I've been photographing for just two years and I always used f/4 lenses (I shoot Canon) and never felt like I needed something like f/2.8 as I can just either use a tripod or increase the ISO.
What makes fast lenses so desired? Don't tell me it's depth of field, even f/4 telephotos can do that magic bokeh.

>>4438567 (OP)
what do you shoot?
let me guess, rocks and leaves?

>>4438567 (OP)
It's for indoor event shit.
Basically required if you do professional work.
But I agree, anything below f4 is usually mushy crap, and the ISO goes way too high indoors at f2.8 anyway.

>>4438567 (OP)
If f4 "good enough" for you already, you probably wont acknowledge the upsides of faster glass.
Increasing ISO means you are giving up image quality. Tripods are often impractical and cumbersome. Faster glass helps with both.
You also get better lowlight AF performance since more light is able to get to the AF sensor, or lowlight live view, even if you were planning on f4 anyways.
You also get better performance when stopped down, even if shooting at the same f4. Not just sharpness, but stuff like coma, potential for sunstars, CA, vignetting
The amount of bokeh is still definitely different, but the quality can be quite different too. A faster lens might give you better options of more swirly / optical vignette bokeh wide open, that you can stop down to look more normal.
>even f/4 telephotos can do that magic bokeh.
Notice how you have to caveat with telephotos, so you understand wide and normal are a bit worse for bokeh at f4

If all you take is stopped down shots where everything is in focus, and often use a tripod, then sure, a faster lens wont help you much.

>>4438567 (OP)
Better AF in low light and better/quicker sunstars is enough for me to prefer using wider aperture lenses. Having more options is always nice, and having everything in focus at general-purpose FLs makes shit look phone-tier a lot of the time.
>tripod
is fucking annoying to deal with unless I'm doing landscape and even then I'd rather not have to carry one
>increase the ISO
which you can only do so much before everything starts looking like shitty mush.

>>4438567 (OP)
Because in real life when you have friends and family, flash isn't allowed, no one wants to move to good light for the picture, and everyone likes bokeh. People also want to see photos ONLY a nice camera can take, which requires bokeh and good autofocus. Otherwise they'll learn to say "put that shit away, i'll use my phone you fucking idiot" after the 3rd time seeing your mft tier f4 iso 6400 bokehless snaps and the 2nd time you weren't able to take a pic of their athletic trick because your shit camera couldn't track accurately enough with the lens at f4.

if you don't have friends or family, just your cat and some building corners, sure, f4 is enough.

>>4438585
>/p/ gearfag: sure, i dont have bokeh or sports autofocus, but i dont need it. i can take great photos with just this. want to see my street and landscape photography? it's real art. and speaking of real art, most fashion photography aka the realest art is shot at f11 using manual focus cameras, and...
>/p/ gearfag's friends masking their frustration: uh huh
>/p/ gearfag's friend he didn't know had a sony A7IV, and just whipped it out: Haha, yeah bro that's cool, but check out this camera. Hey stacy, do a backflip! *snapsnapsnapsnap* check it dude, every one in focus, like, frozen in time dude, and the background's all blurry, it looks sick
>stacy: wow anon why cant you take pictures like this?
>/p/ gearfag: y-you dont need the latest SN... sony to take great photos, there are lots of works of art in the museum of modern art that were shot on a leica III, and for those of you who dont know that's a manual fo-
>chad: *snap* lmao hey stacy look at how funny his face looks when he talks about cameras
>stacy: hahaha chad let me use your camera
>chad: sure!
>stacy: wow, this is so easy to use! anon, why can't your camera be like this?
>/p/ gearfag: *reeeeeeeee's internally*

>>4438567 (OP)
>What makes fast lenses so desired?
they looks cool

>>4438586
>/p/ nophoto: i make up stories in my head of other posters since i dont have a camera yet

>>4438590
>>4438586
Sony bros we won

>>4438567 (OP)
Depth of field. f4 is simply nothing like f1.8. You probably don't shoot people so you don't care

>>4438586
This happened to me but chad had a canon R5 and a 24-105 f2.8, and they were all laughing at my nikon DSLR and 24-120 f4.

>>4438637
Serious proffesional photographer will never shoot people with f1.8

>>4438644
>Uhm, REAL professional ARTISTS never use bokeh, we all use rented backdrops made by women owned lgbtqia allies and shoot at f/11 on our hasselblads
Unfortunately you aren't that because you aren't the 3rd cousin of the owner of vogue

>>4438644
you are simply lying. Portrait and fashion photographers use it all the time

Dude background blur LMAO

>>4438570
Wildlife, landscapes and portraits with flash.

>>4438573
Although I'm no professional, I charge for pics once in a while, using a flash and f/4 lenses. I once did an indoors event with a 50/1.8 lens+flahs, but used it at f/5.6 anyways.

>>4438574
I never felt like my lenses being slightly worse than the faster versions was a big issue. Nowadays I can correct things like vignetting, CA, noise and distortion on Darktable, a free software.
Even for portraits, I prefer to use like f/5.6. maybe this way I get a bit of context from the environment and can frame this differently.

