4 ms·
One 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 s
by _ph_ 4y ago
One 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.