I got them right, but I own f1.4 and f1.2 lenses so I kind of know what to look for. I think f1.8 makes a lot of sense for general use, especially if the lens is sharp enough wide open (Sigma is an example of a maker that churns lenses that are sharp wide open). Almost all DSLR / Mirrorless lenses are sharp enough at every aperture setting for social media. But for print and pixel peeping, most get tack sharp at least 2/3 stop down or more. Honestly, a constant f2.8 zoom in FF or a constant f2.0 zoom in crop sensor formats would probably be adequate for most situations if the lens is sharp enough wide open.
For me the real difference can be seen when shooting in low light, for that extra stop of light offers faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO. Photos taken in broad daylight outdoors won’t appear all that different, for your shutter speed simply goes higher than it already is, which doesn’t change anything aesthetically.
The difference is closer tp 2/3rds of a stop. I doubt upping the ISO will also be hardly noticed. With an ISO invariant sensor it may make no difference at all.
Your original comment suggested it was always the case that an F 1.4 was the better lens. I was pointing out that it is not always the case. In the Canon/ Nikon world of 50mm lenses the F1.8 is a cheap plastic lens and an F1.4 is generally a professional lens. I can’t comment on the actual number as I have not tried that many. I accept that the argument in the video that it can save you a lot of money is disingenuous and I agree with you that if you pay a third of the price for an F1.8 instead of buying an F1.4 it isn’t likely to be of similar quality glass or build.
Yea it’s a big difference because it’s more to it than just a stop of light.. 1.4 lenses have a better build are weather sealed, have better coatings, some handle back light and flare better, better contrast, better color rendition, better bokeh and some 1.4 lenses get sharper quicker when stopping down than 1.8 lenses.. So it depends if you need or want the extra bells and whistles if that stuff doesn’t matter than get 1.8.. but 1.4 glass is far from overrated they produce and render more pleasing images just at a cost
Your comments about build quality are generalisations, some F1.8 lenses can be sharper at all available apertures. If you spend the same amount on both lenses (where they exist) I think the F1.8 is likely to be sharper and just as well built.
Ed Dewhurst “some” and that some (build and sharpness) is a very small list compared to what I said.. probably less than ten total 1.8 lenses on all systems of all 1.8’s ever made.. so my comment was far from general
For this type of photography it would be difficult to determine the difference. However, doing certain types of photography (outdoor portraiture, low light, etc) the 1.4 would be the better bet. IMO your lens choice is solely dependant on the individual using it.
It makes a big difference in low light. Do I wanna shoot 1/100, f1.8 ISO 4000 Or 1/100, f1.4 ISO 2600? That’s a big difference to me for out of focus noise levels. In photography the devil is always in the detail. For the average shooter they can’t tell the difference between m43 or full frame so let alone 1.8 vs 1.4
I've been looking through the comments and really appreciate how you take the time to read through them and respond so politely, especially to those who don't post nice ones. I will agree that for this style, of mostly shooting street photography during the day, the difference between f/1.8 and 1.4 won't be very obvious. I could point out the f/1.4 for some of these shots, especially when the depth of field is shallower, but even then, I'd be okay with the f/1.8's performance. Often people shoot street photography photos at f/2.8 and up even if they have a faster lens to get a deeper depth of field. The f/1.4 comes in handy more so when the background is closer to the subject than the camera is and when light conditions are more difficult. That's why I got a 35mm f/1.4 rather than a 35mm f/1.8. Since having a baby, probably most of my shots are of her in our house, where lighting isn't great. Flash definitely makes the bigger difference for exposure when it's appropriate, but that somewhat-wide-angle-shallow-depth-of-field look is something I love. Also, I can't always use flash. Regarding price, I shoot with the Samyang/Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 AF, which actually costs about the same as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 ($6.00 difference right now) so the only real downside is the size/weight because the optical and autofocus performance is about the same too.
I only ever used a 35mm 1.4 over the 1.8 version. and yeah there is a difference. But it depends on the lense. some render better. some are better at backlighting, some focus WAY faster. I prefer my gear to be weather sealed. Because you just never know what can happen! Overall it depends on the lense itself.
The only shot where big aperture was needed was #2. For scenery and daylight f8 would be better and keep shutter speed lower than max. The 1.4 especially on 35mm can make a huge difference when taking portraits. In a scene with many people it gives extra shutter speed indoors and it can give extra attention to faces. Not sure how aperture matters in the middle of nyc with bright sun.
The difference is seen only when close to the subject but it’s a slight difference. That slight difference is in the character of the 35/85mm 1.4 over the 35/85mm 1.8 in images. Not a significant difference for the price of 1.4’s or the hype. Great job with the comparison!! Most people just want to be seen and can careless about “bokeh” as long as the image is “pretty” they are satisfied!🤣
Struggled to work out which was which. I have the 85mm 1.8 and am blown away at the quality of the images, certainly see no reason for the GM version. The money I saved by getting the 1.8 is paying for a week in the Canary Islands and another lens!!!
At some street shots it was hard to tell apart as there was still lots of sharp areas on the road surface etc. I guess that's just wide angle focused at infinity that retains that DOF. For Macro distance, portrait distance or your mobile phone shot at arm length it's gonna be more visible. Personally I was happy to have a 1.4 over an f/2 when shooting in the dark on aps-c. ISO 1000 vs ISO 2000 for the same exposure is reasonable.