>>4438577
Well, I usually don't take pictures at night and my lenses have 9 diaphragm blades, which are plenty for sunstars.
Well, the phone-look is more up to the photographer than the gear itself desu.
You can take like, the latest gear and best lems of any brand and still shoot something that even someone neutral like me would find disgusting to look at.

>>4438585
Group pics require f/5.6 or more anyways. And if it's an important picture and the light is bad, I let them know I'm either using flash or taking a pic at day time. I don't really need a good autofocus either as I often use manual focus in those cases to really control what I get.

>>4438590
They usually do. But they are much bigger, heavier and more expensive for very little advantages in my view.

>>4438637
Maybe I don't need to be like everyone else doing portraits at the widest aperture.

>>4438643
There are people who buy gear because they are interested in the gear itself. Photography comes second.

>>4438668
I once got prime-like background blur using a 600mm lens at f/8, so what's your excuse?

>>4438691
>Maybe I don't need to be like everyone else doing portraits at the widest aperture.
That's fine but that's why people buy them. Hopefully that answers your question

>>4438690
You are only limiting yourself by only shooting at narrower apertures
>Group pics require f/5.6 or more anyways
lol no
>>4438691
>very little advantages in my view
Must by why professionals never use them either right? With the amount of excuses you are making, you might as well shoot crop or m43

>>4438730
No excuses, reality.
You are looking for ways to contradict me so you end up appearing smarter. But your argument doesn't appear to be based on anything but your own opinion.
I'm happy to be proven wrong if you give references.

>>4438692
Ok, maybe.

>>4438742
are these aliens

>>4438745
>I'm happy to be proven wrong
What would change your mind though? So far everything has just been
>I can just fix it it post
>Doesn't apply to me
Your OP was about understanding, not necessarily convincing you to change your mind. You don't seem open to understanding given your responses.
What kind of references would you like? Pictures at a faster aperture? Pros using faster aperture lenses? Articles about it?

>>4438745
>your argument doesn't appear to be based on anything but your own opinion
and what have you said that wasn't just your opinion?

>>4438747
you don't know what children look like

>>4438691
Does photography REALLY come second, if the point of buying the gear is to take photos that shittier gear can not? Maybe it's actually you enjoy playing with cameras, and they enjoy having pictures.

>2 kinds of "photographer"
>Virgins: The point is turning all these knobs and pressing all these buttons and knowing to use these settings and these modes and having impeccable timing and being very practiced at all of these and then i go into the darkroom and develop film by memory and tell everyone on the internet what I did and how much money I didn't spend because I am not a consumerist and everyone who buys nice things is dumber than me and has no soul and is a slave to duh jooz
>Non virgins: The point is having this cool photo.

>>4438690
>Group pics require f/5.6 or more anyways.
This is incorrect
>I let them know I'm either using flash or taking a pic at day time.
"Put it away. I'll just use my phone. Hey twerp, I said put it the fuck away. No flash, I s-Fucking come on, dude. I'm not going to hang out with you if your shitty camera comes first. My dad has a sony and it doesn't need flash. Buy a new one or leave it at home. This is the THIRD TIME"
>restaurant bouncer comes in
"HEY, NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY"

>>4438755
oh no, that's not how it goes. we appreciate the drama but in reality the flash goes off and then you get yelled at. not before. everyone hates flash.

>>4438755
loling at ur made up scenario

>>4438770
I'm trying to channel the guy from highschool you have nightmares about. I dunno how bullies actually act because i never got bullied lol.

it's absurd in the first place because you will never take a photo for someone who is not paying you to

>>4438748
Articles would work. Although lab tests are basically useless compared to real world usage.

>>4438749
Everything.

>>4438755
Did you type all that to not say anything relevant? Think before you speak my man, not just shout whatever comes to your mind.

>>4438817
>Think before you speak
You're not an artist if you unironically believe in this fascist nonsense

Lets be real there are two types of photography
One just wants to be good at using cameras
The other just wants good photos

Type 1 is good at pretending to be an artist and stays safely within social media trends
Type 2 is actually an artist and therefore fails 99% of the time

>>4438753
I know what human children look like, these are obviously aliens

Shallow depth of field can be neat, but for many types of photography it is not needed. One benefit of faster lenses is that they often sharpen up before slower ones when stopped down, but in general they are a waste of money not to mention an annoyance to lug around. When it comes to depth of field though one thing that is often overlooked is the minimum focusing distance.

>>4438841
mft user?

f1.8 and f2 are plenty fast and are common apertures for super sharp compact FF primes. that is way faster than f4 zooms in use. 4 times as much light. and if you get a lens wider than 50mm, the DOF wide open or stopped down once for sharpness from a few meters away is actually more than sufficient. group portraits can be shot with a 35mm f1.4 wide open as long as your lens doesn't have noticeable field curvature.

