Many photographers own or are mapping out a path to own the largest aperture lenses available in their system's catalog, skipping past the more utilitarian, lower priced options. Perhaps defaulting to the f/1.4 versus the f/1.8 option deserves this moment's pause.
Light-guzzling lenses that open all the way to f/1.4 to an extent live up to the mantra that you get what you pay for. There are certainly clear and impressive advantages to them. Technically speaking, gaining two-thirds of a stop could be well worth spending more than double the price of the lesser option. But unless you have clear and definable reasoning behind the high-end purchase, who out there will honestly notice the real-world difference more than double the price spent makes on the quality of the images you produce?
In the video above, sunny southwest Florida Photographer Darren Miles puts together a nice compilation, showcasing five reasons why depending on the situation, you should consider the many viable f/1.8 lens options that exist today. When hitting the lens market, assess your photography needs appropriately. Do you need the higher level of build quality and refinement? Is weathersealing a primary concern in the environment you take your equipment to? Looking back at your image catalog, how often do you opt to shoot your primes wide open versus f/2.0 and above? These are just a few questions to ask yourself prior to defaulting to the undeniable lure of a f/1.4 prime lens.
I looked at your profile here and it appears you do a lot of product and food photography with very shallow depth of field. Fair enough, for that style of shooting manual focus is the way to go. Unless you get the "band" of in-focus exactly right, the image cannot be used.
The article here is about stepping back, evaluating needs and then making a decision, rather than just grabbing the widest aperture lens you can find.
If you shoot moving subjects, AF is a good thing.
I make a living of photography and I have Nikon the f/1.8 20mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses. We tested the 85mm f/1.8G against the 85D and the f/1.4G and it came ahead against both. At a third of the price and a third of the weight, both my bank account and my back are thanking me.
As a Nikon street photographer who shoots at f8 to get my preferred DOF, purchasing a prime at f1.4 is not important or necessary. If i come across low light situations I'll adjust ISO and SS and or use a flash to get the shot. I am of course concerned about build quality as most serious photographers are and as a result I avoid, "G gelded type lenses".
Your choice. I am a Nikon street photographer myself, and I could not live without my 50mm f/1.4... then again, your preferred DOF is absolutely a stylistic choice and is entirely personal. But, no, increasing the ISO and SS will not do the same thing at all than shooting at super-fast aperture. It's... magical. It's literally slightly faster than the human eye, and I love the effect - but that's me...
Deep DOF is underrated tho. I wish I would see more photos using it :)
And using flash for street photography is... weird to say the least... in my book. Best way to scare your subject... no?
Bruce Gilden?
I took a priviledge to browse through your various web galleries and found maybe three photos that could be classified as street photography. If you say you are a street photographer I have to assume you do not publish your work.
And there is another possibility that you simply have no idea what you are talking about. You claim 50mm on a crop sensor (D3300) is your favorite street photo lens. Aside from effective 75mm focal length not being very convenient for street photo, if you actually attempted shooting at f1.4 or f1.8 you would quickly abandon this idea. In low light I push my luck sometimes and open to f2.8 and it's ahit or miss and this is 28mm lens so DOF is definitely deeper. So f8 is actually quite normal for street photo. 50mm is acceptable as well provided it's a FF sensor but most photogs will go wider 35mm or 28mm. Flash is perfectly acceptable too.
Hi Krzystof,
I do not publish most of my street work, no. Street is more a hobby, and as I am just starting out, most of work is not published anyway. I'm quite perfectionist. That doesn't mean I do not do street photo, and that doesn't mean I don't shoot at f/1.8...
I usually shoot at around f/2.8 in fact, by night, but I can do down to f/1.4, yes.
I consider flash to be weird in my opinion, again that is just mine... you can perfectly use it, I use a speed lite for events all the time. Simply, I find that a flash is too "in your face" for your subject, but that my humble opinion.
Now we have to talk...