Wait just a doggone minute here - this was supposed to be a test between f1.8 and f1.4. Why are there f2.8 and f4.0 images in there? Two things to consider. First, with wider 1.4 you can get creamy bokah with the subject closer to the background. With f1.8 you can still get the same (or similar) bokah but you need to have the subject further from the background. With subjects that have backgrounds farther away you might not see as much difference as when you have the background closer to the subject. Also - and this is a key factor for some folks - With f1.4 you have 2/3 stop bigger aperature which will let in considerably more light. This means better low light capability with lower ISO in low light conditions.
I got the mobile phone shots (all four f-stops), and the butterfly. The others were harder because you generally weren't taking photos where the difference is apparent. For instance, taking a scenic cityscape where everything is relatively far away and you're focusing close to infinity. Try doing the same thing with portraits, where the subject is close and the background is at least 2X further than camera to subject. I do video seminars with headshots using my Oly E-M1 Mark III, and the difference between using a 20mm (40mm full frame 35mm equivalent) at f/1.4 to f/1.8 is the difference between making objects on my desk 5' behind me and 8' from the camera discernable or not... at f/1.4 you see a blurred object, at f/1.8 you can see that it's a mug. Now, this is on a 34" monitor, but the difference in blur is perceptible even at 4K on a 75" television. On a mobile device, not so much... but the small screen makes the dark background (at least 2 stops) nondistinguishable. In short it matters when you are trying to blur out a close background from an even closer subject, as long as you can get he background at least 2X further away than the subject, and the closer the background is, the more it matters. Outside or when everything is relatively far away, it doesn't matter... and at longer focal lengths it matters less. Buy the faster lens to isolate the subject from the background, save money if you are doing scenic photography.
It's not about seeing the different when shooting outdoors, it's about f/1.4 being faster in doors and increasing your shutter speed when shooting in low light. l.e Shooting a wedding indoor, settings f/1.8 - 1/50 - 2000iso or f/1.4 - 1/100 iso 2000, now that 50th is the difference between and blurry image and good image.
It makes difference and a meaningful difference in low light and evening landscspe or city scapes. I specifically Bought 35f1.4 for evening and low light. Apart from Portraits or closeups in day lights you can't tell difference
The answer is found in many comments. First, as far as digital photographer is concerned it is hard to tell the difference when looking at the photos. With conventional film photography the difference was the corner to corner sharpness. A lens at 5.6 with a 1.4 lens would be sharper than a 1.8 lens set at 5.6. Also, lens manufacturers place higher construction standards on 1.4 lenses. But for the photojournalist there is a BIG consideration; price. A journalist can replace a 1.8 much easier than a 1.4. The 1.8 is comfortable work horse.
If u really want to see a difference do one with night photography or with lower light. U can tell the difference a lot more than with shots with ample lighting
I'd like to agree with this video but... Here is my view. First of all the 1.8 version of a lens tend to be cheaper and of lower quality. Lower quality lenses tend to be less sharp when they're wide open. On the other hand 1.4 lenses are more expensive but with far superior optics and it's not uncommon for lenses of this quality to be very sharp even wide open. So if you buy a 1.8 lens that has acceptably good quality when stoped down to 2.8 it can't even be compared with the more expensive 1.4 lens that will have good quality at 1.4 and amazing quaity at 1.8 or 2.0.. Generally you don't get the best of a lens at the wide open side.. Add to that the fact that more money=better overall quality and better overall quality is much more than sharpness, bokeh or low light capability.. It has to do with color rendition, micro-contrast, distortion, handling of aberrations, the overall character of the lens, the build quality, the focusing reliability, the feel of the throw when in manual focusing mode, the weather sealing and much much more not to mention the fact that these lenses hold their resale value.. One more thing. RUclips is not the way to judge between two photos.. Print the photos and then I think that a lot more people could understand which was taken with the better glass... So this was my take.. I'd like to read some counterpoints though cause I'd really like to be persuaded into the 1.8 side..
I'd say the best would be for you to get both lenses and try :) return them after. It's a strong matter of personal love past a certain quality point imho :) Totally see what you mean!
@@seebbii I agree, it is to much, but I do travel video and saving 300 grams or more is something. I also switch my 16-35 f4 with the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 -> one stop of light and 100+ grams saving. Now I just need something lighter to replace my 70.200 :)
the samyang 85 1.4 and sony 1.8 were similarly priced. So I got the samyang. I like the slightly more shallow depth of field, makes a busier background a bit less busy than what a 1.8 might do. the downside is a slower AF, more weight and size, and larger filter diameter off course.
i got the 1.4 photos picked out based on the softness and the light. I was confused about the others until you mentioned the other apertures. Still a good comparison.
For me it makes sense to use the f1.4 only with a focal length of 35mm. At 24mm I have the f1.8 and I'm perfectly happy with it. It's relatively soft for an open hole anyway, and only when you stop down to 2.8 does it have the right sharpness
This comparison seems like a useful idea, but I’m not sure these were the best subjects to test. Daylight landscape photos don’t need to gather much light and usually want a wide depth of field, so that’s counter to the best things about 1.4. Portraits or low light photos would be a more relevant comparison.
You can't take the same lens and shoot at f/1.4 and then f/1.8 and say it is a comparison. A different lens will behave differently than simply changing the same lens to different apertures.
I've got a EOS 5D Classic, a Leica 50/1.4 and a Canon 50/1.8 lens, you can tell the difference in bokeh, but it's very minor, I often just use the 1.8 cause it features AF.
Difference will be obviouse when shooting portrait. And faster lens is crucial in lowlight situations when shooting budoir for example. ISO lower on 1.4.
