Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm on the fence but wouldn't be surprised if this becomes my primary focal length for environmental portraits.  I keep finding myself using the 18-55 and it ends up on the 23mm setting a lot but I want a prime.

 

I've read the reviews and watched a number of YouTube videos.  I guess I don't HAVE to have the f1.4 extra stop.  The performance of the f2 is obviously superior so my question is really on that nebulous and subjective term:  RENDERING.  Does the f1.4 offer that magical rendering over the f2 that is hard to quantify?

 

My first lens was the 18-55 (meh) and then the 35 f2...really like it but not necessarily blown away.  Then I got the 14mm...WOW.  And now the 56..also WOW.

 

Does anyone have thoughts who have used both?

Edited by Therapeuo63
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not used the f/2 but the "performance" of the f/1.4 is fine. I can track my kids and they move pretty fast and erraticly!

It's nothing like the 35mm f/1.4 which is slow and clunky.

I find the rendering fine, not as good as the 35mm and 16mm f/1.4, but still fine.

 

If you have size, weight or money contestants is too for the f/2, if not get f/1.4.. I got the 1.4 to have that extra subject separation. Coming from full frame I was worried about more enforced depth of field with a smaller sensor. I was glad I went for a full suite of 1.4 glass for this reason alone.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...