Your way of basically creeping on me and my stuff is just... well... who are you to do this? You don't have any time on your hands? Aren't you supposed to be a busy photographer or something?...
I shoto at f/2.8 by night regularly, I also cover events at f/2.8, using manual focus. I am fucking baffled that you feel entitled to come to my page and basically stalk me and treat me like a liar. Seriously, if that kind of negativity is all that you have to offer to this community, fuck you.
Also here's the proof of what I'm saying, I made a gallery just so you can stop with your shitty attitude. Enjoy!
https://500px.com/jasminbataille The 3 new photos on top are an example of my night street shooting
Some very nice photos.
Thank you, and thank you for understanding our "failure to communicate"
Well, since you've gone ahead and posted the link, I guess I'll give you props for being brave enough to post a link to your stuff knowing full well that you're probably going to get torn apart (nature of the internet).
As far as your actual photos go, it's not stuff that I would personally be proud to post, especially after claiming to be a "perfectionist". If that's your idea of "perfection", then you've a long way to go, my friend. And that's coming from someone who, like you, is pretty new to the game (picked up a camera seriously for the first time about 2 years ago) and similarly unpublished.
Looking further, I'm noticing that you're using a D3300. So with that 50mm lens you're looking at a 75mm effective focal length? Rather interesting choice for a street shooting lens. I'm an introvert so I tend to shy away from wide lenses for shooting in public, but 75mm seems rather restricting even to me. Maybe pick yourself up a 28mm or 35mm AI-S or something...
Thank you for an attempt to coherently validate your points before colloquially telling me to fuck myself :)
You need to stop flattering yourself thibking I'm stalking you. You write some unorthodox and controversial comments about your street photography expertise, so I was curious how you shoot street with a tele focal length at f1.4. I did not hack into your laptop and I did not break into your house. I've checked half a dozen social media accouts on which you published your work to the PUBLIC. If you are ashamed of this work and don't want people to "stalk" you just take it all down or make it private. Or don't publish at all, like the street photo work you allegedly shoot.
The night shots you posted are simply focused on infinity and you achieved decent DOF via hyperfocal. It's a no brainer - you just turn focus ring all the way to the right. Certainly works in this case but those pictures do not represent full scope of street photography genre.
You see the thing with photography is that it's mostly based on merit. Publishing good photos will take you further than posting some controversial opinions and stories about your alleged photo experience. Declaring yourself as PRO on fstoppers profile will not make you one. But in case you really are making 50% of your income via photo/video assignments (definition of a professional) then I wish you good luck but seriously doubt yout potty mouth will take you far in this biz. If you make a habit of telling other people to "fuck themselves" on social forums, most people will not feel comfortable working with you. And Internet never forgets :)
In avoiding "G" (and I assume "E") lenses, I'm basically reading that you're a Nikon street shooter that doesn't care about weather sealing or AF speed, and that you don't mind the fact that your optics produce inferior results as long as your lens has a little bit more metal in its construction and an aperture ring that you would have no reason to use unless you were planning to mount that same lens on a much older camera. Got it.
As for me, I started buying "G" and eventually "E" lenses when I got my D810 because the AF-D and AI-S lenses just weren't cutting it on the optical end. This is even more true now that I have a D850 with even some "G" lenses not really resolving super well. Of course sharpness and resolution aren't everything and a lens should have character, but I think that most of Nikon's "G" lenses render images beautifully.
I basically understand that you're judging me based on my gear rather than my pictures? Congratulation.
I don't believe I'm judging you at all seeing as how my comment was directed toward Louis Greene. Are you Louis Greene?
I thought that the "E" moniker on nikkor lenses was to denote electronic aperture, not an improvement in optical quality. From what you wrote, it sounds like there's more to it.
And as a side note, I still think of early cheap E series lenses from the 80s. Wish Nikon had thought of a different title!
The "E" designation is just to denote an electronic aperture. In that, you're correct. But if you compare the optical quality of the newer "E" lenses, they outperform the older lenses. This is obviously not a function of the electronic aperture, but rather due to the fact that Nikon's had a few years to update their optics in all of their newer lenses.