The closer you get to the subject, the bigger difference there is and it can look pretty dope tho you are absolutly right, 1,4 es not used that often.The only f1,4 I have is a 24mm and I rarly use it at 1,4
No question for classics shoots, 1.8 is widely enough !! I've the 85 like yours, and I love it. A 1.4 will be interesting for studio probably but street photo, astro, or lansscapes at low light, 1.8 keeps the bokeh interesting all along and also allows good speed without high iso. Good video as always !!..^^
great video but I think that video should be renamed with "85mm". It seems that 85mm 1.8 is lighter, cheaper, smaller and is amazing and is recommended vs 1.4. I have just replaced 35mm 1.8 sony with the sony 35mm F/1.4 gmaster for my a7rv and i am very happy. It has a nice bokeh, fits the 61Mpx resolution, is sharp at F/1.4 and F/1.8... After that replacement i was wondering if i do same with my 85mm F/1.8 and apparently, according to your remarks, no need to do that huge investment.
So here's the thing, if you purchase an APSC camera such as the nikon z50 , and you want to do professional work, the f1.4 would give it more light for low light situations.. and if you are not on a full frame then low light is an issue?
My understanding is that the lens quality is better one or two stops down from wide open. That would mean that at f/1.8, the quality of an image shot with an f/1.4 lens would be better than that of an image shot at f/1.8 on an f/1.8 lens. I guess it depends on what and why one shoots at such wide open apertures as to whether or not they need that wide open an aperture.
It's not a real world comparison. Focused object is very close. Thats why telling the difference is very hard. But if you shoot portrait with each lens, we will see the difference so easily.
You only show the difference in depth of field, which admittedly is negligible. However, the difference in low light performance is much easier to quantify. f/1.4 is 2/3 of a stop wider than f/1.8, which means it lets in 2^(2/3) or 1.59x as much light. Hence, at the same ISO, if you needed 1/60sec at 1.8, then you'd need 1/95sec at 1.4 to get a similarly exposed image. Alternatively, at the same shutter speed, if you needed 6400 ISO at f/1.8, you'd only need 4000 ISO at f/1.4. In dim lighting this can make the difference between getting an acceptably sharp photo and one that's either blurry or noisy.
I think photographers keep bringing up this point but we leave out the fact that the main reason for opening up your aperture to f1.4 wasn't designed really for bokeh but for light. If you find yourself in a dark location or event that extra light will help not saying it will make everything perfect just saying in the daylight you won't be able to see what your paying that extra money for. Try this at night or the blue hour, sunset. If the only thing you shoot is in the daylight great go for the 1.8 but as a night photographer ever bit for light counts for me but again that's just me. Is most 1.4 overpriced YES but i think a lot people are buying them for a different reason then light these days. wait I guess thats why you made the video ok never mind great video Pierre lol.
Yes, 🧐, but if you know where 1.4 and 1.8 are, then you can say that in 1.4 bokeh it takes a larger part (compared to 1.8) of the photo. What is already obvious when compared with 2.8. Which is better, it depends on the idea. Thank you, very helpful!
Might be true, but if you could get the Sigma F1.4 art serie for the price of an 1.8 native lens...while being sharper stopping down from 1.4 to 1.8. I'd get the 1.4 any time. Also try doing this test with an 85mm prima you'll Def see more difference.
Spotting the shots that were greater than f/2.8 was easy...ish. I can't tell the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 and agree that it's useful to get a 1.4 for special circumstances.
You could use a cell phone for most of the shots in the video and wouldn't make a difference. 2/3 stop is like comparing classic f/2.8 and kit f/3.5 lens. Its not wort the money for everyday shooting but in a lot of cases it makes a huge difference
Go for f1.8...why? 📍f1.4 has only 1/3 stop of light than f1.8 📍 1/3 stop of light can be compensated by shutter speed/tripod/flash lighting.. 📍You're clients wont ever interrogate you for choosing f1.8 over f1.4 📍Saves you a lot of money.. 📍Read 2nd to the last pin until it sinks in to you.
Since I shoot people (models, portraits, etc.), I wouldn't shoot at f/1.4 anyway. My Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8S provides beautiful bokeh. "Most" photographers would be far better off applying the cost difference to other things, especially education, unless someone has a very special need of less than an extra stop....
For my use, seldom (maybe never) is the weight and cost penalty of a 1.4 worth it unless I can't get a decently sharp 1.8 lens. I also have some 2.8 lenses that I use specifically for their much lighter weight and usually great sharpness. When there was bokeh, I got it right but when focused past hyperfocal who can tell the difference? I'd rather stop down some for sharpness/vignette in these cases anyway.
But most photographers buy f1.4/ f1.2 or even bigger aperture lenses to be able to take noise-less pictures and videos in challenging light conditions like wedding or conference (the lights dim when there is av playing). These street photos in broad daylight come good even in f3.5 and f4 anyway.
Hey Pierre. Could you please tell me that does an F/1.4 and F/2.0 aperture makes any difference in *smartphone cameras* as the sensor size of smartphones are much smaller than DSLRs etc.
My Z50 with kit lens is superB but my friend say must try or invest prime lens so I bought 50mm f/1.4 just now and I'm happy 😊 i just started like 2 weeks old in photography. Kudos to you content
If I'm doing handheld low light photography, what would be the difference in shutter speed, between a F1.4 Lens & a F2 Lens. I mean, how much faster shutter speed can I get for the same composition in F1.4 than F2.
Good info. But 1.8 and 1.4 will be mostly portraits and the sample pix are not really reflective to make accurate judgements. Keep up the good info though
i think you are trying to say the difference between f1.4 and f1/.8 lens is small but i am afraid this makes no sense to use the same lens doing f1.4/ f1.8 comparision. this 24GM1.4 has 11 blades, while other 1.8 lens could have 9 or 6 blades which makes big difference to background bokeh..