>>4438817
>Everything
If you can't even be honest, not much point

>>4438843
>mft user?
Fool frame.

Eventually you realize every poster hating on nice gear is a crop coper. It's always about how everything nicer gear does that their shit doesn't is unneeded, or somehow invalidating the nicer gear as a "real upgrade" by making up myths about how it randomly explodes or turns everyone green.

Specifically, sony. Sony sells FF gear that is the same size as APS-C and M43. When you realize this, you realize why /p/ hates sony so much. Yes, sony's colors are not as nice as canons or nikons. Sony's cameras are not as technically perfect as canons or nikons. Compromises must be made to make something as tiny as the a7cii.

But they are still way, way, WAY fucking better than aps-c and infinitely better than micro four thirds. "Bad" sony colors blow fuji, olympus, and panasonic out of the water. They're only bad when you compare them to a brand that's usually ranked alongside hasselblad. Sony baby mount vignetting yeah sure, but it's still more light than you'd get with crop. This is what really pisses them off and makes them shit on sony 24/7.

They don't want you to realize it's the same size, price, and weight for 3.7x the performance and will never stop bombarding you with the false dichotomy: crop of canikon, because sony isn't good enough.

>>4438848
So you have been a full frame user long enough to no longer see f1.8/f2 as fast. Interdasting.
>MFT users: holy fucking shit, f2? that's like, f1. it's not even $1000?
>Veteran FF users: This is shit compare to my 50mm f0.7

>>4438849
M43 chuds and canikon copers btfo
t. A7cr chad

>>4438853
>err: camera better than photographer

>>4438855
err: no photo

>>4438856
61mp is very unforgiving of missing focus, shitty lenses, and shaky hands. it doesn't just go away when you resize either. on a lower resolution camera those flaws were never there.

when you realize this, your photos will look better.

>>4438590
What's the point of the strap of your not gonna use it

>>4438857
>61mp is very unforgiving of missing focus, shitty lenses, and shaky hands. it doesn't just go away when you resize either. on a lower resolution camera those flaws were never there.
Not to mention a horrendous readout speed.

>>4438853
>When your composition is "get the entire cow in the frame"

>>4438859
Readout speed is irrelevant for stills. EFCS and MS make it meaningless.

It is definitely a horrible video camera, but the readout speed is pretty in line with 50mp and 100mp medium format. The problem is it's in the hands of someone that thought just adding megapixels would make things look better.

They actually make bad things look worse. The raws need more editing too. All that extra tonality is flat when opened in ACR.

>>4438857
This is useful feedback. I've already recognized this, realize it as an unfortunate consequence of getting older, and have begun compensating with higher SSs.

picrel: hand held at 1/3

>>4438590
Can't tell if AI or fake bokeh

>>4438860
No photo detected, opinion discarded

>>4438862
Aging also worsens taste in editing. It's called rockwell's chroma perception deficiency. Once contracted, it's terminal. It can only be managed by going to black and white, or trusting film sim settings and presets made by other people.

At least the a7cr's jpeg engine is actually really good after changing the default settings.

>>4438864
>rockwell's chroma perception deficiency
https://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-10-yosemite/index.htm

>>4438861
>Readout speed is irrelevant for stills. EFCS and MS make it meaningless.
Point is that with all cameras there are compromises, price to performance, weight, cost und so weiter. Same goes for glass. In many situation you can get the same result for a much lower price. It is not always bigger, pricier, faster = better which some seem to think for whatever reason. I don't get why this take automatically brings out the "you are a poorfag m43 looser" mentality though. It is just factual. I can easily see OP being in the situation that he does not need the more expensive stuff without it being some sort of cope. I mean it could very well be the case, but also not. If he gets the job done with F4 then good for him. It all has to do with the type of photography he does. Does a Santa Monica streetfag need a costly summilux when he never relies on shallow depth of field and always parades his gear in bright sunlight? Highly unlikely.

>>4438866
> Santa Monica streetfag
I had the abject displeasure of running into many of these creatures recently. It is not a place I will be returning to anytime soon.

>>4438866
It actually is bigger better, just with a few exceptions.

8fps on the a7cr is actually excessive. People did the best sports photography in history, spraying and praying, skillessly, with 5fps cameras.
Video is irrelevant because who seriously cares about video lol real video cameras are a different genre otherwise use your phone, no one can tell

>>4438866
> I can easily see OP being in the situation that he does not need the more expensive stuff without it being some sort of cope
I can't. Not without being a pretentious faggot.
You seem to imagine thinking this, "all your REAL photography is street at f16, you dont sneed that fast lense"
But I can imagine thinking this
"Yes, your lame art photography is at f16 but life happens and cameras are for more than pretending this readymade shitshow is actually art"

>>4438873
photography is technically art
low art
kinda like folk songs, but one rung lower on the hierarchy

>>4438690
>my lenses have 9 diaphragm blades, which are plenty for sunstars
wot. That's not... anon. Okay so, the amount and shape of blades dictate how sunstars take form, but how strong they are at given apertures is normally down to how wide the lens is wide open. So, if you've got a lens that only starts at f/5.6, your sunstars at f/8 are going to be horse shit and barely noticable (if at all). Compare that to my favourite prime starting at f/1.8 and giving reasonably brilliant sunstars at f/8. I normally go futher to f/16 but they'll still be stronger than the other lens because the diaphragm is more closed than the narrower lens.
>You can take like, the latest gear and best [lens] of any brand and still shoot something that even someone neutral like me would find disgusting to look at.
Fairest point of them all. Subject and composition, and the viewer's taste dictate what is good or bad more often than gear. I still want nice gear though because I do this for myself more than anyone else.

