50mm, f/1.2 vs f/1.4

"acl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Oops yes, I forgot to multiply by 2; so it's .44 stops (and not .22
stops as I said), ie close to 1/2 stop indeed; it'll let you use
1/140s instead of 1/100s, or ISO 1000 instead of 1400 etc. Thanks!

There is a handy little freeware utility called "f/calc" from tangentsoft
which I have just downloaded out of curiosity

http://tangentsoft.net/fcalc/

It does all the math for you and lets you type in two f numbers such 1.2 &
1.4 and comes up with 0.444785 stops.

If you compare 1.0 & 1.4 is says there is a difference of 0.970854 stops,
wheras as comparing 1.0 & 2.0 gives a nice round figure of 2.000000 stops

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

On Jul 6, 11:43 pm, "Adrian Boliston" wrote:
"acl" wrote in message

ups.com...

Oops yes, I forgot to multiply by 2; so it's .44 stops (and not .22
stops as I said), ie close to 1/2 stop indeed; it'll let you use
1/140s instead of 1/100s, or ISO 1000 instead of 1400 etc. Thanks!

There is a handy little freeware utility called "f/calc" from tangentsoft
which I have just downloaded out of curiosity

http://tangentsoft.net/fcalc/

It does all the math for you and lets you type in two f numbers such 1.2 &
1.4 and comes up with 0.444785 stops.

If you compare 1.0 & 1.4 is says there is a difference of 0.970854 stops,
wheras as comparing 1.0 & 2.0 gives a nice round figure of 2.000000 stops


Hi, you can calculate it yourself with a calculator; if you have two f/
stops, say f1 and f2, then the number of stops difference n is given
by n=2*log(f1/f2)/log(2). The idea is that opening by 1 stop
multiplies your f/stop by sqrt(2), so 2^(n/2)=f1/f2 hence the formula
I wrote. Don't forget to multiply by 2 or you'll also get .22 instead
of .44

Anyway that calculator gives .97 because it should really have been
sqrt(2) or around 1.414 instead of 1.4.

Pat wrote:
On Jul 6, 10:53 am, "Addenuff" wrote:
Hi, Paul,

"Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself."

Rubbish

No matter how good you are behind the lens a poor lens is a poor lens, a
good lens is a good lens and an L series Canon lens is something else.

If it were "the person behind the lens more than the lens itself." do you
really think so many Canon lens users (and Nikon ones with Nikons "better"
lenses) would save and spend on a L series lenses when something of similar
focal length, if not aperture could be bought for far less? I know,
there'll always be those with more money than sense but the rest of us will
always struggle to afford the best...... and appreciate it when we
eventually part with an bucket full of cash for a rather small, slightly
heavier box containing our latest fix of reinvigourated enthusiasm and head
full of inspiration for the eagerly anticipated great pictures......

This nonsense about the photographer and his/her equipment is just that. I
can take pictures with my old lenses and some are OK, a few are good and
maybe one or two are great, in my opinion, but I once borrowed and L series
lens and lo and behold, detail, colour, contrast were far better, post
processing took far less time and effort and I was able to make a far better
print because of the equipment. They also "felt" better, more tactile,
joyously smooth, beautiflly weighted and balanced in the hand. Just using
the thing made me feel good, sad I know but better, if not cheaper, than
drugs or a shrink!

In many cases the equipment is better than the photographer, by far...... or
maybe that's just me!

Granted you need a photographer to choose the direction in which he points
his lens, who chooses the time at which it is best to press the shutter and
make the most appropriate selection of camera controls but the picture is
far more likely to be be better with better equipment than without.

Wish I could afford the best, I can't and it's no big deal but I don't kid
myself that my images would not benefit from a FF sensor, and a set of very
high, "professional" quality lenses that would need a very big bag and
exceedingly strong shoulders to carry about!!!!!!!

Anyone can dream but only a fool ignores the fact that the best is better
than the rest! We may only ever aspire to ownership but it's great to know
that my photograph isn't as good as his because he had this that and the
other. That excuse is a good one till you do have the gear, that's when you
discover how good you really are.... or not.....!

The person behind the lens is very important but ultimately he's more often
disappointed than thrilled at his results, especially with this darned
internet thing showing us "great" with a little searching and "better than
any of mine" on every site. However, as his experience increases and his
gear gets better, if his enjoyment remains the same he's lost nothing, but
if his enjoyment increases and his results improve, who takes the credit,
the man or the gear?
Then when you are seen with some long white lump of hard earned and dearly
paid for lens you are without excuse! Indeed, you are expected to deliver
better images than your mate with something you had just a few years ago.

"....it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.... " I don't
think so! Except for this, the lens doesn't get up an hour before dawn to
get to that specatcular location..... sadly, nor do I as often as I go to
sleep intending to! But, I'm getting better...... so's my gear.

