50 f0.95 vs 28 f1.4 for low light

[Ktsa5239]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone, 

I recently had a dilemma, is it better to use a 50 f0.95 in low light or would a 28 lux be better?

on one hand you got a bigger aperture but at the same time I’ll need around 1/100 shutter in case of blur while the 28lux is at 1.4 but I could go to 1/60 and still be safe from blur. Does that mean it doesn’t really matter ? (Assuming you don’t care about depth of field and stuff)

Thanks!

[Capuccino-Muffin]

This is basically a 50 vs 28 question. Which do you prefer?

 

[TomB_tx]

Blur is not just from camera movement, but also subject movement. In film days I did a lot of "usable" low-light pictures at 1/15 with a 50mm lens - but any moving subject would be quite blurred. "Rule of thumb" for speed determined by focal length is just a guide. Practice your own "steady hold" with various lenses and determine what works for you. My "fast lenses" for film were f2.0 for decades.

[TomB_tx]

1 minute ago, Al Brown said:

The shake factor depends on the megapixel count as well. The more, the shorter speed/wider aperture is desired. There was a chart here in the forum.

This is true if you are concerned about pixel peeping or maximum enlargement. If you consider print size and normal viewing difference I don't think the pixel count matters much.

[TomB_tx]

4 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I am just concerned about perceived sharpness and no blur.

 

I'll admit I'm not speaking from much experience, as I don't have any digital cameras over 24 MP, but comparing monitor images or 8x10 prints from 16, 18, & 24 MP I don't see a difference. Since I'm not interested in anything with a higher MP count, I should keep silent...

[M11 for me]

I think that Noctilux is not primaily for low light but for depth of field. And a second thing: you need light anyway if you want to take a picture. Low light has still to be enough light. On the other hand one LV is a lot. But how do you then want to focus (I presume you speak on an M camera)?

[jaeger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

one F stop advantage in low light is not quite noticeable.  Probably a good sensor that handles ISO well does a better job.

[pippy]

You should also bear in mind whether or not you will need to selectively enlarge part of the image - and to a considerable extent - from the 28 to get the same framing as the 50. If you DO need to enlarge then any camera shake, obviously, will be greatly magnified. If you go closer to the subject-matter with a 28 perspective changes and D-o-F reduces so it's hardly a straightforward question.

Do you need a 50? Are you considering a portrait or a 'general interior' shot? More information would be useful.

Under the circumstances - as far as I can tell from the limited info you posted - depth-of-field and 'stuff' IS going to be an important factor simply from a technical point of view if not from an aesthetic one.

All being well you could also simply try to improve your technique. I've regularly shot a 50mm at f1.4 (and occasionally f1.1) at 1/15 sec. without any 'shake' problems visible in an A3 print.

Philip.

Edited June 17, 2022 by pippy

[Mr.Prime]

+1 to what Pippy said. Many don't realize that 'rules' about shake, DOF etc. in relation to focal length can be misleading. Once you enlarge so that subjects are the same size on the print most of these factors are the same irrespective of the focal length of the lens.

[Stuart Richardson]

I would split the middle and say the 35mm 1.4 is the most useful for low light. The added depth of field over 50mm is helpful, and it is still a natural enough focal length that it can be used more readily for environmental portraits than a lens like a 28mm. It also balances a lot better on the M cameras than the 50mm .95, which is quite heavy. The real issue as well is the difficulty in focusing a 50mm 0.95 lens in low light. You have lower contrast in the low light and the DOF is extremely shallow with that lens. It is typically not that practical. A 35mm 1.4, on the other hand, is quite a bit easier, in my experience.

You said, "assuming you don't care about depth of field and stuff"...trust me, you will if you are shooting a 50mm .95 wide open. You will have a very very narrow slice of sharp focus, and DOF will be the biggest compositional element, in most pictures that are taken at moderate distances. This is less of a constraint with the 28mm and 35mm lenses, which have a wider DOF.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Ktsa5239 said:

I recently had a dilemma, is it better to use a 50 f0.95 in low light or would a 28 lux be better?

