I've been curiously looking at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. And wondered how much the drop from 1.4 to 1.8 would really bother me.

Personally, a) I can only afford one decent lens at a time, and b) would rather not fiddle around with lens swapping on a frantic wedding.

Is it true to say that 1.4 only ever became popular with video users because we needed the low light capability. But now with better DSLR performances in ISO, we find that we'd rather not be so shallow.

Now that my ISO performance allows me to push up to 3200 with minimal noise, I'm wondering if 1.4 is frankly necessary at all?

Anybody want to argue a case for 1.4 superiority?

Hi Clive

I'm a coward!! The DOF at F1.4 is scary for me so I restrict myself to constant zooms that are F2.8 and so far no issues. I actually take my hat off to you guys who can manage with an F1.4 ...Love the speed but the DOF is critical !! At weddings I assume at F1.4 you cannot keep the priest and the couple within the DOF .... Do you get really fancy and focus shift between them??

Chris

Wow, I always thought an f/1.4 was about the quality of the lens, not actually shooting at f/1.4.

At a ceremony, I don't know if we've gone below f/4.
At receptions, we've done f/1.8 and f/2 reasonably often, when it's really dark, like during dancing.

RNB Wedding Videos (http://rnbweddings.com)

Well to be fair, most of us 1.4 lens owners wouldn't be anywhere near 1.4 during the ceremony or the speeches. To be honest, I don't think that many of us really use 1.4 that much at all, apart from when circumstances are low light.

But I just realised the sigma lens is only suitable for APS-C. So it would be hard to use high ISO and keep good quality.

Either way, you are proof in a way of my argument. Can we get by more than adequately on higher apertures?

I'd be tempted to set myself a task of going no lower that 2.8 for a wedding, and if I felt the quality was up to it, I'd swap my 1.4 prime for 24-70mm 2.8. That zoom range would be so beneficial to me.

For us it's important to have options, but being able to hit f/1.2 or even 1.4 seems unnecessary unless I wanted to use the 70D, with it's focus-tracking, on a dark dance floor, because it would need the extra stops. Or even more so on a T3i/600D since it has visible noise so much earlier than, say, a 5d Mark ii

For really dark situations, I have some wider primes, including a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, and 14mm f/2.8; but those are also good for general dance floor shooting.

To have a tight shot of speeches/first dance OR if the church is darker than usual, we've got a pair of 135 f/2.8. Those are good on our full frame cameras, but if I try to use them on our 70D, it's back to too dark. BUT is great when it's bright, because on a crop factor it's a 200mm equivalent, which is how we just used it during last Saturday's ceremony.

If you're using lenses at f2.8/1.8/1.4 I'm guessing you are using some sort of stabilization, be it a monopod or steadicam? Many fast lenses that go reasonably wide - especially primes seem to have no OS - I recently purchased a Sony 1.8 50mm with OS which is great for hand held but I feel a prime lens restricts my in being able to reframe quickly enough in changing surroundings

The Canon (or Canon fit Sigma) 24-70mm f2.8 would be my ideal lens but no OS!!! I am currently looking at this Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD as it has their 'vibration control' - I just need to ensure it functions ok with my metabones EF to NEX Adapter :/

If you're using lenses at f2.8/1.8/1.4 I'm guessing you are using some sort of stabilization

The aperture has not much to do with stabilization, the fact that they are or aren't stabilized does, My 12-35 f2.8 lumix lens has stabilization and shoots well handhold but I also use a 14mm f2.5 pancake handheld without stabilization (on a 2x crop camera) and that's also no issue, But when I use a 35mm without os there is a lot of tiny vibration in the image up to the point where it's not usable.

I often use f1.4 to f2.0 at a reception to shoot talking heads, gives a nice blurry background.

I'll do handheld with the wider lenses, up to 50mm, but really, I usually have the camera on my tripod. Even if I fold up the legs and use it as a monopod - the extra weight really helps smooth things out as I move around.

I shoot 1.4 or 1.2 at weddings all the time. Focusing really isn't that hard with a keen eye and some practice, especially if the subject isn't moving around much. As long as the lens is around 50mm or less and not an extreme close up, I don't see what the issue is shooting wide open on fast primes. The image may be a bit more soft but I'd much rather lose a little bit of sharpness then add noise to my video by shooting at higher ISOs.