Now whether you happen to find their rendition more pleasing is a matter of personal choice. I have the 105mm 1.4E and I've kept the 105mm f2 DC as well because even though they are the same focal length, I don't necessarily find the newer lens to fill the same role. That having been said, the optics of the older DC lens definitely shows its age when attached to modern bodies.
Makes sense. Appreciate the clarification
My thought exactly
Absolutely! Magnum photographer Bruce Gilden does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM
And not to be repetetive about Gilden (who's work is quite specific after all) I would mention also excellent work by Martin Parr.
Yes, and Mark Cohen, as well as a host of younger photographers in the sub-genre: https://www.streethunters.net/blog/2017/04/20/15-flash-street-photograph...
Lol... i never heard of B. Gilden, but he's insane! haha.... what a character and those shots are everything from funny to depressing.
Personally, for f/1.8 and faster, I use vintage lenses. There is a lot of BS about vintage lenses - some will say that they're not as sharp or whatever... well, no, it's no true at all. Nikon still make a lot of their AF-D series primes and zooms to this day, and they're just as good, if not better (more a question of taste in color and mechanical precision VS autofocus speed at this point) than their most modern counterparts... believe it or not, but the AF-D series go for a fraction of the price of the newer lenses and have a small, cult following of Nikon photographers which I'm a part of.
Best bang for your bucks all day! And the colors are more organic, smoother, mot flattering than clinical modern lenses IMHO. The 70-200mm AF-ED is just as good as the latest version, although slightly slower, but mechanically way way better with metal barrel and all.
I love manual focus so I prefer those lenses because nowadays I find most manufacturers are not putting enough attention to the mechanical quality of their lenses... I mean, paying upward 2K for a lens entirely made of plastic... with a focus/zoom ring that doesn't give me complete smooth control... really?
Why would I pay this much when I can get optically great, sharp, organically calibrated lenses with great mechanics and autofocus motor maybe 1/100th of a second slower... for a fraction of the price?
My personal opinion IMHO. I paid 350$ for my 50mm f/1.4, 600$ for a good condition 70-200mm ED which is still for sale at 1600$ and still made by Nikon!!! :O
I am baffled by your choice of lens since 50mm f1.4 af-d will not af on D3300 anyway so you may have bought a full manual ai-s version for even less money. AI-S lenses are better built than AF-D and usually have longer focus ring throw since they are designed for manual focusing only.
My God, be baffled all that you want... I got a great deal and who said I'm not gonna buy a body with an autofocus motor?! If you're "baffled" because I choose a lens that you wouldn't had choose, well be baffled. Jesus Christ!
Well, just a quirky way of saying the colors are more organic... that's it...
Lenses that they don't spray with pesticides.
Hi Darren, I enjoyed your video as it comes at a time when I'm putting together my lens for a new camera system or upgrade I'm considering. OK here it is, I'm currently on the Canon 5D Mark II with 4 other Canon bodies. All my lenses are either f/1.8 (85mm Canon), f/2 (100mm Canon) f2.8(24-70mm Sigma, 100mm Macro Canon, 70-200mm Canon, 120-300mm Sigma), f4-5.6 (10-20mm Sigma) f/4 (24-105mm Canon). So here is my issue, 1) I want to downsize, 2) time to upgrade to either Canon 5D Mark IV or Switch to the Nikon system D850. In either cases, I'm purchasing 2 new bodies. If I switch to Nikon, I'll want a 24mm, 50mm, 85mm 105mm and a 200mm if I can get all of these in the Nikon system at f2.8 with exception of the 85mm which I may go to f/1.4. I may make the change. The real issue is a) the D850 has some serious features that Canon just does not have even in their higher end system, b) I'm told that if I switch to the Canon 5D Mark IV there are issues with using the older L series lenses and they recommend that I switch to the newer lenses. Here is where your video may be a life saver and cash saver, Initially, I was going with f1.2 and f/1.4 lenses only however, after thinking this through and listening to what you've stated f/2.8 on a lot of the new lenses will save me a bundle, so thanks for that. If anyone can give me a good reason to a) switch to Nikon or b) stay with Canon I would like to hear their viewpoints. Thanks
Thank you for the kind words on the video. It would be really hard for me to give you a good answer - I haven't used either the 5D4 or the Nikon D850. Though overall, I've heard more positive stuff about the D850 than I have the 5D4 - but that primarily relates to video capability and codecs...
It's not just the shot you take. Composing in low light with a fast Prime is awesome. When viewing and focusing it's always wide open and that's when I really see the difference against slow zooms. If you've ever composed a shot in super low light, like candle light, with a 50mm 1.2 you'll know what I mean.
The difference between the 1.4 lenses and 1.8 lenses goes well beyond just the aperture. Of course there's the weather sealing and build quality, but in most cases (there are a few notable exceptions such as Nikon's 50mm f/1.8G vs. f/1.4G) the more expensive lens also means sharper optics, better rendition, better colors, better coatings, less issues such as focus breathing, better handle on CA, less distortion, and better resale value.
Now whether these things are worth a 2-3x difference in price to you is a personal choice. For the vast majority of people, I would say probably not.
Exactly, though it does bring in, what I'd consider a more compelling discussion: What about higher quality 1.8s vs 1.4s. Comparing say a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 vs a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 there is a pretty radical disparity in quality. Many shooters will choose the 1.4 just because it is a higher quality lens that they can depend on, not because of the 1.4ness.
But what about comparing that same Nikon 50mm f/1.4 to the Tamron 50mm f/1.8 VC? All of a sudden the 1.8 is the higher build quality lens with as good or better optics and VC so will almost always be sharper when shooting handheld in real situations.
In such a comparison, it starts to more or less come down to: "Do you need 1.4 or is 1.8 enough?
Are you talking about Nikon's 50 1.4G and 1.8G? The reason I ask is because I've waffled on both of these because I haven't really seen a difference in quality (at 1.8 and above of course). Love to get your 2 cents.
My personal experience has been really negative with Nikon's 1.8mm nifty fifties. I have always been thoroughly disappointed in their performance. That said, the 1.4G isn't all that spectacular either. I'd certainly place it above the 1.8 but personally I wouldn't' purchase either at this point.
Gotcha. Thanks for the reply.
The Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is one of those instances where I would the 1.8G version over the 1.4G version. That's not due to technical excellence on the part of the 1.8G, but the 1.4G is just an embarassment that is in dire need of a refresh...
As far as the Tamron vs. Nikon discussion, I'd take the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 with VC over the Nikon AF-S f/1.4G all day any day. The difference in DoF is minimal between f/1.8 and f/1.4 and in many situations, the VC is more useful in low light situations than the extra 2/3 stop. My only concern with third party lenses is the AF accuracy, but the Tamron seems accurate enough in this instance. Other lenses from the lineup may differ in performance, of course, so try out the specific lens if you can before you commit.
Very good article. I think that for many people the choice of lenses is not a rational one. Yes, “undeniable lure” of the f1.4, I know what you mean and I think every photographer does.
If I would go back over my image library, that would show I hardly ever shoot my 1.8’s or 2.8’s wide open. I do a lot of wedding/event photography and f4 is my go-to aperture, for several reasons. Portraits under studio conditions, I often go wider.
Many photographers seem to go for the “soft background look” and think a wider aperture will give them better portraits. I don’t think it is that easy.
In my case, as nice as it would be to own one, I just cannot justify buying f1.2 or f1.4 lenses. For two reasons: my photography budget is limited and I often use zooms rather than primes.
A lot of people shoot mediocre images, some with their phones, some with very expensive gear. Sometimes I think that they should rather invest in seminars or workshops, and improve their skill, rather than buy more gear. But that’s their call. Maybe buying expensive gear makes them happy.