5 Reasons Why You Should CONSIDER f/1.8 Lenses OVER f/1.4 Lenses

www.DarrenMiles.com - Southwest Florida Portrait, wedding, real estate and family photographer...
Facebook: / darrenmilesphoto
Instagram: / darrenmilesphoto
Patreon: / darrenmiles
Merchandise: www.TeeSpring.com/darren-miles
This video is about 5 Reasons Why You Should Consider f 1.8 Lenses OVER f 1.4 Lenses
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Reason 5: 1:55
Reason 4: 2:44
Reason 3: 3:59
Reason 2: 5:29
Reason 1: 6:14
Downsides to f/1.8 Lenses: 7:11

[@nicodimus2222]

I agree that we forget that our clients (usually) don't notice or care about specific aspects of image quality. We should stop trying to impress other photographers, as they aren't the ones paying us.

[@kylesharpstudios6794]

Couldn't agree more, Darren. I'm a professional wedding photographer. I'm the target demographic for super fast primes, and the fastest lens I own is a f/1.8. I don't need f/1.4, and f/1.4 is nearly impossible to focus in low-light. I'm usually between f/2.0 and f/2.8 at weddings. I have ZERO reason to spend $2,000+ on a lens, if it's getting parked at f/2.0+. Great video. This needs to be discussed more.

[@andrewpolitano]

Full frame bodies have the advantage there. But those of us who use Fuji bodies or other apsc bodies probably also *need* that extra stop imo. THAT should really have been touched on here in the video.

[@danielx40]

I’m very insecure with my 2.8s...

[@Dustyphoto915]

You aren’t the target demographic. Fords civilian trucks are better and nicer than the professional truck line. People buy fast lenses for the same reason we buy cars that can go 180mph. Because we can.

[@luisarmstrong8751]

It is always good to see your videos. Great job as always!

[@admin92706]

Great review Darren! This review has really helped me in my decision between the 1.8 vs 1.4 👍

[@antant06]

Love the images you've put up in this vid. Wow

[@specialized41]

As always, great information. Short video with tons of information. I love my Canon 85mm f/1.8 Thanks Darren.!!!

[@leroyjones769]

LOVE the fact that you gave the upside and the downside. Not many people do that. For that reason I became a subscriber..thank you

[@sarfaraz.hosseini]

Great video Darren, thank you.

[@ernest4483]

Another great content Darren

[@IMDABROWN]

From beautiful, sunny Southeast FL, this was excellent.

[@tedbowling5036]

From Northeast Ohio (where we just had our first descent day in 6 months), this was a great video. After 20 years in photography, my go-to portrait lens is my Canon 85/1.8. As you say, some people may need the extra stop.....but very few. Now I am going out to take some photos! Cheers!

[@kevinumbel8383]

Nice work! This video speaks the truth. 👏🏼👏🏼

[@RWAquariumPages]

such a great video, i've been considering upgrading to f1.2 lens and this video really hits it home. as a casual shooter, mostly shooting my children. the best camera is the one i have with me and carrying a f1.2 lens vs a f1.8 lens makes a huge different. thanks and keep up the great work!

[@MrCochise71]

Great video Darren! I absolutely love my 1.8 lenses. And I love the price difference even more. And great bicep curls. lol

[@download1995]

Great video, you've provided valuable insights and saved my pocket with this informative video - decision is much easier now. Keep up the good work.

[@JeevesTCW]

Some incredible wedding images Darren, Rich.

[@gustavomorales6553]

Great arguments and great video!

[@CVCC]

Great Review and Great Advise!

[@davidbruceod]

Well said. I have had the (Canon) f 1.2 lenses in the past, and I loved them, but I would bet that I never took a photo below f 3.5 at a wedding because as you have pointed out, depth of field. Unless the shot calls for someone's face to be out of focus, no one is going to be pleased with "oops soft focus".

[@vudoodaddie]

Thanks for sharing your wealth of knowledge.

[@InspiredObserver]

Thank you Darren! I am getting some serious knowledge from you and other professionals on KZbin! Hopefully in a year time when I can afford to buy a new gear I’ll be knowledgeable enough to make smart choices in my purchase 👍🏽

[@DarrenMiles]

Thank you very much! So glad I could help!

[@clivewoolley4492]

Darren I have a Sony 55mm 1.8 lens and its the sharpest Sony has made so far, great vid.

