besides, of course, trying to shoot black cat in a coal mine in complete darkness. I looked at many pics from A7RII and I think ISO12800 is perfectly fine to use as an upper limit (for comparison my limit was ISO6400 for A7). Any real scenarios in life where you would wished you had f2 or f1.4 for example (in terms of low light, not DOF)?

Donny out of Element here wrote:besides, of course, trying to shoot black cat in a coal mine in complete darkness. I looked at many pics from A7RII and I think ISO12800 is perfectly fine to use as an upper limit (for comparison my limit was ISO6400 for A7). Any real scenarios in life where you would wished you had f2 or f1.4 for example (in terms of low light, not DOF)?Tungsten light indoors, typical family lighting - requires f/2 for proper exposure/SS, if with people.The extra stop that the A7rII yields (BSI sensor) moves this to f/2.8, so A7rII users are 'lucky'.Also, ISO 12800 is pushing it for A7ii, etc., not necessarily because of high ISO, but because of poor subject lighting. Even ISO 6400 can be ugly if a dimly lit subject, and poor general lighting.

Donny out of Element here wrote:besides, of course, trying to shoot black cat in a coal mine in complete darkness. I looked at many pics from A7RII and I think ISO12800 is perfectly fine to use as an upper limit (for comparison my limit was ISO6400 for A7). Any real scenarios in life where you would wished you had f2 or f1.4 for example (in terms of low light, not DOF)?DOF is the reason.  I can get thin enough about f/2-2.5 with the 55 f/1.8 so not much more required than f/2.8 anyway.

On a recent vacation I used the FE 35mm f1.4/A7RII in low-light cathedrals.  I could keep my ISO really low, with the aid of IBIS and lens speed, which provided a lot more detail than if I had used an f2.8 lens.  The difference in image detail of ISO400/800 vs 3200 or higher can be huge!

I'd like to use my 35/2.8 more at the bar gigs but I tend not to because the AF seems that much more prone to failure. I seem to have better luck with the extra 4/3 of speed with the 55/1.8. That's a particular scenario that actually affects me quite often.

Jefenator wrote:I'd like to use my 35/2.8 more at the bar gigs but I tend not to because the AF seems that much more prone to failure. I seem to have better luck with the extra 4/3 of speed with the 55/1.8. That's a particular scenario that actually affects me quite often.Do you think if you had A7RII with its better AF (including low light AF) and given that it's a +1 stop better compared to previous A7/II cameras - then you could alleviate that problem with FE35 F2.8?

Donny out of Element here wrote:Jefenator wrote:I'd like to use my 35/2.8 more at the bar gigs but I tend not to because the AF seems that much more prone to failure. I seem to have better luck with the extra 4/3 of speed with the 55/1.8. That's a particular scenario that actually affects me quite often.Do you think if you had A7RII with its better AF (including low light AF) and given that it's a +1 stop better compared to previous A7/II cameras - then you could alleviate that problem with FE35 F2.8?I am fine with the A7 at ISO 12800 (have that set to max with auto ISO) but since getting an A7s I don't have to use the a7 anywhere near that.With both the A7 and A7s I am happy to use the two slow manual focus Canon TS-E wide angle lenses.Longer than that and I use faster lenses but more for the ability to isolate the subject rather than need.The 17 f4 and 24 3.5 TS-E's, I need something like 5.6 to fit a full rock band in shot with depth of field covering them all (right next to the stage) and at a fast enough shutter speed that movement will not be a concern.The a7 was ok for that but the A7s is much better (much higher shutter speeds or slower apertures can be used).A7 may not be the "best" for that but is certainly better than all the cameras I used before.A7Rii I would think is somewhere between the A7 and A7s (though with better focus until its limit as well as more pixels and IBIS ETC).