Personally, I don't see the logic in having fast primes if you're only willing to shoot at f2.8 or above.

There can be a point to shooting with primes, though, even if you don't use them wide open -- just that the image quality is still better than zooms, and also that the lens functions better when stopped down.

I pretty much shoot with just zooms, at f/2.8, and that works for almost anything. Willing to crank up to 6400 on a Mk3.

If you have an outdoor night-time reception, you'll hunger for something faster than 2.8, but apart from that...

Canon 50mm 1.4, sigma 30mm 1.4 every wedding but only for the mingling leading into first dance when lights are low. Much needed at 1.4 because I find without a light nothing comes close to a dslr and 1.4 apeture...

Personally, I don't see the logic in having fast primes if you're only willing to shoot at f2.8 or above.

It's easier to collect good quality prime lenses than zooms that will be that fast. For instance, we shoot from three or four cameras, so will put four different lenses on, and space them out, for variety of shots. I could never afford three or four different fast zooms for that.

Plus, never said we won't go below f/2.8, just try not to, if we don't have to. For instance, our first cameras were T3i/600Ds and had awful noise above 1600. We almost always had to shoot f/1.8. Now, with a 5dmark ii, and being comfortable with 3200 ISO, I don't need to go that fast.

The aperture has not much to do with stabilization, the fact that they are or aren't stabilized does,

Hi Noa - I sort of disagree - Lenses that are generally 2.8 and below are deemed fast enough to not require OS for still photography, so it's not generally a feature - video uses the addition of stabilisation in a different way to a still photographer as we're shooting continuously, and not lining up for 'one shot'

I think Sony sort of back this up by adding stabilisation to their NEX 50mm 1.8

Pete

Hi Noa - I sort of disagree - Lenses that are generally 2.8 and below are deemed fast enough to not require OS for still photography, so it's not generally a feature - video uses the addition of stabilisation in a different way to a still photographer as we're shooting continuously, and not lining up for 'one shot'
Sort of... There are several factors as to whether IS will be useful & shutter speed is one of them. Shooting video we generally use 1/50 or 1/60 of a second whereas stills photographers can use slower speeds if they need more light & the subject isn't moving much.

The longer the lens the harder it is to keep the field of view still so the rule of thumb for taking stills is that your minimum shutter speed to avoid camera shake is 1/focal length. So using a 50mm lens it will be 1/50 second whereas for a 200mm lens it will be 1/200 second. As a stills photographer if I use IS on a 50mm lens then I may be able to shoot at 1/25 or 1/15 without camera shake but I cannot do this if I am shooting video (OK you can use 1/25 or 1/30 but watch out for extra motion blur).

Long lenses benefit from IS more for both video & stills. The wider the lens the less that you notice camera shake so you can shoot hand held with a 14mm much easier than a 140mm.

BTW With the 5D2 & 5D3 I have never had a need to use lenses with an aperture wider than F/2.8 even in the darkest venues. I used to own the Canon 50mm F/1.2L but never needed to use it wide open. I still have a 50mm F/1.8 in my bag just in case I encounter somewhere so dark that the 5D3 at ISO6400 & F/2.8 doesn't cut it but it hasn't happened yet. If you were using one of the lesser Canon DSLRs where the ISO800 is the highest usable then F/2.8 is not going to hack it but to use ISO800 where the 5D3 uses ISO6400 & F/2.8 would require an F/1 lens & there are few of those around.

Sorry, I still don't see what the difference is when I shoot video with a 85mm f1.4 or a 85mm f3.5 when it comes to stabilization, so you are saying the f-stop makes a difference?

If I could maybe get this back on track a little...

Most people seem to believe that 1.4 is primarily used when low light requires it.

I must say that anyone working on a mk2 or mk3 or (like me) a 6D, you can most definatly use ISO 3200 and therefore you probably don't need to be as shallow as 1.4. And when shooting a dancefloor, you definitely shouldn't be any more shallow than you need to be since there is so much movement to capture.

For the rest of the day, I'm not sure there are many of my shots where 2.8 would dramatically reduce my creative abilities. Its still fairly shallow.

Are there any other factors I'm missing? Like does aperture have an impact on minimum focusing distance?

At the very least I would consider a 24.70mm for the bulk of the day up until dances.

Most people seem to believe that 1.4 is primarily used when low light requires it.

Actually it's pretty simple why one would use f1.4 and like I see it there are 2 reasons, the first reason is if you are shooting a very dark location and your camera is set to a max iso it can handle before it turns real ugly in terms of noise, in that case the difference between f2.8 and f1.4 can be big in terms of light gathering, so often f1.4 is a much better coice if you have a camera that can't handle very high ISO.

The second reason is if you want a very shallow dof.

I guess my question is to myself - Would the shots I have previously used the shallow DOF of 1.4 on, really suffer THAT much if they had been 2.8.

In my head right now without a camera, I can't really tell how much difference in the depth there is between the two.

My gut is that for most of my creative/arty shots, 2.8 might still be adequate.

f1.4 vs f2.8 does make up for quite some difference in shallow dof, I only use f1.4 for talking heads at reception of for some beauty shots of table details at the venue with my 85mm but I do have a 24mm f1.4 which on my nex-ea50 gives a nice blurry background when shooting from a normal distance which I can't achieve with a f2.8, so actually it's just a creative choice if you want to give your image that look your clients see as "cinematic" as that is something they see as well when they go see a movie. It doesn't make your movie any better, it just takes the "video" look out of it.
I also have to say I can get some very nice blurred background with my slow nex-ea50 stocklens if I zoom in, works well during brideprep if there is sufficient light.

Surely the background is thrown out of focus at 2.8 with any foreground subject within 5/6 meters? Am I wrong? Is that not cinematic enough? And on the occasions when your subject might be further away, i.e. Vows or speeches, would you not be at 2.8 at least anyway? I know I would.

Sorry, I still don't see what the difference is when I shoot video with a 85mm f1.4 or a 85mm f3.5 when it comes to stabilization, so you are saying the f-stop makes a difference?

Was this addressed to me? Aperture makes no difference at all to the stabilisation but a stills photographer is able to use a faster shutter speed with F/1.4 than they can with the F/3.5 but could use the same shutter speed with the F/3.5 if that lens had stabilisation.

Stills photographers can adjust aperture, ISO & shutter speed. In general with video we only change aperture & ISO & are not able to use a very slow shutter speed in low light.

The focal length isn't too big a fight for the rest of the time when we keep our distance (during the ceremony, we're never closer than 20 feet, except processional/recessional) but for dance floor shots, I walk around with the camera, amongst the guests. I get great footage (50mm/full frame), but my focal length is less than a foot when I'm that close. Then the difference between even f/1.8 and f/2.8 feels massive, even though we're talking about a matter of inches.

For the times like the vows, when we want some nice bokeh, we usually stay around f/2.8. It's pretty nice at that point, we're usually using 135mm lenses for a medium or tight shot. That's also (usually) not so bright that I have to put a filter on.

Was this addressed to me? Aperture makes no difference at all to the stabilisation but a stills photographer is able to use a faster shutter speed with F/1.4 than they can with the F/3.5 but could use the same shutter speed with the F/3.5 if that lens had stabilisation.

No, to Peter, sorry, should have used his quote, but you confirm what I have been thinking as well, aperture makes no difference to stabilisation at all but Peter claims otherwise.

Surely the background is thrown out of focus at 2.8 with any foreground subject within 5/6 meters?

Not that much but it all depends what focal length you use and what camera (depending on sensorsize, cropfactor etc) and the distance to your subject.

A 24mm on my ea50 gives a blurred backround at f1.4 if I shoot a person 3 meters from me, but it hardly blurred when I use it at f2.8. If I'd use a 85mm from the same distance you"d clearly see the difference between f1.4 (which would give a very blurred background if your subject is only 3m away) and f2.8 but at both f-stops you'd still get a nice out of focus background. The wider you go with your lenses it becomes an advantage shooting at f1.4 if you want to blur the background when shooting an object about 3 meters from you (on my ea50 with the 24mm at least) but the further that distance becomes with a wideangle, the less the blur will be noticeable.

Cheers for the info Noa. Interesting. I guess I have to weigh up my options. The versatility of a 24-70 would no doubt improve many aspects of my wedding shooting. But do I really want to be switching lenses throughout the day if I want super shallow?