It all depends on what you are photographing, how much you want to enlarge it and your visual acuity in low light conditions.

[darylgo]

The shorter the focal length, the easier it is to use the lens.  The downside is extraneous subject matter unless you take the time to compose and eliminate it.  If you go the 28mm route consider the Q series.  Of course this can be a very complex choice as you can see from all the replies that say....it depends on this and that, and of course the obvious answer is buy both, try them and sell one later...lest you read all the replies from this thread, leaving your head spinning from the complexity and never take another photograph.  

[Ktsa5239]

Thanks for the replies everyone! It sounds like a much more complicated issue then I first perceived it. Initially I only thought maybe shorter focal length is better because it allows 1/2f rule to give a longer shutter thus lower iso

[pippy]

39 minutes ago, Ktsa5239 said:

...It sounds like a much more complicated issue then I first perceived it...

I'm pretty sure that it is but that doesn't mean you should be daunted by the situation one tiny bit because it's still not going to be Rocket Science.

Practice with what equipment you have in whatever spare time is available. Assuming you already have both the Noctilux and Summilux simply try them out at home of an evening to see how you get on. Compare results with the 50 at f0.95 against the 28 at f1.4.

Spend some time in learning how to use any lens at a lower shutter speed than you think might be possible. From what you wrote in the OP you seem to be of the opinion that 2x f/length is appropriate (1/100 for the 50 and 1/60 for the 28). IMX 1/2 f/length is, with some practice, very easily attainable (1/25 and 1/15 respectively) so I'd strongly advise you to read up on using a Leica with slow shutter speeds as this is a lesson which can transform your approach to low-light photography. It's an approach which requires a bit of discipline but so what?

Choosing between 50 and 28 lenses is a discussion which can come later on...

Best of good fortune!

Philip.

[RexGig0]

All else being equal, a 28mm is going to be a better hand-held, night-shooting lens, than a 50mm. It is not just that the shorter focal length allows for a longer successful exposure time, but the DOF will be deeper, which minimizes focusing errors, minimizes the likelihood that the subject will move beyond that depth, as well as mitigates any tendency to involuntarily move fore-and-aft. The DOF of a wide-open, fast fifty is amazingly thin, at close range.

My 28mm f/1.4 lens is a Nikkor AF-S f/1.4E, for Nikon F-mount, and my fastest 50mm M lens, that I have used at night, is my Summilux-M ASPH, so I cannot provide advice based upon direct “apples-to-apples” experience, with the lenses specified in the the original post. (I recently took delivery of a Cosina Voigtlander 50mm f/1.0 Nokton, but I have yet to use it, in challenging “available darkness” conditions.)

I am not meaning to discourage anyone from low-light shooting, with any lens that one desires to use. The challenge will simply be noticeably greater, with a 50mm, than with a 28mm. 

My least-terrible, hand-held, really-low-light images have been shot with a Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G lens. (Unless I was using flash, of course.) Wider-angle lenses are tremendously helpful, when shooting at night, which is why I recently ordered a Voigtlander 21mm f/1.4 Nokton, along with my above-mentioned 50mm f/1.0 Nokton.

 

 

[Jared]

If your subject is stationary, so motion from the subject is not relevant, and you are hand holding, the 28 will have the advantage by about 1 EV. You won’t need as fast a shutter speed, and that advantage more than makes up for the slower lens.

Honestly, though, the focal lengths are so different in their angle of view and typical perspective I find it hard to imagine choosing one over the other because of a 1EV of useful exposure. 

Also, keep in mind even fairly static subjects might start to blur from their own motion if your shutter speed drops below 1/30s with the 28mm, so the 1EV advantage might go away because of that.

And if you are able to use a tripod with your static subject, the advantage will switch to the 50mm due to its faster aperture.

I can’t, honestly, think of a situation where I would choose the 28mm over the 50mm because of the 1EV advantage. Other aspects of the photo are likely to be vastly more important. 