Guessed right only on the iphone photo. you can spot the difference on the yellow entrance to the right hand side. but that's so minimal tho!! good vid man!
i only guessed 3 of the images and i've got all of the 1,4 correct and 1,8 2,8 and 4 it always depends on the type of picture you wanna create and what choice is the best and in certain pictures you can see it better then others bigger bokeh, low light situations you won't spot the difference in images with everything in focus in daylight
get 1.4 if you want to shoot at f1.8 with less vignette and more sharpness. get 1.8 if you want to shoot at f2.2 with less vignette and more sharpness.
I mostly noticed a difference in sharpness, DOF really is pretty close... if there wasn't a comparison though, it would be very hard to tell: this is denfely a 1.8 not 1.4 ;) specially for clients who don't know much about cameras most of the time... as long as you dont have the money, 1.8 is not any reason to say you dont have proper equipment;) great test👍
I have the GM lens and I rarely shoot at 1.4. It’s too hard to keep things in focus. But at f2 where I normally shoot, my photos are tact sharp which is the point.
@@janthony1980 - I already bought the 24-70 GM, but i don't really have a need for a portrait lens, since I avoid people where possible. shooting-wise. Got the 16-35GM and the 24-105G, the 70-200G and just a few days ago the 100-400GM. The steep curve just keeps getting steeper... lol.
You think 2.8 isn't fast enough? I used all my 2.8 lenses to shoot a dark Opera stage, worked fine. Got some cool blurred movement too. 1.8 or 1.4? I don't know, how about 0.95?!
@@Pierretlambert It was fun shooting Opera. Technically challenging due to usually low light. Sometimes I would stand right next to the orchestra pit! Keep up the good work!
Well, of course people buy f/1.4 lenses because of their slight advantage in low light situations - when every stop matters and same with the background exclusion. And of course no one will see the difference on infinity-focused "landscape" photo, even if it will be f/1.2 vs f/8 (especially if frame lacks objects placed close to lens).
So.... WHO got it right?! Don't be shy share your results!! 👇🔥
Honestly I was struggling while making the video... I had to look at the metadata haha
I couldn't tell at all. I won't go lower than 1.8, other wise nailing focus gets tricky.
I didnt see a difference haha
For you what is the best ?
I got them right, but I own f1.4 and f1.2 lenses so I kind of know what to look for. I think f1.8 makes a lot of sense for general use, especially if the lens is sharp enough wide open (Sigma is an example of a maker that churns lenses that are sharp wide open). Almost all DSLR / Mirrorless lenses are sharp enough at every aperture setting for social media. But for print and pixel peeping, most get tack sharp at least 2/3 stop down or more. Honestly, a constant f2.8 zoom in FF or a constant f2.0 zoom in crop sensor formats would probably be adequate for most situations if the lens is sharp enough wide open.
Couldn't see any difference at all. Call me blind, but they are as similar as it gets
Thanks for sharing... couldn't see any difference to substantiate the extra cost....I am happy with results from F1.8 on my 50mm lens... cheers 😀
Me watching this in 144p and guessing the right one 👹
U r leagend man
Us bro
For me the real difference can be seen when shooting in low light, for that extra stop of light offers faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO. Photos taken in broad daylight outdoors won’t appear all that different, for your shutter speed simply goes higher than it already is, which doesn’t change anything aesthetically.
Yeap low light is where you'd see most use, though it's still not a stop of difference it's less.
The difference is closer tp 2/3rds of a stop. I doubt upping the ISO will also be hardly noticed. With an ISO invariant sensor it may make no difference at all.
Your original comment suggested it was always the case that an F 1.4 was the better lens. I was pointing out that it is not always the case. In the Canon/ Nikon world of 50mm lenses the F1.8 is a cheap plastic lens and an F1.4 is generally a professional lens. I can’t comment on the actual number as I have not tried that many. I accept that the argument in the video that it can save you a lot of money is disingenuous and I agree with you that if you pay a third of the price for an F1.8 instead of buying an F1.4 it isn’t likely to be of similar quality glass or build.
Doesn't make much of a difference when you have an IBIS body (Z6 or some Sonys). Also there is weight factor consideration.
The question is not relevant outside, but inside in low light.
It's less then half of a stop of difference.
What actually makes difference inside is a proper flash. Not f0.6 of a difference
@@BigBoss-gb4cx Hell no! in natural light situations you wouldn't want to set up several flashes
@@BigBoss-gb4cx2/3 stop is more than half :)
@JayoJay you can't use a 50mm at 90% of concerts
@@BigBoss-gb4cx iso ~6400 vs iso ~4000
I have found f1.8 vs f1.4 makes a huge difference for micro 4/3 cameras!
Yes the difference being doubled for DOF! Totally! Did you try their f/0.95? :)
That’s because you have to double the f stop just like you double the focal length. That’s like the difference between an f2 and an f3.5 lens.
Pierre T. Lambert I haven’t tried the Voigtländer! But I do wanna pick up a set of the Olympus 1.2 primes!
@@davidaltizer On full frame cameras it doesn't make much of a difference
Really? The difference is more noticeable in cropped sensors?
Yea it’s a big difference because it’s more to it than just a stop of light.. 1.4 lenses have a better build are weather sealed, have better coatings, some handle back light and flare better, better contrast, better color rendition, better bokeh and some 1.4 lenses get sharper quicker when stopping down than 1.8 lenses.. So it depends if you need or want the extra bells and whistles if that stuff doesn’t matter than get 1.8.. but 1.4 glass is far from overrated they produce and render more pleasing images just at a cost
Someone here told the Truth.. it's not only about the bokeh, people don't understand this
Your comments about build quality are generalisations, some F1.8 lenses can be sharper at all available apertures. If you spend the same amount on both lenses (where they exist) I think the F1.8 is likely to be sharper and just as well built.
Ed Dewhurst “some” and that some (build and sharpness) is a very small list compared to what I said.. probably less than ten total 1.8 lenses on all systems of all 1.8’s ever made.. so my comment was far from general
Also it's important don't have nothing close behind the subject if not will be more visible .
There are good quality 1.8 lenses though.
So it doesn't have to be 1.4 ...
For this type of photography it would be difficult to determine the difference. However, doing certain types of photography (outdoor portraiture, low light, etc) the 1.4 would be the better bet. IMO your lens choice is solely dependant on the individual using it.
True! Whoever uses it defines how good or not it is for their work. Did you guess the pics right? ;)
@@Pierretlambert I got a few right and some wrong, and you are correct in saying that it's difficult to determine.
It makes a big difference in low light.
Do I wanna shoot 1/100, f1.8 ISO 4000
Or 1/100, f1.4 ISO 2600? That’s a big difference to me for out of focus noise levels.
In photography the devil is always in the detail.
For the average shooter they can’t tell the difference between m43 or full frame so let alone 1.8 vs 1.4
yes!!
voila
I've been looking through the comments and really appreciate how you take the time to read through them and respond so politely, especially to those who don't post nice ones.
I will agree that for this style, of mostly shooting street photography during the day, the difference between f/1.8 and 1.4 won't be very obvious. I could point out the f/1.4 for some of these shots, especially when the depth of field is shallower, but even then, I'd be okay with the f/1.8's performance. Often people shoot street photography photos at f/2.8 and up even if they have a faster lens to get a deeper depth of field.
The f/1.4 comes in handy more so when the background is closer to the subject than the camera is and when light conditions are more difficult. That's why I got a 35mm f/1.4 rather than a 35mm f/1.8. Since having a baby, probably most of my shots are of her in our house, where lighting isn't great. Flash definitely makes the bigger difference for exposure when it's appropriate, but that somewhat-wide-angle-shallow-depth-of-field look is something I love. Also, I can't always use flash.
Regarding price, I shoot with the Samyang/Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 AF, which actually costs about the same as the Sony 35mm f/1.8 ($6.00 difference right now) so the only real downside is the size/weight because the optical and autofocus performance is about the same too.
There seems to be a slight advantage on the f1.4 over the f1.8 but whether it is worth 3 times the price, ah there’s the rub.
I only ever used a 35mm 1.4 over the 1.8 version. and yeah there is a difference. But it depends on the lense. some render better. some are better at backlighting, some focus WAY faster. I prefer my gear to be weather sealed. Because you just never know what can happen! Overall it depends on the lense itself.
The only shot where big aperture was needed was #2. For scenery and daylight f8 would be better and keep shutter speed lower than max. The 1.4 especially on 35mm can make a huge difference when taking portraits. In a scene with many people it gives extra shutter speed indoors and it can give extra attention to faces. Not sure how aperture matters in the middle of nyc with bright sun.
When you only have 1.8, you are always wondering what 1.4 would be like. I got the 1.4 and I’m happy I don’t have to worry any more.
imagine what 1.2 would do
so true
what 0.95 would be like?
35 1.8 on aps-c vs 50 1.4 on full frame i think is a better comparison
@@ToniLovesSkateboarding You had to go and say it didn't you. I have two 1.4 and two 1.8 and now I have GAS for a 1.2 :D
The difference is seen only when close to the subject but it’s a slight difference. That slight difference is in the character of the 35/85mm 1.4 over the 35/85mm 1.8 in images. Not a significant difference for the price of 1.4’s or the hype. Great job with the comparison!! Most people just want to be seen and can careless about “bokeh” as long as the image is “pretty” they are satisfied!🤣
1.8 is good because it's usually smaller too. That being said 1.4 are usually built better and in real low light it can help
Struggled to work out which was which. I have the 85mm 1.8 and am blown away at the quality of the images, certainly see no reason for the GM version. The money I saved by getting the 1.8 is paying for a week in the Canary Islands and another lens!!!
If you are a photographer shooting a live show with low light you need the 1.4 to get as much light you can!
At some street shots it was hard to tell apart as there was still lots of sharp areas on the road surface etc. I guess that's just wide angle focused at infinity that retains that DOF. For Macro distance, portrait distance or your mobile phone shot at arm length it's gonna be more visible. Personally I was happy to have a 1.4 over an f/2 when shooting in the dark on aps-c. ISO 1000 vs ISO 2000 for the same exposure is reasonable.
it would be great if you could do this comparison with 1.2 lenses - a lot of manufacturers are building those these days now.
Wait just a doggone minute here - this was supposed to be a test between f1.8 and f1.4. Why are there f2.8 and f4.0 images in there? Two things to consider. First, with wider 1.4 you can get creamy bokah with the subject closer to the background. With f1.8 you can still get the same (or similar) bokah but you need to have the subject further from the background. With subjects that have backgrounds farther away you might not see as much difference as when you have the background closer to the subject. Also - and this is a key factor for some folks - With f1.4 you have 2/3 stop bigger aperature which will let in considerably more light. This means better low light capability with lower ISO in low light conditions.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge
I got the mobile phone shots (all four f-stops), and the butterfly. The others were harder because you generally weren't taking photos where the difference is apparent. For instance, taking a scenic cityscape where everything is relatively far away and you're focusing close to infinity.