>(reading other responses itt)
Mang, I understand if (You) don't need faster lenses, but that's not what your original question was about. I believe the more options you can be bothered equipping yourself with the better, and having a narrow aperture lens is more limiting. It's the same argument against M43 I have: woopdee-fucking-doo you can get an f1/4 (2.8) prime at most and never have the option to get shallower DoF.

>>4438873
remember who thinks photography is art
they say things like this
>t not only are they producing something beautiful, but the work also examines its own processes of production, presenting us with challenges as to how we perceive both the work and the world around us. This often draws deeply on art history, an aspect that can often make artwork inaccessible to those who don’t have the luxury of art degrees and who struggle to differentiate between epistemology and ontology.
about pictures like this
while being too dumb for a STEM degree

most likely people to label more intelligent behavior as "lacking soul" (the more conscious unintelligent believe intuition is the highest virtue and proof of a higher existence)

>>4438878
>quick example I just took out the backyard to illustrate the point

>>4438881
Your example compares a shitty tier lens(probably, wince the maximum aperture is what appears to be f/7.1) to a what I believe is a cpnsumer-level prime lens.
Now there are professional-grade f/4 lenses that are capable of doing beautiful sunstars, the EF 16-35/4L IS being one of them.
Example at just f/11

>>4438923
Yes, my 70-200 f/4 can actually produce very strong sunstars, but not really until f/11. Go figure buying expensive pro lenses kind of breaks the logic.

>>4438928
They are not expensive at all, especially if you get the EF versions second-hand.
I'm talking about how it still produces amazing results despite the maximum aperture being "only" f/4.
Now if you get shitty lenses, even f/1.8 might not save you.

>>4438878
The "shape" of the blades is the same, I'm talking about the number of blades. It's optics.

>>4438931
Hm. My experience has been pretty consistent that wider lenses regardless are better for sunstars. Got any examples of wide lenses that still produce sunturds?
>The "shape" of the blades is the same
yeah, that was poor wording on my part.

>>4438935
Do you mean wide-angle? EF 16-35 f/2.8 II or III or f/4.

Some brnads have straighter blades but that only changes he shape of the blurred highlights

>>4438937
Nah not wide angle, wide aperture. You said some shitty f/1.8 lenses might not save you, so I'm interested to see how bad some might perform. If you don't own one of them then fair enough.

>>4438941
Aperture isn't everything. I don't do lab tests to see what's the best but 9 blades has been consistent to me.
Fast lenses will usually be better than the slower versions but that's not a rule.
And bad lenses are bad, regardless of the maximum aperture.
The Yongnuo 1.8 and the Canon EF 50/1.4 are some notably poopy lenses.

>>4438937
Many vintage lenses suck at taking sunstars and highlights even the fast primes. So aperture is not a deciding factor, necessarily.

>>4438567 (OP)
>I'm trying to understand the "fast lens" appeal
OK,
>Ability to shoot at higher shutter speeds
>ability to shoot in darker environment
>ability to shoot without tripod
>ability to blur background
>>Just use higher ISO
It quickly turns photos into uneditable mess.
>>4438573
>But I agree, anything below f4 is usually mushy crap,
But soft optical imperfection is much nicer than ISO noise or handshake blur.

>>4438950
What lens are you using, Yongnuo?
I rarely ever have such issues to the point it's a "uneditable mess".

>>4438567 (OP)
better low light and DOF

>>4438689
Well, then that kind of answers your question, doesn't it? Landscape photographers were been shooting with slow as shit lenses on large format for decades with no issue. If you don't see the appeal of an f/2.8 you simply don't shoot anything that needs a fast lens, seems pretty simple to me.

>>4438878
Very true, I have a few lenses that have stars by f2.8 and even f2 which is awesome

>>4438953
That's because your photos are a mess regardless

>>4438970
Post one of my worst photos and we shall discuss your opinion based on thin air.

>>4438950
>But soft optical imperfection
Absolutely not

>>4438971
Why don't you impress us with one?

bumping with a repost of my own a/b comparison
f1.2 (on ff) vs f4 (on gfx)

>>4439069
Despite having less bokeh the gfx has better tonality

Look at the hair

Anyways, this picture is why i dont pursue professional photography. Imagine having to photography fat people. Ew.