[@joppe6040]

I absolutely agree! Great video

[@gersonmadrid6675]

Thanks for the advice. I never thought of this before

[@GaleriaPuntoCiego]

Great video Darren. I´m agree with your 5 reasons, but there are another one: the photographer creativity it's not depends on aperture; depends only the artistic uses of photographer...

[@N9524Q]

You are a true pro! Really shows in your photos

[@stephengatley8144]

You are spot on very good advice! I have the 20, 35, 85 & 135mm art lenses & my kit bag sucks to lug around. I use a garden cart for work!.

[@markteboe4757]

Excellent explainer!!! Thanks!

[@tobiasmoeckel]

Very good points!

[@johnsg8]

I only had one reason to buy the 1.4 and that was for indoor basketball where you want to keep the ISO lower (under 12.8k and while using a faster shutter). In the end, I wound up changing how I shoot and living with the versatility (and AF speed) of the zoom.

[@winniduesseldorf]

Thank you for this infomative video. In most situations I stop down to f5,6-f8, depending on the motiv. The discussions about distracting blur in the background is very often easy possible by recomposing the picture to a more smoth background. With a prime of f1.8 you have a superb image quality alomgside with saving hundreds or thousands of dollars.

[@MUENTERMEDIA]

Good video Darren!

[@DarrenMiles]

Thank you!

[@germanevision]

Very convincing. Thanks.

[@jerroldtidwell]

Spot on, as usual.

[@SBBLURAY1]

Great video. Thanks.

[@photobyjewell1987]

Thanks again for the advice and reasons why 1.8 lens are in your opinion a better investment for your money you made some great points in the lens love the moments you showcase with the lens you captured each one at and that you made the information crisp and focused so people can see each lens and great moments

[@cdwesternhorse797]

THANKS a lot for this, you just saved me a bunch of money ;)

[@THISISBRENTINOKINAWA]

Nice video, Darren.

[@YannickKhong]

A lot of those reasons can also be applied to "why you should consider a slow aperture lens over fast lens": size, weight but keeps the image quality. Lovely roundup again. Nikkor AF 28-70 3.5-4.5: light, renders like 24-70 2.8GED

[@seanpatrickpearson]

Great video, Subscribed and made it 34K subscribers !!!!!

[@mephotography9829]

All truth. Great video 👍

[@Ilustre87]

I love your channel. I’m young (I like to think so any way) but I come from a country where old stuff were the only stuff available. That said I had to learn Photography with a old Soviet camera and lenses not by choice but need. At that time I was thought that even when you can use a fast aperture for creative purposes the main reason for it was to help you to see better in dark situations. ( of course that was the old school when everyone use f/8 most of the time, in manual focus with a Zenith f/1.4 was a call for out of focus images) was there to see better at dark. Now with autofocus we can use it, but f1.8 is in most cases more than enough.

[@richardseekins24]

Number 2 is so true. Wise words

[@marylougauthier9511]

Hello Darren Miles !!!! Very nice video !!!! Like 138 !!! Good day to you !!! From your friends Titi !!!! I put this video in my playlist !!!!

[@RezaMolavi]

Thank you Darren, I always appreciate you straightforward takes. I used to buy fast primes and even owned f/1.2 lenses. I decided that the price is not worth the performance to me and for my needs. It is amazing that after spending the money on the expensive gear, we try to justify spending the sum with all the reasons after the spending. I certainly did that.

[@DarrenMiles]

Reza Molavi The better gear can certainly help you “get” the picture, but it can’t help you “make” the picture or ever be a substitute for your creative ability. A good photographer can decipher the lighting, the composition, and the pose of their subject in a scene and will be able to make a fabulous picture regardless of whether their lens is an F1.8 or an F1.4.

[@RezaMolavi]

Could not agree with you more.

[@UMS9695]

Good points!

[@joeeagle9531]

Perfect Video as always Darren👌👏 I have 1.8 lenses on my Nikon D750 too...1.8 lenses give me great Value and perfect results! The Tamron 35mm 1.8 SP VC is also a real good lens for street photography as well after blue hour with the "VC" ! Best regards from Austria (Vienna) !

[@johncampbell335]

I just downsized from 11 lenses to 2. One is an 85mm 1.8 that I use at f8 for headshots and the other is a 25mm 2.0 that I use wide open for astro, and stop it down past 2.8 for everything else. So, a major 'yep' from me.

[@stephenhunt7655]

Great video Darren. When I picked up my Nikon 85mm 1.8 G my thoughts were how often would I even be shooting at 1.8. I love the lens and it is lighter than the 1.4.

[@parratt-world]

Thanks Darren.

[@JULIENVANCAMP]

Great job !!!

[@momentphotos3845]

Brilliant words DM

[@ShlomiGreenPhotography]

Well put, Darren! I believe that at first every aspiring photographer feels that they have to get the best gear in order to take great photos, and only later when you become more seasoned, you realize that gear is overrated, and you might be better off with cheaper gear, for the reasons you just shared. Thanks!

[@DarrenMiles]

Thanks Shlomi!

[@cotswoldphotographers]

Love my tamron 35mm and 85mm 1.8’s and find the VC much more beneficial than 2/3 of a stop. Also saved an absolute fortune buying nearly new in mint condition.

[@hurleygreen927]

RIGHT ON THE MARK with this video! I favor 1.8 lenses as I have a classic nifty 50mm 1.8 with my Nikon D750! Thanks for this I agree that our clients only care about image quality!

[@richardpcrowe]

Totally agree with you!

[@StreetsOfVancouverChannel]

Really fine images there, Darren Peace, bruh

[@DarrenMiles]

Thank you sir!

[@zackchoy1969]

Thanks for the great video! May I ask what tripod is used to hold the Nikon camera?

[@vikrantpv]

Great video and sound, logical arguments. I would like to share my experience as well... I have Canon 50mm f/1.8 and I have often use the Canon 50mm f/1.4 my friend has. Although the weight difference is not so much in this case, I really did not perceive any significant quality difference in images. It might be my crop sensor camera (750D), my amateur eye or it might be the universal truth. Irrespective of whether there is a vast difference in image quality, the undeniable fact is I - as an amateur photographer - can't really justify the cost of f/1.4 lenses.

[@carpediem6326]

Good and helpful thx

[@Wingman813]

Well...this is definitely geared towards primes lol. I subbed after a review you did on the Sigma 14-24mm Art lens. It helped me decide on purchasing it last week. Anywho...I agree with your points. I carry a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, and now the Sigma 14-24mm DG HSM ART. The 17-40 was my first "real" lens and is perfect for travel to throw in a backpack as it is super light and plenty wide for landscapes. The Sigma is geared towards astro as a hobby and future travel when I know I don't mind the weight. My 70-200 is for weddings and portraits and the 2.8 helps in the low light. I'm waiting for Canon to update the 24-70 f/2.8 before I purchase it and I'm saving up for it. It will be for weddings as well. As you can tell...I have a mix of budget and premium lenses and take into consideration the use for each. As you mentioned...it really doesn't matter if you don't get the shot. I really like your production value of your vidoes. Simple, yet high quality and good information. Used to live in Tampa so your location also was a bonus to sub. Keep up the good work man!

[@duncanmacleod8066]

Great video

[@depthhistory]

Darren, you make some excellent points, and you’ve forcefully rebutted the idea that without the latest, greatest and most expensive gear, it’s impossible to make a decent image. The problem is that you might convince so many people that the greedy gear makers will go bankrupt.

[@carlycruise]

Pure brilliance

[@AnkurTripathi]

Amazing darren

[@DarrenMiles]

Thank you very much!!

[@Todd_Kuhns]

I have the Canon 85 f1.8 and am very happy with it. However, there is more to the 1.4 or 1.2 version than just the faster aperture. The build quality of the "L" series lenses is substantially better. For someone that works their gear hard that is very valuable. A wedding shooter that is at the beach a lot, for example. Good video though and you point out the most important thing and that is for each person to reason out what is best for what they do. Thanks.

[@DarrenMiles]

Thank you for the kind words! I generally agree with you, in fact if you go to the latter part of the video where I talk about the downsides, first and foremost is build quality. There’s no question that the more expensive F/1.4 in the case of cat in the F/1.2 lenses are built way better

[@shiznuts]

f/0.95 are a little over the top and they're hardly any good wide open, but they do give you a unique dreamy look at that aperture and any lens stopped down a little, not used wide open, is going to give you very nice performance. If you're using smaller sensors like a 4/3" one, you're cropping in on the bokeh and the sensors gather less light, so there it really helps to near APS-C/FF getting a more sensitive lens, e.g. instead of getting either Olympus 45mm f/1.8 or Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7 opting for the Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2. It will be hard to deny its 'X-Factor'... albeit you might want to expect such a thing for the premium price. And I've got to say, 4/3" sensor performance breakthrough with dualISO and other optimizations make for a very promising future. But one reason I've been sticking for MFT for so long is the compact lenses that are possible due to the sensor size and mirrorless mount, the shear amount of options in this area regarding size, quality and budget is outstanding. A Leica 15mm f/1.7 is a prime example of a very attractive lens. It's small (in fact, pair it with the Lumix GX85 and it has the rough same footprint as the premium compact Lumix LX100), it's got great quality and rendering and for a Leica it's priced rather fairly! Speaking of MFT... you used to be an advocate for the system. Have you made the swap to Nikon D850 or is that a system is should regard 'complimentary'?

