Members: 77,666   Posts: 1,715,298   Online: 1024

1. Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
2F/2F: If I follow you correctly, I think you're saying that hand-held I can shoot the 35/2 at 1/30 compared to 1/60 for the 50/1.4. A convincing argument until you follow it through to its logical conclusion: the 35/1.4 implies the difference between 1/15 and 1/30 in even lower light.
Maximum aperture does not affect the minimum hand held shutter speed. It just determines how much exposure you can get at that shutter speed. Say the slowest you can hand hold a 35mm f/2.0 lens is '30, based on your own experience. Going to a 35mm f/1.4 still means that '30 is as slow as you can hand hold the lens, but it does give you an extra f stop. It allows you to get '30 at f/1.4 as opposed to '30 at f/2.0, but not '15 hand held.

I wasn't trying to make an argument against the 35mm f/1.4. My only point was that if a 50mm f/1.4 gives you enough exposure for what you shoot, then so will a 35mm f/2.0. If you want/need more exposure, then the 35mm f/1.4 will make a difference.

2. I know what you mean - the general rule being focal length = slowest hand held speed: 35mm = 1/30. Therefore, the stop you 'loose' by shooting a 50 instead of a 35 is 'gained' by having f1.4 over f2. I suppose then the 35/1.4 would have the same exposure potential as the 50/1.2.

3. Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
I know what you mean - the general rule being focal length = slowest hand held speed: 35mm = 1/30. Therefore, the stop you 'loose' by shooting a 50 instead of a 35 is 'gained' by having f1.4 over f2. I suppose then the 35/1.4 would have the same exposure potential as the 50/1.2.
Same exposure potential as 50mm f/1.0. f/1.2 is only a half stop from f/1.4.

4. Seriously, I think one thing you guys have overlooked with this lens, is that the internal reflections give VERY bad coma in high contrast areas at f1.4!! Personally I found it unuseable at f1.4 but even at f2 it will be as sharp as any other lens, this is one of the only (albeit major) flaw that I found with this lens. Other than that, I've been using my 50mm f1.2 much more now since realising it's acute focusing issues.

5. Um, you'll probably find that by stopping down even a *tiny* bit, to like 1.6 or 1.7, you'll significantly reduce that. Besides, I think you're being somewhat over sensitive to this, optical design is a game of imperfect compromise. Looking for optical design challenges in high contrast areas wide open?! If you want wide open perfection at 35mm get a Leica ASPH Summilux.

Consider that the first design of this lens was during the late 60's, and it doesn't use an aspherical element and has way less elements, is smaller and lighter than the Canon design. Also consider my point from above, if you haven't used this lens wide open with all of the imaging option available then you don't really know what it can do. Shooting only on digital gives an incomplete view of what the lens can do.

6. Originally Posted by Grev
Seriously, I think one thing you guys have overlooked with this lens, is that the internal reflections give VERY bad coma in high contrast areas at f1.4!! Personally I found it unuseable at f1.4 but even at f2 it will be as sharp as any other lens, this is one of the only (albeit major) flaw that I found with this lens. Other than that, I've been using my 50mm f1.2 much more now since realising it's acute focusing issues.
So what? Is your goal to have a lens free of aberrations, or is it to have a lens that lets you get shots that no other lens can? I see it like this: If you are driving a specialized race car in a quarter-mile straight line, are you going to be worried that a few moths are splattering on your windscreen?

Almost all people judge images based on the emotional, conceptual, intellectual, and over all visual impact of prints, not on technical issues. Additionally, many people think that aberrations simply look cool and make images have a special mood.

If you have a damned good shot, no one is going to be looking at your lens aberrations, and if having f/1.4 got you that shot while f/2.0 would not have, what is to complain about?

7. Originally Posted by RidingWaves
Um, you'll probably find that by stopping down even a *tiny* bit, to like 1.6 or 1.7, you'll significantly reduce that. Besides, I think you're being somewhat over sensitive to this, optical design is a game of imperfect compromise. Looking for optical design challenges in high contrast areas wide open?! If you want wide open perfection at 35mm get a Leica ASPH Summilux.

Consider that the first design of this lens was during the late 60's, and it doesn't use an aspherical element and has way less elements, is smaller and lighter than the Canon design. Also consider my point from above, if you haven't used this lens wide open with all of the imaging option available then you don't really know what it can do. Shooting only on digital gives an incomplete view of what the lens can do.
Too bad it cannot be stopped down to f1.6 since the aperture ring doesn't allow that to happening. I am not wanting optical perfection, only want to note the disadvantages when there's only praise for it. And I don't shoot on digital only, my F100s and FM2s shows it's flaws as well.

Originally Posted by 2F/2F
So what? Is your goal to have a lens free of aberrations, or is it to have a lens that lets you get shots that no other lens can? I see it like this: If you are driving a specialized race car in a quarter-mile straight line, are you going to be worried that a few moths are splattering on your windscreen?

Almost all people judge images based on the emotional, conceptual, intellectual, and over all visual impact of prints, not on technical issues. Additionally, many people think that aberrations simply look cool and make images have a special mood.

If you have a damned good shot, no one is going to be looking at your lens aberrations, and if having f/1.4 got you that shot while f/2.0 would not have, what is to complain about?
Since this is a lens and technical forum, I was put in technical comments with the lenses, the emotional aspect of photography cannot be denied but sometimes you want to seperate the two and analyse the technical side of things without the clingyness of the emotions, and vice versa of course.

On the subject of that, one of my most successful image was shot with a 'consumer grade' Tamron 70-300 lens.

8. I think you can set the lens at f1.8 or so quite easily as the aperture ring allows for a positioning between the clicks. It's limited only by the user's accuracy, I suppose, and certainly 1/2 if not 1/3 stops are possible.

I'm not the type to photograph lens charts or 'pixel peep' and to be honest, the examples of coma aberration that I've seen on the net have never seemed that bad. As an amateur with no photo editor breathing down my neck and no customers to satisfy, aberration seems to be a flaw worth accepting if the only chance of getting a shot is by shooting at f1.4.

9. If as you say "I enlarge no bigger than 5"x7" you could use a bottle bottom for that size, you dont need such an expensive optic, a 35mm 2.8 would be a more sensible buy ,and aperture for aperture would probably give a better performance, It's like buying a Ferrari to do your shopping at the local corner shop. I made my living selling photographic equipment for about twenty years, and if you were a customer of mine that would be my honest advice.

10. Yes, 5"x7" is as big as I go. I've found this a nice size for viewing prints whilst holding them. Lots of critiques of lenses seem to assume one will print mural size photographs, hence I thought I'd clarify my maximum print size.

I actually have the lens now, so this is a bit moot, but the appeal of f1.4 was it's low-light potential which is not an every day concern, but certainly is useful for me and the 35mm length appeals more than a 50mm.

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last

 APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: