[kylekruchok]

I'm in the market to buy a new lens - mainly (actually, only) an 85mm, fast aperture one.

Looking at the Canon f/1.2, and the Sigma f/1.4. I know there's a huge price difference, but there's also a quality difference... Just wondering if anyone has any side by side comparisons of the two, showing plenty of examples. I won't drop two grand, if I can get the same results for under one...

Thoughts?

Thanks

 

[HellFish]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

I don't think you are going to see a big difference in sheer image quality... but the build quality of L lenses are awesome and obviously there is an aperture advantage.

 

[kylekruchok]

But is the 1.2 really <i> THAT</i> much better than the 1.4?

 

[HellFish]

But is the 1.2 really <i> THAT</i> much better than the 1.4?

you're probably asking the wrong person because I am not a big fan of primes and thus don't have a lot of experience in super low aperture lenses... I am sure there are plenty of professionals that would argue there is a difference but the difference is going to be in depth of field and low light performance... not in image quality.

I will tell you this, when I shoot with my 50mm 1.8 at f/1.8, there are times when I get part of my subject in focus and part of it is blurred out. For example, my girlfriend's nose will be sharp but other parts of her face won't be because of the low f stop. I can't imagine trying to control a 1.2 aperture. But then again, I am no professional.

I have a hunch that if you have to question whether you need 1.2 or 1.4... you probably don't need 1.2.

 

[HellFish]

let me show this to you as an example. I shot this with my 100mm macro 2.8 (before I sold it).

I did not have IS and thus had to use a low f/stop and 800 ISO. I basically had to choose whether I wanted the eye area in perfect focus, or the nose. I chose the eyes which worked out fine, but the nose is blurred out because of the fstop. AND this is at 2.8... can you imagine 1.2? Oh and last thing - you will find some very knowledge people over at the POTN forums so go check it out and talk to them some.

 

[kylekruchok]

See, that works well for smaller objects, but for shooting cars, 1.8 simply isn't enough. That's why I'm posting the question. I do mostly tripod work, so low light isn't a huge deal - it's the aperture I'm going for. I've got the 50 1.8 as well, and it's about as jumpy as a homeless guy on crack. It's annoying, more than anything. It even feels a little wide for my taste... I'd like to have something a bit closer.

For the car shots, I can almost guarantee that everyone's shooting full frame with a 50 1.4, or better. I've got a 7D, crop, and the 1.8 simply isn't a shallow enough DOF for a subject the size of a car. See here.

Was shot at 1.8. You'd think it was 5.6, or higher.

 

[lmyamen]

do not buy the sigma 85. I had it back when I had a 7d and it was a problem to shoot outside. See the purple fringing in the photo below (CA) it did that wide open all the way to f8. It had twitchy focus and I owned it for a week before returning it.

 

[SkrApUNB]

Was shot at 1.8. You'd think it was 5.6, or higher.

even at 1.8 the car is not in full focus.... at 1.4 or 1.2 its going to be more out of focus. On topic.. the image quality isn't going to be all that different but the lens quality will far superior with the canon i'd imagine anyway. :thumbsup:

 

[kylekruchok]

even at 1.8 the car is not in full focus.... at 1.4 or 1.2 its going to be more out of focus. On topic.. the image quality isn't going to be all that different but the lens quality will far superior with the canon i'd imagine anyway. :thumbsup:

I'd imagine as well, but sometimes the other brands make a killer lens. I'm aware that the full car isn't in focus at that aperture, but as long as I get the front, or at least the intentended part of the car in focus, I'm good to go. Those frontal 3/4 shots, where the front façade is in focus, yet the tail is blown out are killer, IMO.

do not buy the sigma 85. I had it back when I had a 7d and it was a problem to shoot outside. See the purple fringing in the photo below (CA) it did that wide open all the way to f8. It had twitchy focus and I owned it for a week before returning it.

Interesting you should post a picture of it... I've heard nothing but good reviews about it - good to know that there are some bad copies as well. Whichever one I get, I want to pay in person, not buy it offline, y'know.


Thanks for the info! The hunt continues!

 

[e46stallion]

do not buy the sigma 85. I had it back when I had a 7d and it was a problem to shoot outside. See the purple fringing in the photo below (CA) it did that wide open all the way to f8. It had twitchy focus and I owned it for a week before returning it.

wow that CA is horrible

 

[sunydude]

See, that works well for smaller objects, but for shooting cars, 1.8 simply isn't enough. That's why I'm posting the question. I do mostly tripod work, so low light isn't a huge deal - it's the aperture I'm going for. I've got the 50 1.8 as well, and it's about as jumpy as a homeless guy on crack. It's annoying, more than anything. It even feels a little wide for my taste... I'd like to have something a bit closer.

For the car shots, I can almost guarantee that everyone's shooting full frame with a 50 1.4, or better. I've got a 7D, crop, and the 1.8 simply isn't a shallow enough DOF for a subject the size of a car. See here.

Was shot at 1.8. You'd think it was 5.6, or higher.

What someone pointed out earlier is correct. 1.4 and 1.2 apertures will put a lot of car out of focus. What you need to do is move a lot closer to your car with the 50mm f/1.8 and then take a lot of shots covering the entire area. Finally stitch those shots into a boken pano.. follow this link for an example http://99reels.com/bokeh-panorama-for-cars

Results look something like this:

Mr.clean by sunydude, on Flickr

 

[kylekruchok]

What someone pointed out earlier is correct. 1.4 and 1.2 apertures will put a lot of car out of focus. What you need to do is move a lot closer to your car with the 50mm f/1.8 and then take a lot of shots covering the entire area. Finally stitch those shots into a boken pano.. follow this link for an example http://99reels.com/bokeh-panorama-for-cars

Results look something like this:

Mr.clean by sunydude, on Flickr

The Brenizer Method, it would seem. I've done that before, but it's a lot of extra work...

 

[blue_bimma]

What someone pointed out earlier is correct. 1.4 and 1.2 apertures will put a lot of car out of focus. What you need to do is move a lot closer to your car with the 50mm f/1.8 and then take a lot of shots covering the entire area. Finally stitch those shots into a boken pano.. follow this link for an example http://99reels.com/bokeh-panorama-for-cars

Results look something like this:

Mr.clean by sunydude, on Flickr

wow... lot's of work for bokeh... photoshop would be much faster

 

[sunydude]

wow... lot's of work for bokeh... photoshop would be much faster

:facepalm:

 

[s3th]

wow... lot's of work for bokeh... photoshop would be much faster

:facepalm:

I was kind of thinking just use photoshop as well. No? :dunno:

 

[SkrApUNB]

I was kind of thinking just use photoshop as well. No? :dunno:

It is done with Photoshop.... but its not just taking 1 shot and creating a layer with the subject then creating artificial bokeh behind it. its sticking 40 or so shots together.

 

[sunydude]

I was kind of thinking just use photoshop as well. No? :dunno:

To stich multiple photos you definitely need PS.

But I think the OP was talking about creating fake bokeh in PS and not a Bokeh pano.

I have yet to see a good Photo with fake bokeh generated from PS

 

[s3th]

I have yet to see a good Photo with fake bokeh generated from PS

Theres not that much bokeh in this but its fake. :shhh:

 

[blue_bimma]

To stich multiple photos you definitely need PS.

But I think the OP was talking about creating fake bokeh in PS and not a Bokeh pano.

I have yet to see a good Photo with fake bokeh generated from PS

that's what i meant. taking 40 pictures and then stitching them together is a lot of work. of course the bokeh will be creamy and smoother... but if it's worth your time to do all that than go for it. I'd rather use photoshop a single image which takes 5 minutes. but that's just me.

 

[kylekruchok]

that's what i meant. taking 40 pictures and then stitching them together is a lot of work. of course the bokeh will be creamy and smoother... but if it's worth your time to do all that than go for it. I'd rather use photoshop a single image which takes 5 minutes. but that's just me.

And that's what separates the wannabes from the purists.

fft: