aperture mean more crisp and awesome image, proven centures by eye and science (diffraction limit, aberrations etc). So, unless you own CarlZeiss 10+grand cinema for ARRI ALEXA-like toy, your only option is get fastest lens you can afford and step it down to reduce aberrations. With extreme rare exception like Zeiss 50F1.8 that make choosing even more complicated. Cinema lenses making almost perfect image at 2.8 are $8000+.
Edit: My path was A7m3 kit (pure crap as you know but at start it was miracle), then mind blowing image quality jump with Tamron 28-75F2.8, few years later finally GM24F14 that insane cost for me and that Sony GM image at 5.6 is just end of my any imagination, worth every cent. I studied hard before get it, yes, there are spherechromatics and focus breath, but dont even mind to try to grab it from me, actual result (for my eye ofc) was just limit of damn universe evolution.
you should add f1.2 also into the title as its the silliest lens aperture.
I have actually never tried f1.2…
seems overkill.
@@TSCameraGear exactly
Thing is: you should probably never use most lenses wide open. Get a 1.4 lens to shoot at 1.8, or a 1.8 lens to shoot at 2.8
Good point
sorry I need the toneh for my breaking news report
I agree. F1.8-2.8 is just fine for half the price and weight.
Lowlight Over Hyped Lenses for everyone
I'm not trying to be a hater, but by the time you are telling me you do not want to waste my time, you are already wasting my time. Also the intro is too long. Had those things been cut and the video made quicker and more concise in general, you most likely world have earned a sub from me. Anyway, keep up the good work.
F1.4 is a creative choice, plus F1.4 lenses will have rounder bokeh at F2.2 than an F1.8 lens at F2.2. And F1.4 lens are typically designed better. Just because you have F1.4, doesn't mean you have to use it at F1.4 all the time.
theres nothing creative about f1.4, its got nothing to do with the user. creativity is about lighting, color, composition etc.
@@truthseeker6804 omg how dumb can you be? Creative choice does not mean creativity of the photo. It's like an artist having more paints to choose from. So if the artist choose to use 1.4, it must be for a reason.
I often argue with a friend who loves the f1.4. He would use the same arguments you did. :)
fuji kit lens are perfect
I buy fast lenses to shoot them all at f2 lol.
No, but f1.2 is worth it😂.
The title is misleading and doesn’t state this is a topic about video mostly not photography.
But my m4/3 Olympus 1.2 lens is slightly smaller than a pro 12-40 lens and gives you many advantages over a 1.8 prime or constant 2.8 zoom lens.
M43 is different, i agree. I remember my gh5 basically needed f1.7 lenses for my lighting conditions