[@Rationalific]

Good advice. I got the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens for my APS-C A-mount body, and that is awesome (even if the autofocusing isn't accurate on that type of camera with phase-detect off the main sensor). It takes fantastic images, but it's extremely heavy. I more recently got a Sony a7 III and an 85mm f/1.8 (which is like an f/1.2 on an APS-C camera, by the way!) The new lens performs extremely well and is so much lighter (and is native and can utilize the best of the a7 III autofocus system). Another good thing is that it is built well and is state-of-the-art (accurate and no loud focusing). An f/1.4 is great to have, but weight and cost considerations make them not always the best choice, as you say. If you are rich and utilize a tripod most of the time (for portraits...) so you don't have to hand-hold all day, then definitely get an f/1.4. If not, consider an f/1.8.

[@SimonBauer]

Rationalific | Same, I thought I was going to pickup the new FE mount Sigma 50mm, but it just isn’t worth it when upgrading from crop to full frame. The weight will be too much. I’ll be super impressed by the 55mm 1.8 performance by Zeiss. Crazy light weight and because the A7III weight is a little bit heavier than my crop body, I’ll lose about .4 lbs in overall weight after upgrade.

[@Rationalific]

+Simon Bauer: Cool! My second prime lens will most likely be the 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss. I've only heard good things about it, and you seem to think it is good, too.

[@DarrenMiles]

I have the zeiss 55 as well - it's REALLY nice - a bit pricey, but the zeiss optics ROCK

[@Rationalific]

+Darren Miles: Good to know! I'll try to save up for it.

[@hiteshchand]

Very good video

[@stevevansak7324]

All great points!! Here in Chicago area weather sealing (just snowed here in April) has me going almost exclusively for weather sealed lenses in both brands that I shoot. Unfortunately, it’s a drain on my wallet but for others who don’t need this, you are right on with this.

[@DarrenMiles]

Ugh! Reminds me why I moved to sunny F-L-A - but you knew that already!

[@Benjamin_Jehne]

THX Darren. Over the years I spend a lot of money in F1.4 lenses, but I reached the point, that I don't want to carry them around, when I am at a job. I bought a complete new sytstem, for my private stuff (Olympus) and enjoyed how ligtweight everything was. Three years ago, I startet switching vom Canon to Sony and oh my god, those lenses are big and heavy. They wanted to go for max quality, but I don't need that quality and I don't want something like the ultra heavy Zeiss 50mm F1.4. So I decided to go for the F1.8 lenses and damn, they are so good. The 50 F1.8 is to slow, but the iq is awesome and feels so good mounted. So for Sony, I will go with the "normal" versions like the 50mm F1.8 oder 85mm F1.8. I hope, they bring back lenses like the EF 50mm F1.4 USM. I loved the size and weigth...

[@boudewijnj.m.kegels5198]

I actually bought the Sigma 50mm/1.4 because my camera doesn't go further than iso 3200 - and that is extended iso. So some benefit here, plus the extreme sharpness and future proof for an upgrade to full frame.

[@hwangsangbae]

잘보고 가요. 이런거 좋아!!

[@Lesterandsons]

Yes, i only own 1.8 2 or 2.8 and never feel frustrated. In my youth i used f 2.0 and kodachrome 25 so...

[@AC-cc1ey]

I have Nikkor 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 lens and I'm very happy with them

[@dansaghin1]

You forgot about the canon 85mm f1.8's ligtning fast autofocus... A great value lens...

[@CCWLONGSHOT]

I wish Sony would come out with a better performing 24-70 F4 for their FE mount. I think f1.8 primes and f4 zooms are a great combo for Sony mirrorless because of their size

[@charruaporelmundo]

You really no need anymore that lens having the tamron 28-75 2.8.