Oh, and I had a 50mm 1.8, now my son has it and I have a 50mm 1.4 and it's
great, far, far superior to the 1.8. Three times better? Easily! Is the
1.2L three or four times better than the 1.4? I don't know but given the
option I'd always have it in preference. I'd buy a 1.2L this afternoon if I
could afford it and if I had everything else I'd like. But I don't and I'm
happy with the 1.4, but I'm able to use flash indoors if I need it, but it's
different for the OP as he doesn't want to use flash so if he doesn't get
the 1.2L it'll be because he can't afford it, not because he doesn't want
it. Mind you, I'm constantly amazed at how little light it takes for the
1.4 to shine so the 1.2 must be amazing!

Cheers
DP

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

u...



"ji" jimpict.comcast.net wrote in message
news Hi
I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and
an
f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. The lenses I am writing about are
the
Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM AF lens (about $1,400) and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
lens (about $300) I realize that their is a big difference in quality,
but
their also is a big difference in price. Would I be getting that much
more
for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for
indoor
shots without using my flash.Are there any other good f/1.2 lenses
available?
Thanks in advance for any reply.
Why not get the Canon EF50mm 1.8. Sharp as a tack photos for around $100.
Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.
Paul

Gee. I guess all of those old, expensive soft-focus lenses were a
waste of money.

Oh wait, no.

Given the choice of a good photographer with a bad lens and a bad
photographer with a good lens, the photographer will make the
difference every time. Heck, if the photographer is really good, he/
she wouldn't even need a lens to outshoot most people.


Damb straight! So-called "pro" gear is a crutch for the mediocre, the
snapshooters, the slackards and the sluggards. I created my most recent
Howitzer Prize-winning photograph by performing EYE SURGERY on myself in
the field, passing a frame of Tri-X film in front of the retina IN
COMPLETE DARKNESS, instinctively blinking at TEH DECISIVE MOMENT, then
removing the film, suturing my eye, and developing the image in my own
urine.



--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell

If you do not know why you need a $1400 f1.2 lens you need that lens like
you need a hole in your head.
Any idiot who thinks that an L (or fzxcyqr) lens in the hands of a no talent
is better than a $100 f1.8 in the hands of someone with ability already has
a hole in his/her head.

"ji" jimpict.comcast.net wrote in message
news
Hi
I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and
an
f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. ... ...Are there any other good
f/1.2 lenses
available?
Thanks in advance for any reply.

I'm currently a Canon user, but I don't have a Canon f1.2. I do have the
EF50 f1.4 and the f1.8 Mk1. Nowadays, I mainly use the 1.8 Mk1 on my 5D.
(It's smaller.) My EF50 f1.4 was much better (less purple fringing etc.)
after Canon had fixed a broken focus mechanism - also, the often reported
"dreamy" look disappeared, so perhaps it was due to an AF error.

However, I did have a Minolta 50mm f1.2MD, and a 50 f1.7. What I noticed
was that when used at f2.8, on slide film, the Minolta 50mm f1.2 produced
wonderfully smooth skies with virtually no noticeable darkening towards the
corners of the frame. Being able to use f2.8 and get results more often
associated with f5.6 or f8 was a real bonus.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jul 6, 12:25 am, "ji" jimpict.comcast.net wrote:
Would I be getting that much more
for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for indoor
shots without using my flash.

The main difference between those two lenses is the bokeh, or the
quality of the out of focus areas of the pic. The f/1.2L has creamy
bokeh.

Here's a couple of shots I took with the 50mm f/1.2L:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81792389/original
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81792392/original

Wow..such aggression (lol). I disagree..it's not rubbish at all. If you
would like to read the original post it is made clear that he/she is NOT a
pro, and just wants to take better photos in dim light. The 1.8 would do
this and quite cheaply compared to the other lenses mentioned. There is also
no mention of what lens the op is currently using, and therefore I presumed
that he/she is not making a million dollars from photography and would
welcome the suggestion of a good lens at a good price. Sure, if we could all
afford the best lenses that would be nice...but I still maintain that a
great (expensive) lens does NOT guarantee a great photo. I have had photos
published that I took with a Canon A70..a 3.2 mpx point and shoot! i
currently have a 20D and a number of L lenses, but have tried to improve my
art BEFORE purchasing those lenses. Finally..I agree with you in that "a
poor lens is a poor lens"...all I'm saying is that the 1.8 is NOT a poor
lens!!
Paul



"Addenuff" wrote in message
...
Hi, Paul,

"Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself."

Rubbish

No matter how good you are behind the lens a poor lens is a poor lens, a
good lens is a good lens and an L series Canon lens is something else.

If it were "the person behind the lens more than the lens itself." do you
really think so many Canon lens users (and Nikon ones with Nikons "better"
lenses) would save and spend on a L series lenses when something of
similar focal length, if not aperture could be bought for far less? I
know, there'll always be those with more money than sense but the rest of
us will always struggle to afford the best...... and appreciate it when we
eventually part with an bucket full of cash for a rather small, slightly
heavier box containing our latest fix of reinvigourated enthusiasm and
head full of inspiration for the eagerly anticipated great pictures......