>>4439072
Thank you for calling me a professional

>>4439083
Gig work is called professional photography for some reason

>>4439090
Maybe one day you'll have a gig

>>4438881
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike
You sure yap a lot for someone as stupid as you are.
>caused by diffraction - light diffraacts more strongly at smaller apertures
>shaped by the edges along which the light diffracts - rounded blades ruin your sunstars
>made visible by the contrast in the image - you won't see them without having point light sources against a darker base

>>4438977
As if you were here to be impressed or have fun

>>4439069
"F/4" much better

>>4439129
to each their own, I prefer the dreamy-ness of the f1.2

>>4439182
>I prefer the dreamy-ness of the f1.2
But what about the creaminess?

>>4438775
>never take a photo for someone who is not paying you to
what about my dad silly.

>>4439118
Are you making up imaginary arguments in your head anon? Those are all correct and at no point did I say otherwise. The only point I was making was that if your lens already starts at a smaller aperture, the diaphragm typically needs to close more before sunstars become more apparent versus a wide aperture lens. That has been a consistent experience with the 10 or so lenses I've owned

>>4439263
sunstars at f2, f4 losers can't even

>>4439348
Below average looking 12-point star btw

>>4439349
True, which lenses do you use for sunstars at f2?

>>4439348
Nice. What lens?

>>4439353
voigt 35 nokton f1.5

>>4438567 (OP)
f1.4 lenses are also SHARPER than f4 lenses. Even when you stop both of then down to f4 or f8

>>4438647
NTA but it’s not a lie. Professionals (i mean REAL professionals, not just a guy with a fullframe, instagram and shoots weddings) almost always stop down their lenses from f1.4 or f1.8 to f2.8. That’s not a opinion that’s like a hard fact

>>4439364
>Uhm, REAL professional ARTISTS never use bokeh, we all use rented backdrops made by women owned lgbtqia allies and shoot at f/11 on our hasselblads

>>4439364
>That’s not a opinion that’s like a hard fact
So give us some names of people you consider professionals for portrait and fashion and let us see for ourselves.

>>4439381
2.8 has tons of bokeh, Also take the racism back into your pol basement loser
>>4439384
Literally all of them. Google literally any fashion brand. If you've been into photography longer than since 2020 you'll get it. The preference for peak sharpness over even mooaarr bokeh comes with a little bit of experience

>>4439389
So you don't have any actual example persons in mind? If there are so many it should be easy to give me a list of at least 5 I can go research

>>4438775
Nice LARP.

>>4438947
My 50mm Summicron is basically incapable of sunstars end of story.

>>4439072
If you don’t have a preggo and an impreg fetish you’re not actually heterosexual

>>4438590
damn she's hot

>>4439351
None.

>>4439363
But a noticeable margin? In contrast, you need to spend about double the price and carry around a much heavier equipment that's also slightly aesthetically improved?

>>4439462
sounds like cope for being poor, weak, and not caring about better potential image quality

>>4439363
>f1.4 lenses are also SHARPER than f4 lenses.
>>4439462
>But a noticeable margin?
yes

>>4439363
f1.4 is a meme
you're spending at least twice the amount of a f1.8 for very marginal benefit

you weren't raised on apsc and smaller with the good old 3.5-5.6
before backlit cmos
before more than 12 stops in a dslr
or the 1/2.3" with f2.8 or even a tiny version of the f3.5-5.6 not knowing why night shots had to be held perfectly still or the whole thing would be blurry AF or you had to use the ugly red eyed built in flash and manual mode wasn't even an option yet on your little Y2K snapshitter brick
you guys are spoiled with your usable 6400

>>4439465
Not everyone is a bitch who needs to impress their instagram viewers. What do you need maximum quality for, to zoom in 300% alone on your editing software while the other hand is busy?

>>4439701
Noticeable by lab tests you mean? They are basically the same shit. Pro-tier f/4 and f/2.8, same quality. If you say otherwise, you make a living selling camera gear or have autism.

>>4439768
>Noticeable by lab tests you mean?
NTA but The difference in sharpness between f1.4 and f4 tier lenses is noticeable at first glance within seconds without pixelpeeping even by normies.

You probably only say that because you haven't tried it and/or don't want it to be true. But it is.

>>4439768
>Not everyone is a bitch who needs to impress their instagram viewers.
Very true, that explains why you use m43

>>4439785
Says who? Comparing what to what?
Once again you fail to provide a reliable source for that, what should I call it, information.

You probably only say that because you haven't tried it and/or don't want it to be true. But it is.
Where did I state I have or haven't tried and/or compared lenses from different "tiers"? You are pretty inconsistent my man, you have no solid base for your arguments.

So far I'm trying to be respectful, but you are failing to face most people don't notice the difference among excellent and very good lenses.

>>4439791
>most people don't notice the difference among excellent and very good lenses.
Most people do notice a difference between f4 and f1.4 though

>>4439789
I do use m43 and that's none of your fucking business

>>4439792
Are you fucking stupid?
We are discussing image quality not blur amount. Then obviously the wide open one would have a less busy background.