[Drmat]

I have owned both of these lenses with the concern about what to use in low light.  I ultimately settled on the 50/0.95.  My reason was more about focal length and the different rendering/signature of the lenses and less about which is better for low light (they are both very good).  My M10M is my workhorse (for reference).

As others have said, it comes down to what kind of look you want.  The 28 retains contrast in low light and has better resolving power for fine details.  It also has less chromatic aberration and punchier colours.  It is also easier to focus - keep in mind that in low light you can miss focus because of camera shake and movement of the subject out of the focal plane (among other reasons) - 28 has the advantage on those factors.  

I prefer the look of the noctilux and I found that I was always cropping my 28mm images.  I am completely out of the 28mm game and put that money into the 75 noctilux, which for me is the best lens Leica has ever made for the kind of photography I am doing.  Whereas the size and weight (and cost) bothered me for the 28/1.4, I don't even notice it on the much bigger and heavier (and more expensive) 75.  Seems like these factors sometimes only matter to me in relation to what I am getting in return for the trouble.

Both are great lenses and both will serve you well in low light.  It comes down to the look you want and the focal length you find appealing.  You will be happy with either!

[FrozenInTime]

28 to 50 seems like too much of a leap in angle to make the general question valid.

With film, I always dreamed of a 35mm Noctilux f/1.0 , feeling that it would yield the best balance of subject distance and low light hand-hold-ability.

Even for 35 vs 50mm the view and handling is quite different. The Voigtlander 40/1.2 is my goto low light choice today ( despite owning the Leica 50/0.95, 35/1.4 and 28/1.4 )

[Ktsa5239]

4 hours ago, Drmat said:

I have owned both of these lenses with the concern about what to use in low light.  I ultimately settled on the 50/0.95.  My reason was more about focal length and the different rendering/signature of the lenses and less about which is better for low light (they are both very good).  My M10M is my workhorse (for reference).

As others have said, it comes down to what kind of look you want.  The 28 retains contrast in low light and has better resolving power for fine details.  It also has less chromatic aberration and punchier colours.  It is also easier to focus - keep in mind that in low light you can miss focus because of camera shake and movement of the subject out of the focal plane (among other reasons) - 28 has the advantage on those factors.  

I prefer the look of the noctilux and I found that I was always cropping my 28mm images.  I am completely out of the 28mm game and put that money into the 75 noctilux, which for me is the best lens Leica has ever made for the kind of photography I am doing.  Whereas the size and weight (and cost) bothered me for the 28/1.4, I don't even notice it on the much bigger and heavier (and more expensive) 75.  Seems like these factors sometimes only matter to me in relation to what I am getting in return for the trouble.

Both are great lenses and both will serve you well in low light.  It comes down to the look you want and the focal length you find appealing.  You will be happy with either!

Thank you! I think I resonate with your experience! I took both out a few times and it seems like even though I’m not getting as many sharp shots, I’m much happier with the keepers I’ve got with the Noct. I just don’t gel with 28mm maybe it is a matter of focal length then that extra EV advantage in low light

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ktsa5239]

8 hours ago, Jared said:

If your subject is stationary, so motion from the subject is not relevant, and you are hand holding, the 28 will have the advantage by about 1 EV. You won’t need as fast a shutter speed, and that advantage more than makes up for the slower lens.

Honestly, though, the focal lengths are so different in their angle of view and typical perspective I find it hard to imagine choosing one over the other because of a 1EV of useful exposure. 

Also, keep in mind even fairly static subjects might start to blur from their own motion if your shutter speed drops below 1/30s with the 28mm, so the 1EV advantage might go away because of that.

And if you are able to use a tripod with your static subject, the advantage will switch to the 50mm due to its faster aperture.

I can’t, honestly, think of a situation where I would choose the 28mm over the 50mm because of the 1EV advantage. Other aspects of the photo are likely to be vastly more important. 

Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for. But after shooting a few nights with both lenses, I think I like the 50mm perspective way more than the 28mm perspective. So I guess the extra EV is not worth it for my shooting