I remember when Kodachrome was only available in 25 and 64 ASA, High Speed Ektachrome was only 200 ASA. The original Velvia was 50 ASA. Optical viewfinders were often quite dim, all things were aided by f1.4 lenses.
Ha. Max ISO was 400 then unless you 'pushed' the film in development. I used my Pentax ME Super to get my Photography Degree back in 1984. Velvia was the ultimate test for competence. The Pentax had a wonderful f1.7 SMC kit lens and a very bright viewfinder as a result. Still got it and use the lens on my Sony nowadays and don't have to worry about the ASA/ ISO - up to 1600 it's very clean.
True The main reason I bought my first camera with an f1.4 lens was to help me focus and shoot when the light was poor. I shot mainly Kodachrome. Colourprint film as I recall was mostly around 80 asa and very much more expensive to have developing and printing. GAF film was I think the fastest process paid slide film.
My new favorite are the 50 or there about macros. They're all very sharp, but the tend to be f3.5 and smaller minimum aperture, but they all have a wide focus throw and are very sharp. Right now I mostly use the Olympus 50mm 3.5, but the Nikon 55 2.8, and the Pentax 50mm f4.0 are beautiful lenses.
Another great video. Thanks. I totally agree with your premise. I think people are spending more money than necessary on super-fast lenses. For example, when I'm using my 85mm f1.8 for portrait shots, I'm stopping it down to f2.5 - f2.8 because the DOF is too shallow at f1.8. The DOF at f1.4 is almost useless for most photos because of the razor thin DOF.
I asked my GAS just now, and apparently I don't need a fast lens at the moment. I'm told I do need a Fujica GSW690 mark 1, the one that supports proper bulb mode. I also was informed I need a Konica Genbakantoku DD (without the quartz date). Wait... Now my GAS just informed me it's added a Canon nFD 50-135mm F3.5 zoom and a chrome nose FD 55mm F1.2 for having the audacity to question it. Now please excuse me, I need to check both eBay and something called "Buyee" and figure out how to hide the financial transactions from my wife.
I have just one 50mm f/1.4 lens, the OM series Olympus; it’s very compact, 49mm filter, and seems to render better than any of my OM 50mm f/1.8 lenses. Got it for a very reasonable $50 back in 2016.
This looks like an absolute WONDERFUL presentation of one of my Favorite Subjects! So, I'll wait to view it later 😉 when I have NO DISTRACTIONS ! THANK YOU for doing this important discussion!
Hah! Great question: Do we need a 1.4 50mm. Well what happens if it is your only vintage lens and maybe one you did not even know you had? I have a Pentax DSLR and I bought a Takumar 50mm 1.4 from a friend because I could use it on my Pentax. I used it a bit but I didn't understand how to really set it up with my camera. I was able to get some beautiful twilight shots In Guatemala but it just rested in my camera bag. Then I but a Panasonic Lumix and was delighted to find out that I could use this lens on my new camera with an adapter. Of course it doesn't have the same focal length because of the MFT sensor but it takes wonderful pictures. I guess the answer is: love the one you're with. I don't plan on collecting them but if I had as many as you do I'd be wanting to explore them all. I think that even the exact same lens could be very different.
In 1943 Chino Hirishi established Sanshin Seisakusho which, in 1973, became Chinon Industries. The company originally made lens barrels and mounts for cameras such as Olympus, Ricoh, and Yashica. Tomioka had by the time the Chinon 50mm f1.9 came out been absorbed into Yashica. So most likely the barrels were from Chinon and the glass is either from Sun, or Ricoh (which brought out Yashica).
You are truly the voice of reason Nigel. You are the first channel I turn to for great critical knowledge regarding what to buy, your recent video on vintage lenses was so good. Regards Rob.
It seems to me that many people overdo it when using an f1.2 or f1.4 lens. They buy such a lens and then of course, they have to get their money's worth by shooting it wide open. The depth of field can become so shallow that it ruins the photograph. I find portraits that have only the eyes in focus hideous. I don't like landscape photos with an extremely shallow depth of field. It ceases to become a landscape photo. There is an appropriate depth of field for every kind of photo.