>>4439794
Of course, but you're appealing to "most people" in a thread about f4 lenses
Most pros also use faster lenses too
If most people is what matters, just making sure we're on the same page

>>4439795
I don't know where gearfags get this idea that "most people only need-" *insert limit of shitty camera here*
Just kidding
I know exactly where they get it

They are submissive sycophant redditors who are afraid to say more expensive things are better and absolutely preferable. That's it. They don't want to offend heccin oppressed people by saying the cheap shit they can afford is inadequate. offending bourgies on the other hand is a wholesome leftist chungus.

>>4439705
>back in muh day
Back in the day our parents used flash for every photo, and they all looked like shit, even though the limit if you weren't wealthy was a 4x6 or a 800x640 screen

>>4439768
No, noticeable period. If there is foliage or fine detail in the frame it looks obviously different. It's ironically the pixel peepers who fail to notice this because worse lenses will count the same *amount* of eyebrow and eyelash hairs but on a global level everything looks hazier and lower contrast and the hairs are less distinct.

Also see: that guy who thinks his iphone is as sharp as a 24mp FF because he counted eyebrow hairs, while ignoring how the eyebrows actually looked

>>4439791
Seeing you two is so funny because you are obviously so wrong here. f1.4 tier lenses are so much sharper than f4 tier lenses. Especially when you stop both down to f4 or f5.6 or f8

The difference is so obvious and so big. It's not even worth discussing.

>>4439808
Yes but f2 lenses are sharper than f1.4 lenses
https://dustinabbott.net/2025/04/viltrox-af-50mm-f2-air-review/
Snoy btfo

>>4439829
I don't think you can draw such hard lines in the sand over the f/ number stamped on the lens being indicative of sharpness. Manufacturers limit max aperture based on a lot of things, and there are plenty of consumer-grade lenses that are super wide (f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2 etc.) that suck optically until you stop down to f/4 or f/5.6. There are also lenses sharp as a tack wide open at f/2 or f/2.8 that gain fuck all as you stop down.
If the shitty f/1.8 prime lenses of <insert manufacturer here> had their apertures restricted to and sold as f/4 lenses, they'd be great "wide open" but you end up with less options.

Basically, it's really just down to any specific lens in question.

>>4439842
Nikon's lineup is a good example
f1.2 > f1.8 > f1.4

>>4439842
Yeah it's just that when you get to f2.8 and f4 lenses, stopping down to beat a better lens for sharpness is almost impossible unless the apparently better lens is actually really poorly made, like a DSLR prime lens will never sharpen up even at f16.

This also applies to micro four thirds. Even if you spend $1500 on a 42.5mm f1.2 it's never going to be as sharp as a sony 85mm f1.8. But for other reasons (its nearly impossible to resolve enough good, aberration free detail for the pixel pitch of a 100mp FF).

>>4439844
>(its nearly impossible to resolve enough good, aberration free detail for the pixel pitch of a 100mp FF)
is that true tho? The 100MP+ pixel shifts from Canon/Nikon or the Hassy/Fuji 100MPs look fine to me.

You mean like small spots on it that have slight pincushions or barrels? I personally am not savvy enough to see these. All other kinds of distortion should be identical to 24MP. No?

>>4439918
>The 100MP+ pixel shifts from Canon/Nikon or the Hassy/Fuji 100MPs look fine to me.
Now look at the big fucking medium format sized lenses they use to achieve that

The best, most expensive primes on micro four thirds are only able to render detail as well as pretty middling, compact FF gear. Sometimes slightly better but it's not really worth paying $1500 to achieve the same thing as a <$500 prime on sony.

>>4439924
That's not true. The lenses are big because the sensor is big. The lenses are NOT big because smaller lenses couldn't resolve 100MP

>>4439953
The lenses are big to resolve extreme amounts of detail with perfect bokehs.

This is what a 35mm f1.4 looks like when resolving perfectly contrasty micro-detail for 100mp modes is NOT a goal.
For a professional digital camera a 35mm f1.4 is larger than a 6x7 film camera's 80mm f2. it needs extra glass to sharpen up the smallest shit.

>>4439960
That's so obviously wrong.

I know I'm right because you can slap fullframe glass on analog film like Adox20 (iso of 20 and ultra fine grain) and resolve an image that scans to 500MP. The lenses can easily resolve that.

Medium format lenses are big because the sensor/film is big. NOT because they need to resolve more detail.