I only put on a fast lens if I either need it because it's too dark or when I want to achieve a very shallow dof for creative purpose, for the rest of the day f2.8 is perfect and can get you blurred backgrounds depending on where you stand in relation to your subject and at what focal length you are at. I"m looking at a 35-100 f2.8 lens right now because my current 12-35mm f2.8 is great but I need some extra reach, wished though I had a 12-100 f2.8 lens.

I only put on a fast lens if I either need it because it's too dark or when I want to achieve a very shallow dof for creative purpose, for the rest of the day f2.8 is perfect and can get you blurred backgrounds depending on where you stand in relation to your subject and at what focal length you are at. I"m looking at a 35-100 f2.8 lens right now because my current 12-35mm f2.8 is great but I need some extra reach, wished though I had a 12-100 f2.8 lens.You mean a 24-200mm FF equivalent? I just knew that you really wanted to buy that Sony RX10:-)

Forget it, you are not convincing me! :) I"m savin up on some good m4/3 glass for my pana camera's so I might get the bmc pocketcam as well that I actually don't want either.
You only need to consider the rx10 has a smaller sensor then a m4/3 camera so shallow dof would be even more difficult to achieve if I"m not mistaken and then it just becomes a high end handicam with a videolook.

Aperture and stabilisation are related in so far as if you are shooting with a wide aperture such as f2.8 f1.4 etc against a background with readily recognisable verticals and horizontals e.g. a book case would be an extreme example, then camera movement will be less noticeable than at a narrower aperture such as f5.6. At f5.6 f8 etc the background is much more noticeable because of the greater depth of field; in other words the illusion of stability can be better at f2.8 But thats about it.

However fast lenses can let in more light, making focusing much easier even if you are not going to shoot your Canon 50mm f1.2L at 1.2 I have the f1.2 but for me its only really an insurance policy to enable me to shoot in very low light. I dislike its restricted field of view compared to say the 24-70 f2.8L or the 24-105 F4L IS both of which are workhorses for me. I also have one of the ancient Canon 50mm f1.8 primes. Its the metal version rather than the newer plastic body version and its very lightweight and small - well worth picking up if you see one on offer.

I'm not a big fan of the shallow depth of field look anyway, especially for weddings. Often it looks just plain wrong as subjects other than the target can look unflattering, plus it can conflict with the clients wish to see details around them as well as of them.

Clive, its really not a big deal changing lenses mid-shoot. Try a Think Tank Lens Changer 50 on your belt.it will take the 24-70L or the 24-105L complete with the hood on. I also have a couple of the larger Think Tank Skin 75's. These can be extended downwards to take a 70-200 f2.8L IS complete with its hood on. Both types are skinny rather than the bulky Lowepro versions so don't restrict your movement in crowds. You don't need the official belt, any belt will do.

Pete

I guess I'm one of those guys thats super cautious about exposing the camera internal. I'd rather not change lenses unless in a controlled environment. OTT?

But yea, I'm actually more tempted by the spider camera holsters. But my second camera is APS-C sensor and so a 24-70 2.8 wouldn't give me the wide I want.

Also, you say changing lens is no big deal, but in my head I'm thinking of cropping in tighter when the vows begin. At that point of a ceremony, I'd rather not stop rolling to change lens.

Does nobody else which they had the versatility of zoom?

As an aside, I've been tempted by the FZ200 we've been talking about on another thread. That would suit my desire for occasional cropped shots, whilst setup alongside my 6D with 50mm 1.4.

I've been tempted by the FZ200 Or the new sony rx10? But it's twice the price.

This CNET review actually has a wee comparison table of the two 3/4 way down.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sony-cyber-shot-dsc/4505-6501_7-35829200.html

I've been seeing FZ200 ebay auctions ending in and around £300. That would do the job...

Or the new sony rx10? But it's twice the price.I suspect that the image quality for both stills & video is far superior on the RX10. It's 20 Mega pixels vs 12 Mega pixels but more importantly the sensor is over four times the size.

This CNET review actually has a wee comparison table of the two 3/4 way down.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 - Digital cameras - CNET Reviews (http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sony-cyber-shot-dsc/4505-6501_7-35829200.html)

I've been seeing FZ200 ebay auctions ending in and around £300. That would do the job...

