F2.8 vs F1.8 vs F1.4 | Will there be a difference in bokeh? (Prime vs Zoom)

You've probably heard the recommendation to shoot in primes to get the wider aperture. And when it comes to selecting the lens, you probably have the option of picking either F1.8 or F1.4.

The latter usually costs double and weighs double. So the million dollar question is, will the bokeh be significant enough to justify that extra costs?

0.00-1.26 Intro
1.27-3.19 Primes vs Zooms (F2.8 vs F1.8)
3.20-5.29 Primes vs Primes (F1.8 vs F1.4)
5.30-6.43 Conclusion

I would like to clarify that I am aware that my sharpness test of only comparing the lenses at the widest aperture may not be the most comprehensive method of testing lens overall sharpness but in this video, I am operating under the assumption that people who buy fast primes would probably want to shoot with the widest aperture.

To keep this video as short as possible, I decided to do what I did and if you would like more comprehensive reviews, do drop a comment and I would consider it.

If you enjoyed my video, don't forget to like and subscribe.

This experiment was made possible thanks to Camera Rental Centre.
Check out their website if you ever need to rent any equipment.

Buy me coffee to support my youtube channel.

Where I get my music from.

Check out my social media pages.

Gear:
Main Camera Body - Sony A7SIII
Secondary Camera Body - A7RIII/A7III

Lens I Own:
My Favorite Prime - Sony 90 F2.8 or Sony 55 F1.8
My Telephoto Lens - Sony 70-200 F2.8
My Most Versatile Zoom - Sigma 24-70 F2.8
My Wide Angle - Sony 16-35 F4
My Wildlife Lens - Sony 200-600 F5.6 - 6.3

Action Camera : Gopro Hero 7 & Hero 6

Drone: Dji Mavic Pro 2

Gimbal: Zhiyun Weebill S

[sachu_ts]

what surprising me is, why this video didn't become so popular. such an awesome video bro, keep going, once u will hit what u deserving. kudos

[Solitonyc]

Well done. This is a question I've been asking for a long time.

[MrRev]

this was such a well put together video, thank you!!

[ThePhenomenalLife]

Great video, thanks for your hard work! I noticed that the 85mm 1.8 at 5:00 is focused on the shoulder and not on the right eye and that produced the some what squed results on that particular test and led to a different set of conclusions. In my opinion.

[ixography]

awesome video man and love that you used dogs as it made me smile 😄

[GuillaumeB]

1:47 the focus on the 24-70mm is on the dog left eye, while on the 35mm it's on his right.

[AlphaCentauri]

Thank you so much. This was excellent.

[LukaszGladki]

Bokeh on 1.4 is definitely softer, it's not just how much blur there is. It's the quality of it. Guess we perceived that differently.

[TheLAexplorer]

Great video! Very informative. I've been shooting videos with a Sigma 24 - 70mm f2.8 for the past year and I recently got the urge to purchase a prime lens with f1.4 because I want creamier bokeh. This video answered a lot of my questions. I'll consider getting an f1.8 lens now. Sony makes an affordable 50mm f1.8 lens. I'll give that one a try. Thanks!

[zez_gval]

I'm beginning now in photography, so of course I don't have the eye for a lot of stuff yet, but from the comparisons in this video, I wouldn't sacrifice the range of a 2.8 zoom lens simply for a nicer bokeh on a prime, at least not for now, where I have to choose only one lens to buy. 1.4 does look better, feels more natural for some reason, but 2.8 looks pretty good too in my opinion. In terms of shapness, honestly I didn't notice that much difference.

Now the real question I have is low light. Would 2.8 be enough for most low-light cases or 1.4 then becomes mandatory?

[Glen.Danielsen]

Xièxiè, Brother Lau‼️ So helpful! 💛🙏🏼

[adam.courtney]

It's interesting, sometimes the 1.4 aperture focal range is actually so narrow that parts of your subject can be in focus, but their hair or arms extended might not be. So I think there is a contextual choice to make too, in whether you want to have just the background bokeh'd away only or parts of your subject bokeh'd out too. Sometimes the 2.8 might be more forgiving for things like video work as it gives a little more leeway if your camera body hunts for focus a bit (like Lumix's etc). Great video though. Sub'd :)

[sheistyRust]

You sound like a belter from the show called "the expanse " lol nice review btw !

[mnztamnk]

thanks for this...i agree the 35 looked quite similar, but i also felt the 85 1.4 really looked a LOT better not just a little bit...

[RichieColemanSr]

Would you recommend Canon 17-55mm f2.8 or Sigma 18-35mm f1.8?

[PavSZ]

Interesting. Great comparison! Thanks for making it!
The thing is though the differences are only visible because you are comparing them side by side. Nobody will see it in real life - I'd go for f1.8 if the money is an issue or go for Sigmas which are much cheaper than GM lenses.

[JustGoWithAmreen]

Excellent video Bernard. Great review of all the lenses. i am a photographer and i think the lower the aperture the higher the quality but its good to test the lens before buying them.

[hecjvaldez]

Such an awesome video!!! thanks!!!!🙏 😎

[youknowwho]

Interesting conclusions and very different from my own opinion. On the wider 35mm I can definitely easily tell the f/1.4 shot apart. It looks much, much better to my eye, even despite the reduced sharpness. In the 85mm comparisons I'd be happy with either.

[benkoskinen]

Thank you for this informative video, looks like a Canon 24-70 f2.8 will be enough for me as it would be impractical to switch between different lenses inside a busy event with lots of things to shoot.