>>4439988
another example would be adapting fullframe flass to Fuji GX and do a 400MP pixel shift. You will see that FF glass can easily resolve 100MP

>>4438574
>Increasing ISO means you are giving up image quality.
If we're talking about f/4 then we're probably comparing it to f/2.8. One stop of ISO isn't going to make a difference that AI denoise can't easily compensate for.
>You also get better performance when stopped down, even if shooting at the same f4.
Outdated advice.
This can't be said generally. A lot of modern first-party mid-market-and-up lenses are designed to be sharp wide open. Your 24-105 f/4 these days is pretty sharp wide open, and the f/2.8 at f/4 isn't going to get a meaningful difference. Generally constant aperture lenses are going to be mid-market or better, anyway. DSLR lenses are typically as you say, though, and third party lenses you have to take on a case-by-case basis.
F/4 lenses these days seem to be being marketed as lighter weight, smaller, and cheaper alternatives to f/2.8 lenses, with equal image quality.
>Notice how you have to caveat with telephotos, so you understand wide and normal are a bit worse for bokeh at f4
But op has a point. If you want bokeh, options are still there. Generally, you want bokeh on the type of photos you take at a narrow angle, and wide angle shots you typically want to stop down a bit to get a wide depth of field. I seldom shoot my wide angle primes at anything wider than f/4 or so, and more often f/5.6 or f/8 -- if I want bokeh I'll usually place the items significantly closer to the lens than the focal point, or make sure the focal point is close to the camera. This usually is the right answer when considering composition, anyway (in the first case, it makes the scene overall sharp, with a few bokeh accents e.g. to add some atmospheric framing. In the second case, the sharp, in-focus object will dominate the frame with perspective distortion).

>>4440012
>yeah it's worse but idc that much

>>4438643
Get a Pentax DSLR. Pentax is obscure enough that no one really understands the brand, but has enough legacy that everyone remembers their grandfather, the epitome of masculinity to them, as having a Pentax (or Nikon).
A lot of their lenses (even still in production, e.g. the Limiteds) have a nice 80s or refined 90s masculine look to them too.
(But modern Nikon lenses look faggoty as fuck).
Everyone knows Canon is the camera their sister got for their highschool class, so it either works out only if you're going for art-school-fuckboy vibes or you're chad enough to pull it neutral.

>>4440012
Explains why pros only ever use f4 lenses

>>4440012
>One stop of ISO isn't going to make a difference
It makes a difference.
>that AI denoise can't easily compensate for.
1: AI denoise looks bad
2: AI will never be allowed to touch my photos.
>you want bokeh on the type of photos you take at a narrow angle, and wide angle shots you typically want to stop down a bit to get a wide depth of field.
Behold, a preprogrammed photographer.exe. Don't forget you need an UWA for landscapes and a 135mm for headshots. Because you do.

Photographers are so simple that you can end up shooting the president by being "creative" enough to shove an 8mm in their face.

>>4440028
1) AI denoise isn't going to look bad when accounting for 1 stop of ISO performance. Stop yanking the slider up. Also don't use Adobe's AI denoise lol. Most useless thing ever.
2) man the fuck up. The ethics of AI is in how it's used (and how it's created, Adobe's ethics aren't perfect here (utilizing near-monopoly position and non-transparency to train their models), but they didn't scrape the web using photos without permission.
AI denoise isn't overcoming a skill issue, but a technical one. It's not injecting itself into the artistic vision. It's just another tool like unsharp masking or manual noise reduction.
>Behold, a preprogrammed photographer.exe
These are extremely common ways to use these lenses because that's how it works compositionally. A wide scene with shallow depth of field leaving 1/5 of the photo sharp and 4/5 of the photo uninteresting bokeh field is seldom going to be interesting. For the occasional time you do want it, you can stitch together images taken from a telephoto.

>>4440044
>cope
>cope
>more cope
you shoot m43 too right

>>4440044
>1) AI denoise isn't going to look bad
It does.
>2) man the fuck up. The ethics of AI is in-
-Whether or not it exists. Like you can't be "anti gun" but then be like "oh i only mean the scawwy assault rifles that give people the power to mow down feds, not the other guns", you can't be anti-AI but only be against AGI, or anti-slavery but you allow some mild slavery with limited durations, etc.
>A wide scene with shallow depth of field leaving 1/5 of the photo sharp and 4/5 of the photo uninteresting bokeh field is
Going to look really cool.
>nooo you have to stitch
Can't work with motion in any way at all when stitching or stacking sorry.

>>4439705
I randomly watched a video on some bint reviewing an older digital point and shoot and she was discussing its downsides and mentioned that it suffered noticeably from a delay between pressing the shutter button and the camera firing, and I suddenly recalled that that has basically ceased to exist as a talking point these days - but fuck I remember every fucking camera review describing how much shutter lag a given camera would have because it was such a common affliction. Not to go all Kids These Days but genuinely holy fuck people who’ve only ever used modern digital cameras probably have no comprehension that shutter lag existed as a point of differentiation between camera models

>>4440067
Lots of things have been forgotten in that regard and as camera tech has largely plateaued we are finding new things to complain about. Live View was a premium feature at one point as well.. historically speaking yesterday. Flip out screens as well.

>>4440090
It’s a pretty remarkable thing that while there are pluses and minuses of systems over one another, basically nobody now is making a bad camera. That’s a big fucking change from 20 years ago.