[@MrVwatcher]

@@charruaporelmundo the difference between a 28mm and a 24mm at the wide end is significant. When my Sigma 28 f/2.8 fell apart spontaneously i decided never to buy a 28mm or a Sigma (it was the 2nd Sigma that broke down spontaneously) again. Since i've been using a 24, 35-105/3.5 and a 200/3.5, 100-300/4.0 or 80-210/4.0 added for low-light with primes 55/1.8, 35/2.0, 85/2.0 or a macro 90/2.5 and in fact as the 35-105 was mostly used at its both ends (on 80 and 55 incidentally). Below 24mm, e.g. 20mm again i find too wide.

[@dugggins]

A sharper image will most likely crop better if you need to. Otherwise, use what you like. I love the sony 85 1.8. It's light, focuses fast and quiet, and takes great images. Sony needs a 135mm FE variant.

[@reuvenansh5231]

All excellent points. But... as you said, you never dropped one. I have a Canon 85 f/1.8 and love it, it's even faster autofocus than the f/1.2. Now there is the new f/1.4 to consider. Anyway, my f/1.8 was in a PADDED case and fell. The repair was over $200, over 50% the price of the lens itself, thanks a lot Canon. Not being an "L" lens is a huge difference in build quality, as I found out the hard way, it's not just a little better. You are getting exactly what you pay for. While the glass of any prime lens is fantastic and the picture quality can be close, they are no way near as rugged as those in the professional line. I don't regret the purchase, but was pretty upset about the steep repair price considering I paid $360 for the lens brand new. So make sure that if you are considering a lens not in the manufacturer's professional line, that you need to be gentle with it and VERY careful.

[@tonylouisvisionvideography3469]

GOOD VIDEO

[@richardbierman9856]

I concur!

[@jonbarnard7186]

Nice video Darren. This should be considered a public service video. We need an antidote to the marketing hype pushing the fast glass at us all the time. I agree. Consider the weight difference between an Olympus 25mm 1.8 and its f1.2 cousin. And there is a huge price difference. I'm sure the 1.2 is a spectacular lens, and if I were rich and young and strong, I would be happy carrying around the trio of Olympus 1.2 lenses. But I'm not so rich and getting old, and I wouldn't consider packing the big glass around in my hand luggage. And the image quality of those little 1.8 lenses is excellent, and good enough for me. Of course the lens manufacturers do everything they can to get us to lust after the big glass, even if we don't need it.

[@davidlevine5773]

Very interesting, I'm strictly amature with no intrest in doing weddings, but I can purchase lenses, and am debating buying a fast lens for parties, museums, and shows where there just isn't much light. As an amature, I am intrested in the 1.8 zooms as they should be 2.4 times brighter than my 2.8 zoom. Of course, they do not have the range of the 2.8 or the 4-6.5 zooms. For parties and shows, i would want a longer lens, while a wide lens works better for museums where getting up close to an exhibit makes it harder for someone to walk in front

[@Dngrov257]

I think the same argument applies to f2.8 and f4 constant aperture zooms. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 L is about twice the price of the f4 L, but they are optically very similar. The money shot at the alter during a wedding is usually taken a 45-60 degree angle to the bride and groom. In most cases you cannot get the bride and groom in sharp focus at F2.8 anyway. Save the money and weight and get the f4.

[@DarrenMiles]

Donald Groves the canon 70-200 f/4 L IS Lens is one of the sharpest and best I’ve ever used! In low light the f/4 is a bit of a handicap that’s hard to overcome with iso alone...

[@kylesharpstudios6794]

It really depends on how you shoot weddings, and the lighting conditions. F/2.8 is necessary for wedding photographers, because you don't know when you'll need that extra stop. It's more of an insurance policy, than anything else. But I find anything under f/2.0 to be unusable unless your subject is static. The only f/1.4 lens I'd consider buying is one of the Sigma's.

[@Dngrov257]

Kyle Sharp Studios , Agreed, when you need f2.8, you need it, though the high ISO performance of my 5D4 is such that I would rarely need it. As Darren indicates in this excellent video, many people do not understand the limitations of a very fast aperture lens until they have spent the money and use it. As you say, the subject has got to be static and what you want to be in focus has got to be on the same focal plane. Frankly, I wish Canon would make a 50MM 1.8 with the build and optical quality of the 50MM 1.2. I would gladly pay $600-$700 for it. The 50MM 1.2 is just not worth the $1300 IMO.

[@markharris5771]

Donald Groves I use the f4 IS for wildlife and landscapes and I have never once wished I’d bought the f2.8.

