[Clinton]

Truth is, f/1.4 is pretty useless on modern full frame digital.

I can't find this any less true.

The DoF is so, soooo thin

The DoF is the same it has always been. The AoV is changed.

and modern sensors so much better at high ISO performance and noise reduction software advanced

True enough. Good thing too, because sometimes I still try to shoot in very low light.

, that ultra fast lenses are fairly pointless.

If I'm shooting in low light, and I'm good at focusing, the sensor *might* help me, the noise reduction *might* not remove detail I care about, but the physics involved in transmitting photos directly to the sensor definitely will.

They're large, heavy and expensive and in all but a few examples they're quite soft wide open (ironically Sigma Art is generally the exception for wide open sharpness).

I have a K 1.2/50 and the Planar 1.4/85 and I never shoot them wide open anyway, nearly always stopped down to at least f/2. I find slightly slower, much smaller, lighter lenses like the 1.8/77 Ltd to be ideal (although stopped down the Planar is stunning).

Ahhh you're a tack sharp shooter. Unless I'm shooting landscapes or wildlife, I'm rarely interested in pixel peeping tack sharpness, other than to make sure I hit the catchlight in an eye. Rendition is everything.

I rarely attach my A 50/1.2, FA 85/1.4 or A 135/1.8 unless I intend to shoot it wide open. Clearly stopping these lenses down to F8 will result in amazingly sharp images, but I can do this with other glass more suited to the cause.

huh???

What does "huh?" mean. I already explained my reasoning and to selectively quote my post is downright rude along with your terse response.

You are stating topics of your stylistic shooting as though they are facts. As facts, these are patently false; ergo, this gets a _Huh?_.

[mee]

I can't find this any less true.



The DoF is the same it has always been. The AoV is changed.



True enough. Good thing too, because sometimes I still try to shoot in very low light.



If I'm shooting in low light, and I'm good at focusing, the sensor *might* help me, the noise reduction *might* not remove detail I care about, but the physics involved in transmitting photos directly to the sensor definitely will.



Ahhh you're a tack sharp shooter. Unless I'm shooting landscapes or wildlife, I'm rarely interested in pixel peeping tack sharpness, other than to make sure I hit the catchlight in an eye. Rendition is everything.

I rarely attach my A 50/1.2, FA 85/1.4 or A 135/1.8 unless I intend to shoot it wide open. Clearly stopping these lenses down to F8 will result in amazingly sharp images, but I can do this with other glass more suited to the cause.





You are stating topics of your stylistic shooting as though they are facts. As facts, these are patently false; ergo, this gets a _Huh?_.

So, basically, you believe your opinion is greater than his opinion.

[Clinton]

So, basically, you believe your opinion is greater than his opinion.

Not remotely. I believe the truth and facts are wrong. As opinion, it's just different shooting style.

If you lead with "Truth is, tomatoes are evil" I'm going to disagree. I like tomatoes.

[Kunzite]

Tomatoes are evil, as shown in this excellent documentary:

You Tube

You Tube

[normhead]

Not remotely. I believe the truth and facts are wrong. As opinion, it's just different shooting style.

If you lead with "Truth is, tomatoes are evil" I'm going to disagree. I like tomatoes.

But how do you pronounce "tomatoes".

[kp0c]

Tomatoes are evil, as shown in this excellent documentary:
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes Trailer - YouTube

I watched that movie when I was a teenagers with a forum of friends and I laughed a lot. I'll let you figure out if my judgment was impaired.

[D1N0]

A new one will be announced 'soon' according to photorumors: Confirmed: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art lens to be announced soon | Photo Rumors

[Kunzite]

Let's see if there's a Pentax K version... it would be the smart thing to do IMO - the K-1 being a success - but companies aren't always acting smart.

[Wild Mark]

Truth is, f/1.4 is pretty useless on modern full frame digital. The DoF is so, soooo thin and modern sensors so much better at high ISO performance and noise reduction software advanced, that ultra fast lenses are fairly pointless. They're large, heavy and expensive and in all but a few examples they're quite soft wide open (ironically Sigma Art is generally the exception for wide open sharpness).

I have a K 1.2/50 and the Planar 1.4/85 and I never shoot them wide open anyway, nearly always stopped down to at least f/2. I find slightly slower, much smaller, lighter lenses like the 1.8/77 Ltd to be ideal (although stopped down the Planar is stunning).

I'd sooner the manufacturers produced slightly slower (f/1.8 - f/2) genuine apochromatic lenses.

In many respects this sentiment is true. However, there remains one distinct advantage of the fast aperture - focus accuracy. The thin DoF does allow for critical focus to be attained. Shoot stopped down and your images will always be in focus.

This advantage is significant imho.

[D1N0]

Let's see if there's a Pentax K version... it would be the smart thing to do IMO - the K-1 being a success - but companies aren't always acting smart.

The 35mm art is in K-mount the 50mm isn't. I wouldn't expect K-mount at launch. Maybe later in the year if at all.

[Kunzite]

You're probably right... the best we could hope for is a later launch. But, next year Pentax might have their own version.

[DoubtingThomas]

Tomatoes are evil, as shown in this excellent documentary:
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes Trailer - YouTube

Mic drops, end of debate. Well played, Kunzite. After watching this, I get nervous even eating bruschetta...

[Racer X 69]

I like tomatoes.

Me too.

I can sit in the garden and devour almost all of them in one sitting.

Mrs. Racer is never happy with me when I do though.

Wonder why?

[zapp]

Truth is, f/1.4 is pretty useless on modern full frame digital. The DoF is so, soooo thin and modern sensors so much better at high ISO performance and noise reduction software advanced, that ultra fast lenses are fairly pointless. They're large, heavy and expensive and in all but a few examples they're quite soft wide open (ironically Sigma Art is generally the exception for wide open sharpness).

I have a K 1.2/50 and the Planar 1.4/85 and I never shoot them wide open anyway, nearly always stopped down to at least f/2. I find slightly slower, much smaller, lighter lenses like the 1.8/77 Ltd to be ideal (although stopped down the Planar is stunning).

I'd sooner the manufacturers produced slightly slower (f/1.8 - f/2) genuine apochromatic lenses.

You may have a focussing problem. That said AF system are not perfect with f/2 and larger lenses
DoF is the reason why you buy these lenses today. The whole FF ideas is based on DoF concept, ...

[unixrevolution]

The DoF is the same it has always been. The AoV is changed.

As far as the discussion is going, I kinda I agree with both of you, but in response to this I want to point out that:

With Any Given Lens(tm) when you put it on a larger sensor, you are changing the angle of view.

When you change the angle of view, you change the working distance for a particular type of shot. When you change the working distance, you change the DoF for the same focal length and aperture.

For instance, a head and shoulders portrait. On an APS-C body, an 85mm produces a head and shoulders portrait at roughly 8 feet. At this distance, the lens is producing total approximate DoF of 44mm.

If you shoot the same subject at the same distance with a FF body, you no longer get your Head and Shoulders portrait. To get the same composition as the 85mm APS-C shot, you need to move closer.

Now your working distance is 5.2 feet, and your DoF is 28mm. Much less than it was on the APS-C body, with the same lens, at the same aperture.

So yes, the DoF at a particular distance has not changed, but the distances to get those same compositions is closer on FF with the increased angle of view, and now you have thinner DoF as a result.

And you may slightly disagree with my numbers for the working distances, but this principle is true on all lenses, at all apertures. Moving from a smaller format to a larger one decreases working distances for the same shots, and your DoF gets thinner as a result.