I've felt for a LONG time now that most of the time I don't need a lens that opens to f/1.4, but at 50mm they are so prevalent in the market that you might as well have one or two. I have one for my Nikon system, one for my Pentax system, and nothing faster than f/2 for my Leica-compatible system. Since I *want* a Zeiss 50mm for the Nikon system, the lens of choice happens to be f/1.4, so I'll have another.
It's about having a brighter focus screen for me, huge big deal, worth every penny. Less important, the fact that these old double guass lenses do better stopped down, even that little bit extra on the 1.4. Enough it shows up in A4 prints. The Canon nFD 50mm 1.4 vs 1.8, the 1.4 wins in every way until 5.6 by a big margin. The nFD 28 and 35 F2 vs 2.8, Same.
Good video. As you I consider an f1.4 is quite stupid nowadays with our new sensors. A good 50 or 55mm f1.8 or f2.0 is far sufficient. The fact that brands are delivering more and more f1.4 lenses is the price they can sell it to fortunate amators… The phenomena is even more present for wide angles… who need a 24mm f1.4 … not a photograph, a rich man !!! When you know that 95% of pis pictures with wide angle are taken between f5.6 and f8 why spending more than 1k€ for getting a f1.4 ??? Just to make the brand rich. The issue is that it s quite difficult to find good prime not too fast these days… previously Nikon delivered a 28mm f3.5, f2.8, f2 but it s no more the case. Fortunately for 50mm you usually have the choice if not between f1.8 and f1.4, or between f1.8 and pricy, heavy, enormous f1.2… but don’t buy f1.2 except if you are a professionnal for very specific work , you won t use it… it s too heavy !!! The other issue is that now the f1.8 are more expensive than the previous generation of f 1.4. For instance the new Nikon 50mm f1.8 is 20% more expensive than the previous afs f1.4…. The more stupid and venal being probably Sony which permits itself to sell a 50mm f1.4 g master at more than 1,5k€… we are just patsies !!! So run away from this out price lens and get the old 55mm f1.8 Zeiss lens for Sony E that you can get at 500€ on second hand. It s a far more better bargain. And for Nikon, the previous afs f1.8 with an adaptor ( it will be long with the adaptor but the new z série is very long too) will cost you 150€ on second hand… instead of 600€… :(.
I'm a sucker for my f/2.8 Tessar. The thing is, it's got rather specific uses. It's awesome as a landscape or a street lens. Portraiture or artistic effects, where a shallow depth of field is desired, are not this lens' forte.
With film cameras, where you were limited by the sensitivity of the film, f/1.4 was a means to achieve a specific goal: enable you to take pictures in low light conditions. In the age of digital mirrorless cameras where you can crank the ISO to 10000 and still get an acceptable image, the point of such a wide aperture is to achieve as shallow a depth of field as possible. With that in mind, I'd say that when you splurge on an f/1.4 lens, you likely expect to be able to shoot wide open without the image getting too soft, and not to need to stop down to f/2. So the answer to your initial question is a resounding "it depends". It depends on your needs and expectations. If you've got a sharp enough piece of kit, like the Oly Zuiko 50 mm f/1.4, it easily outperforms an f/1.8 lens.
I find f1.2 to f5.6 as optimal depending on the distance. If you find something is too blurry or have too short DOF. Try changing to a slower lens, for that sweet wide open aperture look. I really like a 50mm f2.8 Rodagon for nice closer shots. As a sweetspot I think f1.8 or f2 has awesome looks if you can nail the distance. With lenses like the Domiron, Schneider Xenon 50mm f1.9, Auto Yashinon 5cm f2 or XR Rikenon 50mm f2.
As I'm sure you know, the Pentax/Takumars are really very light lenses. Yes a 1.7 or 1.8 is smaller and lighter, but not to the point of the weight being an issue. I usually only bring my fast lenses out around Christmas when I can have fun with lights and soft is fine anyway.
Admittedly, I'm very fond of the 50mm f/1.4 lens in general. I love my Pentax/Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lenses... my Jupiter-3 (50mm f/1.5) is very nice as well, and is super compact on a mirrorless body. I think I've lamented in the comments of another video that my quest to find a good copy of the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 has not been successful, and that remains the case. I have a couple very old Nikon ones (pre-Ai) to try, though, so that should keep me out of trouble for a while.
It's something to remember, that a 58mm 1.4 lens on APSC is a 87mm 1.4. But a good Minolta 58 1.4 will cost you between 35 and 80 bucks. Any other lens will...not even be available. Until the 600 dollar range.
@cefalloid I think the compression gain makes for equivalent blur, if not better. If you really wanted to kick things up a notch, you could always opt for a speed booster.
@@cefalloid I never stated anything about the aperture being the same. I said that the compression gain makes for equivalent blur, if not better. I also wouldn't have commented had I not done this comparison already.
I like my Pentax M 50mm 1.4 on my ME Super, but need it? No. Back in the day I used a Periflex 1 with its 50mm 3.5 to take photos in the pub in the evening by pushing HP4 to 3200 ISO. Not the sharpest of images, though quite pleasing.
I love my rokkor 58 1.4, but thanks to modern ibis, I don't ever find I need more than that. Also, I've never needed anything shallower than that. Having seen some 1.2 and 0.95 photos, they look like a blurry mess outside of the subject.
I had a Sigma 50mm 1.4 but found it very heavy and whenever it was opened up to max aperture would often struggle to focus. I traded it in and have never regretted doing so. Now I travel light with the excellent Sony 2.5G on my A7iii.
I don't need or particularly use all my lenses, but I am keeping them for my funeral! Even with modern cameras, or any digital camera, using ISO 100 or lower will require a fast lens, but as you say, how fast is fast enough, a bit like motors.
Nigel I have the Takumar 50mm 1.4 I perfer to shoot at 2.8 as I find this is fast enough for low light and blur in my pictures as I have more lenses that go down to 2.8 in multiple focal lengths and modern digital cameras can work in the higher ISO ranges
I have a couple of 1.4s and 1.8s and they are great- if dangerously soft- but I agree that many F2.0 are perfectly brilliant. In fact I've got some nice blur from a 3.5 (the Canon 1000D kit lens) so it would be easy to miss out on some fantastic lenses because of an obsession with 1.4s etc.
I had Chinon f1.4, didn't like it at all (too non-interesting softness). However, I always will blame my lack of skills and possibility defective piece :) on the other hand, Schneider f0.95 50mm is extremely fun lens, especially for night photography
modern f1.4 lenses, like Canon L, Sony G/GM, can be at least as sharp as f1.8 ones, and remains times more expensive than f1.8. That bit more blurry background cost that much. One way to work around is going tele, like finding a vintage 135mm. As 135mm, along with 28mm and 50mm, are the standards of the old times, it might be the most budget friendly bokeh solution.
I suppose another justification of F1.4 lenses is the fact that lenses are generally not optimal at their widest aperture, so f1.8 or f2.8 on a f1.4 will be sharper than the same f stop on a f1.8 lens
I guess this question is especially relevant for crop sensor users: why buy an old bulky f1.4 with all the risks that buy carries over a freshly made chinese f1.2 or f0.95 which is likely sharper, better contrast, and with a size optimized for smaller image circle ?
Hello Zen, Have been watching you for years and really enjoy your videos. Thank you for what you are doing. However, now I have a problem with a lens I recently bought. It's a Kilfitt 400mm tele-photo (made in Germany) but it needs an adapter to install this lens on my old Exakta Varex 35mm camera. Am hoping you could tell me where I might find this lens adapter, I understand they are difficult to find. I have tried the usual places like Ebay but no luck so far. Thanks in advance for any help you could offer. Best wishes, Bill from USA.
