I
Iron Flatline
Guest
I don't know the Nikon lenses. Most people participating in this thread are pretty experienced photographers, so the following comment is more for the beginning observer:
There is more to lenses than the aperture opening. JerryPH knows full well that the two lenses have a difference of 1/3rd stop... but they are probably both good lenses with sophisticated build structure. Going back to comparing 50mm, the Canon line-ups may have the subtle difference of a 1.8, a 1.4 and a 1.2... but their lens construction as well as types and number of elements is hugely different.
These differences matter because they account for contrast, color rendition, sharpness, and pretty much everything else in an image.
The Canon 85mm f/1.2 Mk II that I have a fabulous lens. If you ever can, also try the Leica 80mm f/1.4 Summilux, and the new Zeiss 85mm. Both are full manual focus. The Leica has enabled me to shoot some of the most beautiful images in my portfolio... but the lack of AF makes it HELL wide open when shooting children. Babies are a LOT easier
There is more to lenses than the aperture opening. JerryPH knows full well that the two lenses have a difference of 1/3rd stop... but they are probably both good lenses with sophisticated build structure. Going back to comparing 50mm, the Canon line-ups may have the subtle difference of a 1.8, a 1.4 and a 1.2... but their lens construction as well as types and number of elements is hugely different.
These differences matter because they account for contrast, color rendition, sharpness, and pretty much everything else in an image.
The Canon 85mm f/1.2 Mk II that I have a fabulous lens. If you ever can, also try the Leica 80mm f/1.4 Summilux, and the new Zeiss 85mm. Both are full manual focus. The Leica has enabled me to shoot some of the most beautiful images in my portfolio... but the lack of AF makes it HELL wide open when shooting children. Babies are a LOT easier