[@johnkosterimages]

If you're talking 24-70 or 70-200 zooms f/2.8 versus f/4 is a much different scenario. Needing the flexibility of a zoom often means you need that extra stop of light to get the versatility you're seeking. Not nearly as much of an issue with a prime, imo. No matter the camera you're shooting with, ISO performance can't help enough to fix the issues that happen when you're seeking that sharpness and detail in shadows that you can get with the extra stop of light with aperture.

[@ajh5124]

Love my Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP

[@adamaj74]

Agreed! Great video. Hell, the price point alone is enough for me. Even though I can afford it, I'm not dropping an extra thousand dollars for the 85mm 1.4. That's ridiculous. Give me the 1.8 all day long.

[@obscur_yoann]

On the Canon side, you have some great gems that people seems to forget : 24 f2.8 IS, 28 f2.8 IS, 35 f2 IS, 85 f1.8, 135 f2... Great values for the money and 24, 28 and 35 have image stabilization. All are small, light, cheaper and performs brilliantly !

[@mvhan911]

That’s why I am not concerned with m4/3 lenses at 1.4/1.7/1.8. Because always when I photograph more than one subject I am happy about more depth of field to get everyone sharp. More for Single subject in focus with eye AF shallow depth of field work.

[@jackchow4316]

Thank you Darren! I’d rather spend more money to travel than gears (I’m a landscape guy

[@OAK77uk]

Enough already about lenses - let's hear more about "Beautiful South West Florida...." Seriously love your channel Darren - Brilliantly put together as always... Best Regards - Michael Tweeted out for you under /OAK77uk

[@DarrenMiles]

Thanks Michael - I'm trying to get a travel VLOGer down here from the UK to do a video on naples/sw Florida

[@shiznuts]

Yes, I totally love the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. 😋📷

[@DarrenMiles]

Hah! Good point, but it's a zoom and it's HEAVY - almost 2 lbs :-)

[@carlycruise]

Darren - what are you filming with, that background out of focus is just superb

[@DarrenMiles]

Dark Side Challenger Canon C 100 Mark two, with the Rokinon 85 mm T/1.5 cine lens wide open. Thank you for the kind words :-)

[@YouAwakeYet]

Ive been lucky enough to get my lenses for free thanks to my job....but I still roll with the 1.8 lenses, it gets the job done. Beautiful quality photos can still be snapped with 1.8 and to be honest the noise doesn't bother me one bit. I actually like it.....I'm currently looking at the 35mm, for this one I think I'm going to roll with the 1.4 instead of the 1.8, just for this one

[@richsmith9063]

Great points Darren !!! I can't afford F1.4 lenses anyway. So I guess it's F1.8 for me.....

[@mali8389]

f1.8 or f2 lenses have very good BOKEH on FULL-FRAME. however, on a crop sensor, you have to go with f1.4 to get the bokeh with an f2 lens on a full-frame. if want to have full-frame f1.4 bokeh, you have to for f0.95 lenses that are expensive and very limited range of choice. being a fuji shooter i'm interested in f0.95, f1.2 and f1.4 lenses. but what you say is generally accurate.

[@DK-ys2cw]

The new Z f1.8 lenses are very high quality, reducing the drawbacks and further supporting the premise of this video!

[@ChillOutDude00]

I find myself getting a ton of noise when shooting in low light conditions on my canon 50mm 1.8! How much less noise should i expect if i buy one with an f/1.2 aperture?

[@hoorayforpentax3801]

I think the problem with f/1.8 and f/2.0 lenses in a lens lineup where f/1.4's are available at the same focal length (particularly 50-something and 85mm) is that they have a historic stigma of being "second-rate kit lenses". Certainly the care the manufacturers take over their f/1.4's is arguably greater, thus giving them premium desirability (unless they also have an f/1.2 or even f/1.0). In the film era that half stop could make a critical difference with exposure, but as you correctly point out, that's not so much the case now. The trouble is that people don't remember the days when f/1.8 was fast and f/1.4 was cutting-edge.

[@jimbean532]

Possible exception: Sigma 16mm F1.4 for m4/3. Small, inexpensive, and great quality. The wider aperture makes a positive difference in m4/3 death of field.

[@hagarthehorrible1391]

I've been struggling to make a decision between the Tamron and Sigma 35/85 for my wedding work. As much as I "want" the 1.4 the size and weight of the Sigma is a no go for me. Would you be able to make a video comparing theses lenses using actual people than static subjects like landscapes etc?