3 ms·
Same here, have a bunch of lenses, but this one is almost always on the camera. I'm tempted by the 50mm 1.2, but its price gives me pause and I'm worried about
by muro 4y ago
Same here, have a bunch of lenses, but this one is almost always on the camera. I'm tempted by the 50mm 1.2, but its price gives me pause and I'm worried about its weight.
- _ph_ 4y agoOne shouldn't get too crazy about aperture. On a modern 35mm camera you rarely need the f/1.4. Certainly not for gathering enough light and usually the DOF is small enough at f/2 already. So you can get a much lighter and cheaper lens by not going for the fastest aperture. A nice alternative are the Voigtländer lenses, which are available or adaptable to modern mirrorless cameras. They tend to be less pricy and quite compact. I personally love my Voigtländer 50/3.5. It isn't the fastest lens, obviously, but lovely, compact and has a great image quality. Steve Huff had a glowing review of it some time ago.
- trap_goes_hot 4y agoIn general I agree, but as you probably know, the answer almost always is - it depends :) So it depends on the focal length. I use both 24 and 35mm at 1.4 pretty much every-time I use them. At those focal lengths, and normal subject distances, they don't have crazy shallow depth-of-field where only one eye-lash is in focus. I can get great environmental portraits where the subject pops a bit more than 1.8/2.0 etc.