Another great video ty. Can anyone recommend a sort of general auto lens for a canon 600d i bought with no lens :( or is their a way to use my two pentax da kit lenses with it and keep the functionality?
I'd recommend the mark1 Canon 24-70L 2.8 lens. A brilliant all-round workhorse, if a little heavy. Also the full frame 5D mark1 body if you have the budget.
I remember when Kodachrome was only available in 25 and 64 ASA, High Speed Ektachrome was only 200 ASA. The original Velvia was 50 ASA. Optical viewfinders were often quite dim, all things were aided by f1.4 lenses.
Ha. Max ISO was 400 then unless you 'pushed' the film in development. I used my Pentax ME Super to get my Photography Degree back in 1984. Velvia was the ultimate test for competence. The Pentax had a wonderful f1.7 SMC kit lens and a very bright viewfinder as a result. Still got it and use the lens on my Sony nowadays and don't have to worry about the ASA/ ISO - up to 1600 it's very clean.
True The main reason I bought my first camera with an f1.4 lens was to help me focus and shoot when the light was poor. I shot mainly Kodachrome. Colourprint film as I recall was mostly around 80 asa and very much more expensive to have developing and printing. GAF film was I think the fastest process paid slide film.
My new favorite are the 50 or there about macros. They're all very sharp, but the tend to be f3.5 and smaller minimum aperture, but they all have a wide focus throw and are very sharp. Right now I mostly use the Olympus 50mm 3.5, but the Nikon 55 2.8, and the Pentax 50mm f4.0 are beautiful lenses.
I used to have the Pentax, still have the Olympus - a fantastic lens!
I love my topcor RE auto 58mm 1.4, it's absolutely brilliant.
Always good to tune in and hear the voice of reason! Have a fine 2024 !
Another great video. Thanks. I totally agree with your premise. I think people are spending more money than necessary on super-fast lenses. For example, when I'm using my 85mm f1.8 for portrait shots, I'm stopping it down to f2.5 - f2.8 because the DOF is too shallow at f1.8. The DOF at f1.4 is almost useless for most photos because of the razor thin DOF.
I asked my GAS just now, and apparently I don't need a fast lens at the moment. I'm told I do need a Fujica GSW690 mark 1, the one that supports proper bulb mode. I also was informed I need a Konica Genbakantoku DD (without the quartz date).
Wait...
Now my GAS just informed me it's added a Canon nFD 50-135mm F3.5 zoom and a chrome nose FD 55mm F1.2 for having the audacity to question it.
Now please excuse me, I need to check both eBay and something called "Buyee" and figure out how to hide the financial transactions from my wife.
I love my 1.4 and 1.2 lenses, my most used I would say
6:40 That Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f1.4 is also radioactive btw.
I was actually going to write the same thing. It's also a fine lens, sharp enough for most uses when used wide open.
That Minolta looks amazing! I've found the 2.0-2.8 range is my sweet spot for the shots I take.
I have just one 50mm f/1.4 lens, the OM series Olympus; it’s very compact, 49mm filter, and seems to render better than any of my OM 50mm f/1.8 lenses. Got it for a very reasonable $50 back in 2016.
This looks like an absolute WONDERFUL presentation of one of my Favorite Subjects!
So, I'll wait to view it later 😉 when I have NO DISTRACTIONS !
THANK YOU for doing this important discussion!
Hah! Great question: Do we need a 1.4 50mm. Well what happens if it is your only vintage lens and maybe one you did not even know you had? I have a Pentax DSLR and I bought a Takumar 50mm 1.4 from a friend because I could use it on my Pentax. I used it a bit but I didn't understand how to really set it up with my camera. I was able to get some beautiful twilight shots In Guatemala but it just rested in my camera bag. Then I but a Panasonic Lumix and was delighted to find out that I could use this lens on my new camera with an adapter. Of course it doesn't have the same focal length because of the MFT sensor but it takes wonderful pictures. I guess the answer is: love the one you're with. I don't plan on collecting them but if I had as many as you do I'd be wanting to explore them all. I think that even the exact same lens could be very different.