Try doing the same thing with portraits, where the subject is close and the background is at least 2X further than camera to subject. I do video seminars with headshots using my Oly E-M1 Mark III, and the difference between using a 20mm (40mm full frame 35mm equivalent) at f/1.4 to f/1.8 is the difference between making objects on my desk 5' behind me and 8' from the camera discernable or not... at f/1.4 you see a blurred object, at f/1.8 you can see that it's a mug. Now, this is on a 34" monitor, but the difference in blur is perceptible even at 4K on a 75" television. On a mobile device, not so much... but the small screen makes the dark background (at least 2 stops) nondistinguishable.
In short it matters when you are trying to blur out a close background from an even closer subject, as long as you can get he background at least 2X further away than the subject, and the closer the background is, the more it matters. Outside or when everything is relatively far away, it doesn't matter... and at longer focal lengths it matters less. Buy the faster lens to isolate the subject from the background, save money if you are doing scenic photography.
It's not about seeing the different when shooting outdoors, it's about f/1.4 being faster in doors and increasing your shutter speed when shooting in low light. l.e Shooting a wedding indoor, settings f/1.8 - 1/50 - 2000iso or f/1.4 - 1/100 iso 2000, now that 50th is the difference between and blurry image and good image.
It makes difference and a meaningful difference in low light and evening landscspe or city scapes. I specifically Bought 35f1.4 for evening and low light.
Apart from Portraits or closeups in day lights you can't tell difference
The answer is found in many comments. First, as far as digital photographer is concerned it is hard to tell the difference when looking at the photos. With conventional film photography the difference was the corner to corner sharpness. A lens at 5.6 with a 1.4 lens would be sharper than a 1.8 lens set at 5.6. Also, lens manufacturers place higher construction standards on 1.4 lenses. But for the photojournalist there is a BIG consideration; price. A journalist can replace a 1.8 much easier than a 1.4. The 1.8 is comfortable work horse.
If u really want to see a difference do one with night photography or with lower light. U can tell the difference a lot more than with shots with ample lighting
The second your subject is not close there is practically no visible difference between f1.4 and f1.8.
Right. For this comparison, the difference will show up the closer you get to the subject.
Thanks for this. Just as I suspected, the difference in image quality is negligible - the price is not. Happy with my 1.8
I'd like to agree with this video but... Here is my view. First of all the 1.8 version of a lens tend to be cheaper and of lower quality. Lower quality lenses tend to be less sharp when they're wide open. On the other hand 1.4 lenses are more expensive but with far superior optics and it's not uncommon for lenses of this quality to be very sharp even wide open. So if you buy a 1.8 lens that has acceptably good quality when stoped down to 2.8 it can't even be compared with the more expensive 1.4 lens that will have good quality at 1.4 and amazing quaity at 1.8 or 2.0.. Generally you don't get the best of a lens at the wide open side.. Add to that the fact that more money=better overall quality and better overall quality is much more than sharpness, bokeh or low light capability.. It has to do with color rendition, micro-contrast, distortion, handling of aberrations, the overall character of the lens, the build quality, the focusing reliability, the feel of the throw when in manual focusing mode, the weather sealing and much much more not to mention the fact that these lenses hold their resale value.. One more thing. RUclips is not the way to judge between two photos.. Print the photos and then I think that a lot more people could understand which was taken with the better glass... So this was my take.. I'd like to read some counterpoints though cause I'd really like to be persuaded into the 1.8 side..
I'd say the best would be for you to get both lenses and try :) return them after. It's a strong matter of personal love past a certain quality point imho :)
Totally see what you mean!
Great topic. Im in similar consideration case. I own Samyang 35 f1.4 and will sell it and buy the sony 35 f1.8 simply for size :)
Sounds great, was about to do the same before I saw the price of the sony 35mm 😒
@@seebbii I agree, it is to much, but I do travel video and saving 300 grams or more is something. I also switch my 16-35 f4 with the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 -> one stop of light and 100+ grams saving. Now I just need something lighter to replace my 70.200 :)
@@TheTravelersPlanet I've heard Tamron is already working on an 75-210 f2.8, who knows how much it will weight 😉
@@seebbii Would be awesome! I only use my 70-200 from 100 and up anyway. Need stabilization for video though!
Awesome Casper!
the samyang 85 1.4 and sony 1.8 were similarly priced. So I got the samyang. I like the slightly more shallow depth of field, makes a busier background a bit less busy than what a 1.8 might do. the downside is a slower AF, more weight and size, and larger filter diameter off course.
i got the 1.4 photos picked out based on the softness and the light. I was confused about the others until you mentioned the other apertures. Still a good comparison.
Good eye!! ;)
For me it makes sense to use the f1.4 only with a focal length of 35mm. At 24mm I have the f1.8 and I'm perfectly happy with it. It's relatively soft for an open hole anyway, and only when you stop down to 2.8 does it have the right sharpness
This comparison seems like a useful idea, but I’m not sure these were the best subjects to test. Daylight landscape photos don’t need to gather much light and usually want a wide depth of field, so that’s counter to the best things about 1.4. Portraits or low light photos would be a more relevant comparison.
Let's do it again then!!
You can't take the same lens and shoot at f/1.4 and then f/1.8 and say it is a comparison. A different lens will behave differently than simply changing the same lens to different apertures.
Spencer Robertson that is very true! Something like a Zeiss will give you different results compared to another brand!! if both were at F1.4 :)
I've got a EOS 5D Classic, a Leica 50/1.4 and a Canon 50/1.8 lens, you can tell the difference in bokeh, but it's very minor, I often just use the 1.8 cause it features AF.