Donny out of Element here wrote:Jefenator wrote:I'd like to use my 35/2.8 more at the bar gigs but I tend not to because the AF seems that much more prone to failure. I seem to have better luck with the extra 4/3 of speed with the 55/1.8. That's a particular scenario that actually affects me quite often.Do you think if you had A7RII with its better AF (including low light AF) and given that it's a +1 stop better compared to previous A7/II cameras - then you could alleviate that problem with FE35 F2.8?A 1 stop low light AF improvement would help somewhat but not completely alleviate the issue for me. The 55/1.8 would still AF that much better (though probably still far from perfect) while the 35/2.8 might at least become usable on some occasions where it currently pretty much isn't.The dark bar is kind of a torture test - YMMV.

Canon makes a 200mm f/2 for a reason. Low light sports. -- http://www.14fps.tv- My YouTube channel with a focus on Sony cameras.

Donny out of Element here wrote:besides, of course, trying to shoot black cat in a coal mine in complete darkness. I looked at many pics from A7RII and I think ISO12800 is perfectly fine to use as an upper limit (for comparison my limit was ISO6400 for A7). Any real scenarios in life where you would wished you had f2 or f1.4 for example (in terms of low light, not DOF)?Lets be realistic even the latest FF sensors do not look great at ISO 12800, ok for small net images but really not for any serious printing that wants to limit noise. You could for example have shot with a Fuji 23mm F/1.4 two stops down and gotten superior noise performance.I would take F/2.8 on FF if it came with the freedom of a zoom but with a prime I don't see the point personally, you give up too much low light ability and DOF control that you paid for with FF in the first place.

I agree with you, with sony mirrorless cameras faster lenses always have faster focus! In darkness my 28mm f 2 is focusing where the 35 f2,8 is not able to lock focus...

There is no denying that ISO 1600 or ISO 800 images look better than ISO 6400 and ISO 12800 images on ANY camera.I think anyone would prefer to get the bettering looking images at lower ISOs whenever possible.

Donny out of Element here wrote:besides, of course, trying to shoot black cat in a coal mine in complete darkness. I looked at many pics from A7RII and I think ISO12800 is perfectly fine to use as an upper limit (for comparison my limit was ISO6400 for A7). Any real scenarios in life where you would wished you had f2 or f1.4 for example (in terms of low light, not DOF)?I've had several occasions where I've really appreciated the FE55 1.8, typically shooting in a bar at night without flash. With F/2.8, upper limit of 12800 and shutter speeds of 1/100 typically require pushing a stop in post and things start to break down in the shadows, which typically include the subject's face.

As mentioned lowlight, indoors, with people, you need a fast enough SS to keep them sharp. IMO 12,800 and above in a pinch - but to me you really start to lose detail above 6400. A f/1.4 lens gives you a couple stops back to lower your ISO. Plus you can do the shallow DOF thing. But faster lenses are larger and more expensive, so its a trade off.I was shooting a fundraiser party earlier this year, outdoors and lanterns everywhere, but still very low light - and even with a 50/1.2 wide open I was still hitting 6400 and above to keep my SS at 1/100 or 125. If the lens was a 2.8, it would have been much tougher. They didn't want a flash constantly firing so I had to make it work.

MoreorLess wrote:Donny out of Element here wrote:besides, of course, trying to shoot black cat in a coal mine in complete darkness. I looked at many pics from A7RII and I think ISO12800 is perfectly fine to use as an upper limit (for comparison my limit was ISO6400 for A7). Any real scenarios in life where you would wished you had f2 or f1.4 for example (in terms of low light, not DOF)?Lets be realistic even the latest FF sensors do not look great at ISO 12800, ok for small net images but really not for any serious printing that wants to limit noise. You could for example have shot with a Fuji 23mm F/1.4 two stops down and gotten superior noise performance.I would take F/2.8 on FF if it came with the freedom of a zoom but with a prime I don't see the point personally, you give up too much low light ability and DOF control that you paid for with FF in the first place.Let's also remember some of us shoot sports and if ISO 6400 is your top limit on ISO, you will not make it at night or in gyms.That is why the pros carry primes! The 300/2.8, and/or 400/2.8. The 200/2 is a bit more specialized.