In 1943 Chino Hirishi established Sanshin Seisakusho which, in 1973, became Chinon Industries. The company originally made lens barrels and mounts for cameras such as Olympus, Ricoh, and Yashica. Tomioka had by the time the Chinon 50mm f1.9 came out been absorbed into Yashica. So most likely the barrels were from Chinon and the glass is either from Sun, or Ricoh (which brought out Yashica).
You are truly the voice of reason Nigel. You are the first channel I turn to for great critical knowledge regarding what to buy, your recent video on vintage lenses was so good.
Regards Rob.
Thanks Rob, glad you enjoyed the video!
It seems to me that many people overdo it when using an f1.2 or f1.4 lens. They buy such a lens and then of course, they have to get their money's worth by shooting it wide open. The depth of field can become so shallow that it ruins the photograph. I find portraits that have only the eyes in focus hideous. I don't like landscape photos with an extremely shallow depth of field. It ceases to become a landscape photo. There is an appropriate depth of field for every kind of photo.
Thank you so much for the class. I was going on a wrong way thinking 1.4 was sharper.
I've felt for a LONG time now that most of the time I don't need a lens that opens to f/1.4, but at 50mm they are so prevalent in the market that you might as well have one or two. I have one for my Nikon system, one for my Pentax system, and nothing faster than f/2 for my Leica-compatible system. Since I *want* a Zeiss 50mm for the Nikon system, the lens of choice happens to be f/1.4, so I'll have another.
It's about having a brighter focus screen for me, huge big deal, worth every penny.
Less important, the fact that these old double guass lenses do better stopped down, even that little bit extra on the 1.4. Enough it shows up in A4 prints. The Canon nFD 50mm 1.4 vs 1.8, the 1.4 wins in every way until 5.6 by a big margin. The nFD 28 and 35 F2 vs 2.8, Same.
Just get planar 50/1.4 and have fun. It’s a nice lens but nikkor is lighter smaller and shorter focus throw feels better than zeiss’
Nice lesson! Very clarifying. Thanks!
Good video. As you I consider an f1.4 is quite stupid nowadays with our new sensors. A good 50 or 55mm f1.8 or f2.0 is far sufficient. The fact that brands are delivering more and more f1.4 lenses is the price they can sell it to fortunate amators… The phenomena is even more present for wide angles… who need a 24mm f1.4 … not a photograph, a rich man !!! When you know that 95% of pis pictures with wide angle are taken between f5.6 and f8 why spending more than 1k€ for getting a f1.4 ??? Just to make the brand rich. The issue is that it s quite difficult to find good prime not too fast these days… previously Nikon delivered a 28mm f3.5, f2.8, f2 but it s no more the case. Fortunately for 50mm you usually have the choice if not between f1.8 and f1.4, or between f1.8 and pricy, heavy, enormous f1.2… but don’t buy f1.2 except if you are a professionnal for very specific work , you won t use it… it s too heavy !!! The other issue is that now the f1.8 are more expensive than the previous generation of f 1.4. For instance the new Nikon 50mm f1.8 is 20% more expensive than the previous afs f1.4…. The more stupid and venal being probably Sony which permits itself to sell a 50mm f1.4 g master at more than 1,5k€… we are just patsies !!! So run away from this out price lens and get the old 55mm f1.8 Zeiss lens for Sony E that you can get at 500€ on second hand. It s a far more better bargain. And for Nikon, the previous afs f1.8 with an adaptor ( it will be long with the adaptor but the new z série is very long too) will cost you 150€ on second hand… instead of 600€… :(.
I have the Helios 44-2 and the Industar 50-2 and I'm happy with f2 and f3.5.
I'm a sucker for my f/2.8 Tessar. The thing is, it's got rather specific uses. It's awesome as a landscape or a street lens. Portraiture or artistic effects, where a shallow depth of field is desired, are not this lens' forte.