The CNET review doesn't claim that the FZ200 is better in any way just cheaper

Panasonic's FZ200 has an f2.8 lens as well, but it's 24x and the camera is less than half the price of the RX10, and lots of people are willing to accept the less-than-perfect photos in exchange.

I wasn't for one second arguing its is better. But it may well be ideal for my zoom requirements.

6D with 50mm 1.4 setup on tripod, handycams in various static locations. Fz200 on monopod in my hand, being selectivly used for close ups, cutaways and a tighter crop at vow time. Also, would allow me maybe dander back round down the aisle if appropriate.

For my limited needs, I think £300 for the FZ200 is a great price, but a grand for the RX10 would be overkill.


As a side note, I'm debating Spider Camera Holsters for both cameras on a monopod each. They have threads underneath don't they? The Spider plates could be place between the camera and monopods? And they could hang from my belt with the monopods attached (and compacted). I could holster both cameras and use my hands for my steadycam...

I would look like some sort of action man!

No, to Peter, sorry, should have used his quote, but you confirm what I have been thinking as well, aperture makes no difference to stabilisation at all but Peter claims otherwise.

Hi - what I'm really saying is that generally (there are some exceptions) lenses at f2.8 and below tend not to have OS as they are deemed fast enough for still photography but we are using them for video where OS would be really handy :) I'm looking for a short zoom (say 17-50 or 24-70) at f2.8 throughout with OS and Canon EF fit - I'm drawing a blank unfortunately :(

I guess I'm one of those guys thats super cautious about exposing the camera internal. I'd rather not change lenses unless in a controlled environment. OTT?

But yea, I'm actually more tempted by the spider camera holsters. But my second camera is APS-C sensor and so a 24-70 2.8 wouldn't give me the wide I want.

Also, you say changing lens is no big deal, but in my head I'm thinking of cropping in tighter when the vows begin. At that point of a ceremony, I'd rather not stop rolling to change lens.

Keeping the sensor clean used to be a major PITA but since the arrival of the vibrating cleaner on switch on and shut down that has pretty much gone away. I used to have to clean my 1D bodies before every job but the 5D's don't even get cleaned once a year. Remember that the visibility of dust varies according to the aperture; at wide apertures such as f4 and under you are unlucky if it shows, but at f8 and over you can start to have problems. Its visibility also varies according to the subject matter; sky or light plain backdrops will show it much more than busy backdrops. A household vacuum cleaner with a suitable narrow nozzle attached will clear any dust out on a split second, you don't need all those silly expensive exotic devices unless the debris is sticky.

Change lenses with the chamber facing downwards if in a wet or dusty environment (or if hairdressers are going mad with the hair spray!) but otherwise its no biggie. Always put the rear lens cap on when the lens is not in use. Front elements don't matter as much as they can take a lot of gunk before anything shows.

I would be very careful about using spider-like fastening devices except for very light use. The bodies other than the 1-Series and equivalent are not built for that sort of potential stress (though the 5 Series body is a quite robust single component). And I would not recommend routinely hanging a monopod from the body all day - though I am guilty of doing that.

If you are worried about changing lenses mid-ceremony how about setting up so that you can cut to a locked down cam when the need arises. Or have two cams with different lenses on you - thats what i do all the time.

BTW Clive I watched one of your 1st dance videos on Vimeo, very nice :- )

Pete

Pete

Also of note with regards to low light, Dxomark rates the Canon 35 f/1.4L at a 1.6 T-stop, while the Sigma is a 1.8 T-stop, so (assuming that is accurate) you're really only losing a third of a stop instead of two thirds with regard to light transmission.

Pete, not having to change lenses on the fly is why we're considering sticking with four cameras. For instance, our two up front/off to the side cameras can keep their 135mm-200mm (depending on the church) to keep medium/tight shots of B&G the entire ceremony, while another camera at the aisle is wider, and a fourth is also medium or wide for faces and other random goings on.

Might even put a dual camera mount onto a tripod to test having two different widths filming the same shot.

Canon 50mm 1.4, sigma 30mm 1.4 every wedding but only for the mingling leading into first dance when lights are low. Much needed at 1.4 because I find without a light nothing comes close to a dslr and 1.4 apeture...


That is exactly what I shot my first weddin gwith. Canon 50 adn Sigma 30. I was happy with the results.

That said this zoom lens does have an appeal. Less switching.