Donny out of Element here wrote:besides, of course, trying to shoot black cat in a coal mine in complete darkness. I looked at many pics from A7RII and I think ISO12800 is perfectly fine to use as an upper limit (for comparison my limit was ISO6400 for A7). Any real scenarios in life where you would wished you had f2 or f1.4 for example (in terms of low light, not DOF)?Depends on if you want to stop motion, and how dark it really is, I assume you're talking handheld shooting.

I can't think of one really.  Pros use F2.8 24-70mm zooms even back in the good old days of slow film.  They carried a speedlight, today you don't always need ones as powerful as we carried back then but a small flash could be still useful.But on a camera like the A7mII with decent ISO up to 12,800 and 3 stops IS via IBIS, a middle speed F2.8  can handle most situations.The A7rII tests out as having 14 f stops dynamic range and you can pull details out of shadows in post.Hey, my advice for years was get a lens that either is great at Max aperture or an under designed lens that is two stops faster so you can stop down to F2.8 for decent results.You can tell which lenses are like that they are F1.4 but don't sharpen up and lose vignetting until F2.8, that is just how they are.

Zenjitsuman wrote:I can't think of one really. Pros use F2.8 24-70mm zooms even back in the good old days of slow film. They carried a speedlight, today you don't always need ones as powerful as we carried back then but a small flash could be still useful.But on a camera like the A7mII with decent ISO up to 12,800 and 3 stops IS via IBIS, a middle speed F2.8 can handle most situations.The A7rII tests out as having 14 f stops dynamic range and you can pull details out of shadows in post.Hey, my advice for years was get a lens that either is great at Max aperture or an under designed lens that is two stops faster so you can stop down to F2.8 for decent results.You can tell which lenses are like that they are F1.4 but don't sharpen up and lose vignetting until F2.8, that is just how they are.I agree with Zen, a faster lens stopped down to f2.8 would look sharper than a native f2.8 lens wide open.  My 30 year old pre AI Nikkor 50mm f1.4 stopped down to f2.8 looks noticeably sharper than my new 28-135 at f4.0 wide open.  I have a really hard time focussing my 28-135 at night.  With old manual focus glass on the A7s, I think adding gain to a stopped down lens looks better than less gain wide open and soft.Paul

A slower lens can be sharp at max aperture as the faster lens stopped down, but it will be about the same size as the faster lens to do it.The Canon 24-105mm f4 is just about as big as the old F2.8 lens was.  The new slower lens at F4 has little vignetting, and sharpness across the frame wide open.  Most people would look at the two lenses and say " I want the faster lens, look they are the same size".   I think that is one reason designers under engineer a lens to make it smaller, so it will give the public what they expect.  I look at filter size as a rough gauge of if a lens will vignette a lot, not really true because a lens with special glass elements can do more with less space.

Donny out of Element here wrote:Any real scenarios in life where you would wished you had f2 or f1.4 for example (in terms of low light, not DOF)?When photographing night scenes like lively aurora, faster lenses are always welcome. I use my f:4 zoom lens with good results, but a f:2.8 wide angle lens, or even better, f:2, would be great if aberrations and vignetting were well corrected.For now my brightest lens is f:2.8 (Zeiss 35 mm and Sony 90 mm macro). No plans of buying a brighter lens for now, though, even if I do pretty much low light work!, also indoor with handheld camera. Better using a bit slower aperture than a bright lens that lacks contrast and spread light wide open!I find this discussion quite interesting, and so the lack of relevant pictures. On forums you find a lot of discussions and claims on limitations of cameras and lenses, and peoplethinking "if ... then" even if this is not a part of their real world photography. Often NOT followed by samples.Taken at f:4 - brighter would be better, but the important part is not what lenses I do have, but how I do use them! (Here I used a shoe as suppport for the camera, since I had no triopd at hand).