Answer
Is an f/1.2 lens worth it over f/1.8 for portraits?
For most people, no. The blur difference at portrait distances is modest, the depth of field at f/1.2 is thin enough that one eye can miss focus, and the lens is typically two to four times the price and roughly twice the weight.
What the extra stop buys
- About 1.3 stops more light, useful in dark venues
- Slightly stronger background blur at the same framing
- Often a distinctive rendering that some photographers specifically want
What it costs
- Focus accuracy. At a tight headshot, depth of field at f/1.2 can be under two centimetres. Subject sway alone can ruin a frame.
- Money. f/1.2 primes commonly cost several times an f/1.8 of the same focal length.
- Weight. Usually double, sometimes more, which matters across a full shoot.
- Corner performance. Many fast primes are softer and heavily vignetted wide open, so people stop down anyway.
What working photographers actually do
Published shoot data and photographer write-ups consistently show portrait work clustering at f/1.8 to f/2.8, even when a faster lens is mounted — enough separation, comfortable margin for focus.
When f/1.2 makes sense
Available-light wedding and event work, environmental portraits at longer distances where depth of field is more forgiving, and photographers whose look depends on a specific lens's rendering.
Related: Portrait lens guide - Bokeh quality explained
More answers
- What is the best portrait lens focal length on a crop sensor?
- 85mm vs 50mm for portraits: which should you buy first?
- What is lens compression, and do long lenses really flatten faces?
- Why does bokeh look different between lenses at the same aperture?
- Pancake vs Fresnel lenses in VR headsets: what is the real difference?
- What is the VR sweet spot, and how does IPD affect it?
Get new answers in your inbox
One email when we publish. No spam.