With film cameras, where you were limited by the sensitivity of the film, f/1.4 was a means to achieve a specific goal: enable you to take pictures in low light conditions. In the age of digital mirrorless cameras where you can crank the ISO to 10000 and still get an acceptable image, the point of such a wide aperture is to achieve as shallow a depth of field as possible. With that in mind, I'd say that when you splurge on an f/1.4 lens, you likely expect to be able to shoot wide open without the image getting too soft, and not to need to stop down to f/2. So the answer to your initial question is a resounding "it depends". It depends on your needs and expectations. If you've got a sharp enough piece of kit, like the Oly Zuiko 50 mm f/1.4, it easily outperforms an f/1.8 lens.
An f1.4 that's sharp wide open is a wondrous thing to be sure!
I find f1.2 to f5.6 as optimal depending on the distance.
If you find something is too blurry or have too short DOF. Try changing to a slower lens, for that sweet wide open aperture look.
I really like a 50mm f2.8 Rodagon for nice closer shots.
As a sweetspot I think f1.8 or f2 has awesome looks if you can nail the distance. With lenses like the Domiron, Schneider Xenon 50mm f1.9, Auto Yashinon 5cm f2 or XR Rikenon 50mm f2.
As I'm sure you know, the Pentax/Takumars are really very light lenses. Yes a 1.7 or 1.8 is smaller and lighter, but not to the point of the weight being an issue. I usually only bring my fast lenses out around Christmas when I can have fun with lights and soft is fine anyway.
Admittedly, I'm very fond of the 50mm f/1.4 lens in general. I love my Pentax/Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lenses... my Jupiter-3 (50mm f/1.5) is very nice as well, and is super compact on a mirrorless body. I think I've lamented in the comments of another video that my quest to find a good copy of the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 has not been successful, and that remains the case. I have a couple very old Nikon ones (pre-Ai) to try, though, so that should keep me out of trouble for a while.
Really enjoyed this analysis!
It's something to remember, that a 58mm 1.4 lens on APSC is a 87mm 1.4. But a good Minolta 58 1.4 will cost you between 35 and 80 bucks. Any other lens will...not even be available. Until the 600 dollar range.
Yes, 1.4 is 1.4. BUT the 58mm 1.4 on APSC it gonna give you same amount of blur as 87mm 2.1 on FF.
@cefalloid I think the compression gain makes for equivalent blur, if not better. If you really wanted to kick things up a notch, you could always opt for a speed booster.
@@princeharbinger then go and take photos. Even if you are not right about aperture equivalent to won't prevent you from taking decent photos.
@@cefalloid I never stated anything about the aperture being the same. I said that the compression gain makes for equivalent blur, if not better. I also wouldn't have commented had I not done this comparison already.
I like my Pentax M 50mm 1.4 on my ME Super, but need it? No.
Back in the day I used a Periflex 1 with its 50mm 3.5 to take photos in the pub in the evening by pushing HP4 to 3200 ISO. Not the sharpest of images, though quite pleasing.
I love my auto Chinon 50mm f1.9, only £20 quid with a £11 for a m4\3 adapter to fit it on my Olympus e-pl1.
That one is a REALLY special lens - keep it would be my advice!
I love my rokkor 58 1.4, but thanks to modern ibis, I don't ever find I need more than that. Also, I've never needed anything shallower than that.
Having seen some 1.2 and 0.95 photos, they look like a blurry mess outside of the subject.
I really like TTArtisan 35mm f1.4 It is cheap, small and quite sharp wide open
I don't need any 50mm in FF because my standard lens is 35mm f1,8; only exception is my 56mm/f1,2 (in Aps C) which is the equivalent of 85mm.
I had a Sigma 50mm 1.4 but found it very heavy and whenever it was opened up to max aperture would often struggle to focus. I traded it in and have never regretted doing so. Now I travel light with the excellent Sony 2.5G on my A7iii.
I would say it depends on your use cases, experience and skill whether you need faster lens that f/2, but for general photography you don't.
I don't need or particularly use all my lenses, but I am keeping them for my funeral!