>>4440095
>basically nobody now is making a bad camera.
must've forgot panasnoynic exist.

>>4440098
You’re unintentionally demonstrating my point about how lucky you are to come into photography in this era of cameras - you think what constitutes differences now amounts to outright good or bad as opposed to merely better or worse. You’re very fortunate.

>>4440095
>basically nobody is making a bad camera
>Panasonic, OM system, Fujifilm, Leica, Hasselblad (yes.)
All of these companies make a lot of cameras that are unjustifiably bad for their price point. And this is why you see so much baseless and schizophrenic hate for the top 2, canon and sony.

yes, even hasselblad. the chinese purchase was the nail in the coffin for an already degrading company. the 907x system was a disaster and their build quality has gone to total shit while tech lags behind fuji GFX. ironic because fuji doesn't even try to do more than the minimum to qualify as a viable purchase and mistook themselves for a lifestyle brand.

>>4440110
>merely better or worse
A lot of cameras are flat out worse than much cheaper older shit. You're not so much in the golden age of photography as you are in the dying age. It is highly unlikely the bottom 3 brands will stay in the camera market. Sales are cratering industry wide. There are so many non-competitive cameras desperately justifying themselves on not crippling software gimmicks (ie: video codicks) right now because companies are not making enough money to fund a high level of R&D.

It's not that they're incompetent, it's that sales have gone down so much only diversified megacorps can put a lot of effort into something as niche as imaging. There's a reason nikon blew their entire net worth on acquiring RED. Because they did, they might actually remain in the camera industry for 10 more years.

Why does everything always go back to Sony users here?

>>4440163
afaik pentax and olympus are effectively no longer active participants in the camera industry, only not totally pulled out because japanese honor = better to sell the last model developed in 2019 forever than quit
i dont know why panasonic exists. if the big 3 brands simply stop crippling video options and enable every little thing the sensor can support in every release, panasonic dies right there. all anyone uses them for is a more user friendly budget alternative to real video cameras.

>>4440164
because the mentally ill really can't stop

>>4440164
well one, sony accurately predicted the death of photography and has been basically playing along with that (jacking up prices while doing less and less for people outside of the pro videography market, and still somehow beating the competition because they are legit dying).
https://petapixel.com/2022/05/31/smartphone-cameras-will-be-superior-to-slrs-by-2024-says-sony-ceo/
only triple digit IQ people and giga-nerds can notice the differences in "rendering" anymore. last years TOTL iphone captures the same amount of detail as a 24mp full frame camera, with no noticeable noise. people who are not autistic, OCD, or highly intelligent can not see what is wrong with today's phone photos. the pattern can not be noticed. yes i know (you) can see the smears, and sharpening halos, and know the smart HDR just looks wrong, and hate the colors, and dislike the rendering, and think the fake bokeh looks terrible. but you're probably ashkenazi-brained, you're not actually like anyone else and just by being here your likelihood of being a burnout mensa candidate or effectively 80 IQ basement savant skyrockets.

all that's left anymore is that sort of person that can tell
and they're all huge nerds

>>4438567 (OP)
I like a fast lens for portraits. It’s pretty fucking pointless on everything else I shoot though. Like I want a giant fucking panoramic image of a blown out wash of blurred color with one sharper subject in it. These fucking lenses are all designed annoyingly soft opened up beyond f8 or f5.6 anyway.

…Honestly I’ve gotten better performance out of stock cine lenses off 100 year old 16mm home movie cameras bc they were made to shoot wide open most of the time since most were all infinity focus & aperture was the only adjustment you could change on most of them, & indoor scenes pretty much req’d max aperture. Some of those old things are sharp as hell.

>>4440172
Ah I see you use a DSLR as well

>>4438567 (OP)
>f/2.8
>"fast lens"
keke

>>4440201
2.8 is the bottom end of fast

>>4438877
>photography is technically art
>pressing a button is technically art
fucking kek

>>4440201
He is probably talking about zooms.

>>4440207
It’s “art” for engineer nerds who seek mechanical perfection bc they never took any real humanities courses & are incapable understanding or appreciating interpretation & subjectivity. Every day another one of them brags about a perfect “capture” straight off the sensor with no post processing. Idios.

>>4438585
You've encapsulated it perfectly. Whenever I'm with family, I put on the 27mm F1.2, everything else is too fucking cumbersome or useless. I'm pissed that the A6700 dropped HDR photography.

Cameras should have a lock interface and buttons switch, whenever I handover my camera, people instinctively have to press every button and turn every dial for some reason.

>>4438567 (OP)
You haven't truly lived until you've shot a perfectly dampened, all metal construction, lead glass elements, sharp yet characterful manual focus f/1.2 or faster lens through a high-res EVF with your choice of MF assist.
By the way, my 50/1.2 is sharper at f/4 than my 24-105/4 at 50mm. The same goes for my 28/2.8. And yet both of these lenses BTFO the zoom when it comes to character too. inb4 zoomlet cope