1.4 (darker soft shadows) vs. 1.8 (lighter shadows), & larger aperture ~ more tripod reliant.
Difference will be obviouse when shooting portrait. And faster lens is crucial in lowlight situations when shooting budoir for example. ISO lower on 1.4.
The closer you get to the subject, the bigger difference there is and it can look pretty dope tho you are absolutly right, 1,4 es not used that often.The only f1,4 I have is a 24mm and I rarly use it at 1,4
No question for classics shoots, 1.8 is widely enough !! I've the 85 like yours, and I love it. A 1.4 will be interesting for studio probably but street photo, astro, or lansscapes at low light, 1.8 keeps the bokeh interesting all along and also allows good speed without high iso. Good video as always !!..^^
Thanks Patrick! Totally !
it's really negligible, well I have many 50s including 1.4s and 1.8s even a 1.2 but I usually shoot em 2 stops higher
Yeah you knwo it, who shoots at 1.4 all the time anyway? :p
Sigma 30mm f/1.4: hold my beer
great video but I think that video should be renamed with "85mm". It seems that 85mm 1.8 is lighter, cheaper, smaller and is amazing and is recommended vs 1.4. I have just replaced 35mm 1.8 sony with the sony 35mm F/1.4 gmaster for my a7rv and i am very happy. It has a nice bokeh, fits the 61Mpx resolution, is sharp at F/1.4 and F/1.8... After that replacement i was wondering if i do same with my 85mm F/1.8 and apparently, according to your remarks, no need to do that huge investment.
So here's the thing, if you purchase an APSC camera such as the nikon z50 , and you want to do professional work, the f1.4 would give it more light for low light situations.. and if you are not on a full frame then low light is an issue?
My understanding is that the lens quality is better one or two stops down from wide open. That would mean that at f/1.8, the quality of an image shot with an f/1.4 lens would be better than that of an image shot at f/1.8 on an f/1.8 lens. I guess it depends on what and why one shoots at such wide open apertures as to whether or not they need that wide open an aperture.
Yes good point
It's not a real world comparison. Focused object is very close. Thats why telling the difference is very hard. But if you shoot portrait with each lens, we will see the difference so easily.
More importantly, what did you shoot your video on!? Great footage!
You only show the difference in depth of field, which admittedly is negligible. However, the difference in low light performance is much easier to quantify. f/1.4 is 2/3 of a stop wider than f/1.8, which means it lets in 2^(2/3) or 1.59x as much light. Hence, at the same ISO, if you needed 1/60sec at 1.8, then you'd need 1/95sec at 1.4 to get a similarly exposed image. Alternatively, at the same shutter speed, if you needed 6400 ISO at f/1.8, you'd only need 4000 ISO at f/1.4. In dim lighting this can make the difference between getting an acceptably sharp photo and one that's either blurry or noisy.
I think photographers keep bringing up this point but we leave out the fact that the main reason for opening up your aperture to f1.4 wasn't designed really for bokeh but for light. If you find yourself in a dark location or event that extra light will help not saying it will make everything perfect just saying in the daylight you won't be able to see what your paying that extra money for. Try this at night or the blue hour, sunset. If the only thing you shoot is in the daylight great go for the 1.8 but as a night photographer ever bit for light counts for me but again that's just me. Is most 1.4 overpriced YES but i think a lot people are buying them for a different reason then light these days. wait I guess thats why you made the video ok never mind great video Pierre lol.
Yes, 🧐, but if you know where 1.4 and 1.8 are, then you can say that in 1.4 bokeh it takes a larger part (compared to 1.8) of the photo. What is already obvious when compared with 2.8. Which is better, it depends on the idea. Thank you, very helpful!
Thanks Tatiana! Good point!
Might be true, but if you could get the Sigma F1.4 art serie for the price of an 1.8 native lens...while being sharper stopping down from 1.4 to 1.8. I'd get the 1.4 any time. Also try doing this test with an 85mm prima you'll Def see more difference.
On the basis of the qualities of your photos, it doesn't matter. f1. 4 and f 1.8 remain the same.
More bokhe and shallow depth of field. 1.4 Subject slight little than 1.8 it get more cinimatic feel
Spotting the shots that were greater than f/2.8 was easy...ish. I can't tell the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 and agree that it's useful to get a 1.4 for special circumstances.
:)
Awesome vid man keep it up!
What about 1.8 vs 1.2
i think the biggest difference in good light is background blur
Unless you're pixel peeping, the average person or client won't be able to tell the difference.
Right!🏋️
You will be fine with kit lens in this case lol
You could use a cell phone for most of the shots in the video and wouldn't make a difference. 2/3 stop is like comparing classic f/2.8 and kit f/3.5 lens. Its not wort the money for everyday shooting but in a lot of cases it makes a huge difference
Hi Thanks for sharing! Love the cinematic shots in your video.
Thank you very much! That really helped me decide on my next lens 😁
That new Sony 35mm 1.8 is going to be sick when it comes out! Lighter than the 1.4 and smaller too!
And cheaper!
Oh yeah can't wait to try it out!
It is more obvious with lower light situations
Go for f1.8...why?
📍f1.4 has only 1/3 stop of light than f1.8
📍 1/3 stop of light can be compensated by shutter speed/tripod/flash lighting..
📍You're clients wont ever interrogate you for choosing f1.8 over f1.4
📍Saves you a lot of money..
📍Read 2nd to the last pin until it sinks in to you.
Since I shoot people (models, portraits, etc.), I wouldn't shoot at f/1.4 anyway. My Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8S provides beautiful bokeh. "Most" photographers would be far better off applying the cost difference to other things, especially education, unless someone has a very special need of less than an extra stop....