Even with modern cameras, or any digital camera, using ISO 100 or lower will require a fast lens, but as you say, how fast is fast enough, a bit like motors.
I'm not a huge fan of 50mm lenses but I do love an 85mm
Nigel
I have the Takumar 50mm 1.4 I perfer to shoot at 2.8 as I find this is fast enough for low light and blur in my pictures as I have more lenses that go down to 2.8 in multiple focal lengths and modern digital cameras can work in the higher ISO ranges
What I enjoy most about watching Zenography, is that its like having a knowledgeable mate who doesn't require feeding.
😉🙏
That's nice. Tell you what, if we ever meet we'll go get some egg and chips or something.
@@zenography7923 That sounds like a plan.👍🏻
I have a couple of 1.4s and 1.8s and they are great- if dangerously soft- but I agree that many F2.0 are perfectly brilliant. In fact I've got some nice blur from a 3.5 (the Canon 1000D kit lens) so it would be easy to miss out on some fantastic lenses because of an obsession with 1.4s etc.
I had Chinon f1.4, didn't like it at all (too non-interesting softness). However, I always will blame my lack of skills and possibility defective piece :)
on the other hand, Schneider f0.95 50mm is extremely fun lens, especially for night photography
modern f1.4 lenses, like Canon L, Sony G/GM, can be at least as sharp as f1.8 ones, and remains times more expensive than f1.8. That bit more blurry background cost that much. One way to work around is going tele, like finding a vintage 135mm. As 135mm, along with 28mm and 50mm, are the standards of the old times, it might be the most budget friendly bokeh solution.
i sold all my 1.4 lenses, they werent as sharp as some of the 1.8 lenses i had and with the iso on fuji you can easy make up for the missing stop
I've owned two 1.4 vintage lenses, and can't say I use them much at all.
I suppose another justification of F1.4 lenses is the fact that lenses are generally not optimal at their widest aperture, so f1.8 or f2.8 on a f1.4 will be sharper than the same f stop on a f1.8 lens
Excellent content as usual
I guess this question is especially relevant for crop sensor users: why buy an old bulky f1.4 with all the risks that buy carries over a freshly made chinese f1.2 or f0.95 which is likely sharper, better contrast, and with a size optimized for smaller image circle ?
and often cheaper
The choice is yours my friend. I love many of the Chinese lenses I've used, but they don't have quite the same character as a vintage lens.
Hello Zen, Have been watching you for years and really enjoy your videos. Thank you for what you are doing. However, now I have a problem with a lens I recently bought. It's a Kilfitt 400mm tele-photo (made in Germany) but it needs an adapter to install this lens on my old Exakta Varex 35mm camera. Am hoping you could tell me where I might find this lens adapter, I understand they are difficult to find. I have tried the usual places like Ebay but no luck so far. Thanks in advance for any help you could offer. Best wishes, Bill from USA.
Another great video 📸!
Another great video ty. Can anyone recommend a sort of general auto lens for a canon 600d i bought with no lens :( or is their a way to use my two pentax da kit lenses with it and keep the functionality?
I'd recommend the mark1 Canon 24-70L 2.8 lens. A brilliant all-round workhorse, if a little heavy. Also the full frame 5D mark1 body if you have the budget.
@@jameswburke looks like a fantastic choice, ty but out of my league i think :(
I'm sure I have a roll of 1600 something stashed away somewhere.
Minolta af 50mm 1.4 Sony a Minolta is a goodie! 50mm 1.8 Pancolor mf is nice.
I need 1.2 😊
It certainly can be nice - the reason I kept my Olympus 55mm f1.2!
Excellent Nigel... Now if you'd just like to pop your unwanted 1.4's into the post to me I shall be happy to releive you of them.. : )
:)
Nothing is "needed", but a faster lens gives you some options that a slower don't do to the same degree.
True enough!
The boy with the moat toys wins
Not really. F2, 2.8 works fine for me
🦥
do you by any chance have a fb or email
Sure, you can email me at zenography11@gmail.com