This nonsense about the photographer and his/her equipment is just that.
I can take pictures with my old lenses and some are OK, a few are good and
maybe one or two are great, in my opinion, but I once borrowed and L
series lens and lo and behold, detail, colour, contrast were far better,
post processing took far less time and effort and I was able to make a far
better print because of the equipment. They also "felt" better, more
tactile, joyously smooth, beautiflly weighted and balanced in the hand.
Just using the thing made me feel good, sad I know but better, if not
cheaper, than drugs or a shrink!

In many cases the equipment is better than the photographer, by far......
or maybe that's just me!

Granted you need a photographer to choose the direction in which he points
his lens, who chooses the time at which it is best to press the shutter
and make the most appropriate selection of camera controls but the picture
is far more likely to be be better with better equipment than without.

Wish I could afford the best, I can't and it's no big deal but I don't kid
myself that my images would not benefit from a FF sensor, and a set of
very high, "professional" quality lenses that would need a very big bag
and exceedingly strong shoulders to carry about!!!!!!!

Anyone can dream but only a fool ignores the fact that the best is better
than the rest! We may only ever aspire to ownership but it's great to
know that my photograph isn't as good as his because he had this that and
the other. That excuse is a good one till you do have the gear, that's
when you discover how good you really are.... or not.....!

The person behind the lens is very important but ultimately he's more
often disappointed than thrilled at his results, especially with this
darned internet thing showing us "great" with a little searching and
"better than any of mine" on every site. However, as his experience
increases and his gear gets better, if his enjoyment remains the same he's
lost nothing, but if his enjoyment increases and his results improve, who
takes the credit, the man or the gear?
Then when you are seen with some long white lump of hard earned and dearly
paid for lens you are without excuse! Indeed, you are expected to deliver
better images than your mate with something you had just a few years ago.

"....it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.... " I
don't think so! Except for this, the lens doesn't get up an hour before
dawn to get to that specatcular location..... sadly, nor do I as often as
I go to sleep intending to! But, I'm getting better...... so's my gear.

Oh, and I had a 50mm 1.8, now my son has it and I have a 50mm 1.4 and it's
great, far, far superior to the 1.8. Three times better? Easily! Is the
1.2L three or four times better than the 1.4? I don't know but given the
option I'd always have it in preference. I'd buy a 1.2L this afternoon if
I could afford it and if I had everything else I'd like. But I don't and
I'm happy with the 1.4, but I'm able to use flash indoors if I need it,
but it's different for the OP as he doesn't want to use flash so if he
doesn't get the 1.2L it'll be because he can't afford it, not because he
doesn't want it. Mind you, I'm constantly amazed at how little light it
takes for the 1.4 to shine so the 1.2 must be amazing!


Cheers
DP


"Paul Burdett" wrote in message
u...

"ji" jimpict.comcast.net wrote in message
news
Hi
I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and
an
f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. The lenses I am writing about are
the
Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM AF lens (about $1,400) and the Canon 50mm f/1.4
USM
lens (about $300) I realize that their is a big difference in quality,
but
their also is a big difference in price. Would I be getting that much
more
for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for
indoor
shots without using my flash.Are there any other good f/1.2 lenses
available?
Thanks in advance for any reply.

Why not get the Canon EF50mm 1.8. Sharp as a tack photos for around $100.
Don't forget..it's the person behind the lens more than the lens itself.
Paul

Photodo gives the 1.4 a very high MTF rating. It is hard to imagine that the
1.2 would do better. The 1.0 is significantly lower in MTF score, for
instance. I think it would be extremely stupid to purchase the 1.2 unless
you really need the slight bit of speed or the slightly reduced DOF wide
open.

Toby

"ji" jimpict.comcast.net wrote in message
news
Hi
I'm hoping to find if there is that much difference between an f/1.2 and
an
f/1.4 lens for shooting in dim light. The lenses I am writing about are
the
Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM AF lens (about $1,400) and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
lens (about $300) I realize that their is a big difference in quality,
but
their also is a big difference in price. Would I be getting that much more
for the money? I'm not a pro, I'm just trying to get more light for indoor
shots without using my flash.Are there any other good f/1.2 lenses
available?
Thanks in advance for any reply.

"Toby" wrote:

Photodo gives the 1.4 a very high MTF rating. It is hard to imagine that
the 1.2 would do better. The 1.0 is significantly lower in MTF score, for
instance. I think it would be extremely stupid to purchase the 1.2 unless
you really need the slight bit of speed or the slightly reduced DOF wide
open.

The f/1.2 ain't no slouch, though. If my pockets were a tad deeper and I
used 50mm more, the reduced flare resistance would be appreciated. Maybe.
The 50/1.2's main problem is that the 50/1.4 is so good.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev...1.2L/index.htm

By the way, this guy's reviews are all worth looking at.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:25:49 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

The f/1.2 ain't no slouch, though. If my pockets were a tad deeper and I
used 50mm more, the reduced flare resistance would be appreciated. Maybe.

Maybe? Maybe for sure. On the other hand, not being a flareboy
fan, I'd prefer increased flare resistance. g