For my use, seldom (maybe never) is the weight and cost penalty of a 1.4 worth it unless I can't get a decently sharp 1.8 lens. I also have some 2.8 lenses that I use specifically for their much lighter weight and usually great sharpness. When there was bokeh, I got it right but when focused past hyperfocal who can tell the difference? I'd rather stop down some for sharpness/vignette in these cases anyway.
But most photographers buy f1.4/ f1.2 or even bigger aperture lenses to be able to take noise-less pictures and videos in challenging light conditions like wedding or conference (the lights dim when there is av playing). These street photos in broad daylight come good even in f3.5 and f4 anyway.
Hey Pierre. Could you please tell me that does an F/1.4 and F/2.0 aperture makes any difference in *smartphone cameras* as the sensor size of smartphones are much smaller than DSLRs etc.
My Z50 with kit lens is superB but my friend say must try or invest prime lens so I bought 50mm f/1.4 just now and I'm happy 😊 i just started like 2 weeks old in photography. Kudos to you content
If I'm doing handheld low light photography, what would be the difference in shutter speed, between a F1.4 Lens & a F2 Lens. I mean, how much faster shutter speed can I get for the same composition in F1.4 than F2.
Good info. But 1.8 and 1.4 will be mostly portraits and the sample pix are not really reflective to make accurate judgements. Keep up the good info though
I was really digging into understanding 1.4/1.8. Thanks! a lot.
Thanks! :)
@@Pierretlambert Thanks to you. You are amazing.
I was just looking for this exact kind of comparisob and suddenly you drop this video! What a coincidence!
Right on time!
its best to do in low light video, thats what makes the difference
i think you are trying to say the difference between f1.4 and f1/.8 lens is small but i am afraid this makes no sense to use the same lens doing f1.4/ f1.8 comparision. this 24GM1.4 has 11 blades, while other 1.8 lens could have 9 or 6 blades which makes big difference to background bokeh..
I miss Chicago such a beautiful city
Money saved! Thank you so much, Bro
;)
thanks for making this video.I was very confused which one should I buy!
Hehe money saved! :)
I couldn’t tell 1.4 to 1.8 but definitely with 1.8 to 2.8 great video
The first butterfly photo looked like an f11 but then I saw the second butterfly photo and it looked like an f1.2.... Is that right?
But wait at which iso these photos were shot?
vous êtes le plus professionnel du monde de la photographie
Merci!
it would be better to put them side to side and not one after the other
Guessed right only on the iphone photo. you can spot the difference on the yellow entrance to the right hand side. but that's so minimal tho!! good vid man!
Thanks Riaz!!
There's a difference for sure. But all other things being equal from a features standpoint, I couldn't justify the difference in cost.
i only guessed 3 of the images and i've got all of the 1,4 correct and 1,8 2,8 and 4
it always depends on the type of picture you wanna create and what choice is the best and in certain pictures you can see it better then others
bigger bokeh, low light situations
you won't spot the difference in images with everything in focus in daylight
get 1.4 if you want to shoot at f1.8 with less vignette and more sharpness. get 1.8 if you want to shoot at f2.2 with less vignette and more sharpness.
I mostly noticed a difference in sharpness, DOF really is pretty close... if there wasn't a comparison though, it would be very hard to tell: this is denfely a 1.8 not 1.4 ;) specially for clients who don't know much about cameras most of the time... as long as you dont have the money, 1.8 is not any reason to say you dont have proper equipment;) great test👍
Very helpful video😊
Great video. What do you think about f1.4 vs f1.8 for indoor shooting for weddings (church etc..).
How is the f5.6 look exactly like the f1.4?
is a picture taken with a f1.4 lens with camera set at f4 similar to a picture taken with a f1.8 lens with camera set at f4?
Very hard to tell the difference... Very nice video, helped a lot.
The difference is the price
I have the GM lens and I rarely shoot at 1.4. It’s too hard to keep things in focus. But at f2 where I normally shoot, my photos are tact sharp which is the point.
Right?! glad to hear!
I am happy with my 1.8.
5:43 & 5:55 Hey, I know there! That is Antigua Guatemala, an old but very tourist famous colonial city in my country! :D
New 35 1.8 for me from Sony pls .all my primes r f1.8 and f2,I don't need more than 1.8
This was immensely helpful, as I'm shifting from Olympus m4/3s to Sony FF. Everything needs to be changed and my learning curve is steep.
Get the tamron 28-75 2.8 and pick a portrait prime 85mm and a wide angle. Those 3 lenses should carry you through most situations
@@janthony1980 - I already bought the 24-70 GM, but i don't really have a need for a portrait lens, since I avoid people where possible. shooting-wise. Got the 16-35GM and the 24-105G, the 70-200G and just a few days ago the 100-400GM. The steep curve just keeps getting steeper... lol.
@@randolphcroft4212 you got some serious gear. Enjoy. Be great to see your pictures.
You think 2.8 isn't fast enough? I used all my 2.8 lenses to shoot a dark Opera stage, worked fine. Got some cool blurred movement too. 1.8 or 1.4? I don't know, how about 0.95?!
2.8 is awesome! Must be beautiful to shoot opera!
@@Pierretlambert It was fun shooting Opera. Technically challenging due to usually low light. Sometimes I would stand right next to the orchestra pit! Keep up the good work!
Well, of course people buy f/1.4 lenses because of their slight advantage in low light situations - when every stop matters and same with the background exclusion. And of course no one will see the difference on infinity-focused "landscape" photo, even if it will be f/1.2 vs f/8 (especially if frame lacks objects placed close to lens).