Need the speed?

[Roger Hicks]

No wonder we all lusted after f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses 40 years ago, when the fastest readily available 35mm films were ISO 400 (HP4, Tri-X) and 160 (High Speed Ektachrome).

But I used to shoot Kodachrome 64 at f/1.4. With 'only' ISO 2500 on my M8/M8.2 I could use an f/3.8 lens and still be two stops (at least) ahead of the game. So why is the 24/1.4 so damnably attractive? (I should add that I don't own a 24/25 at all, and I 'need' one for my M8.2.)

How many people use ultra-fast lenses for 'available darkness' photography (which has fascinated me for 40 years)? And how many use them just for differential focus (which I find tedious in all too many cases)?

The market for super-expensive 'speed king' lenses was tiny enough in the 60s. It must surely be smaller today (= more expensive lenses). Any thoughts? Or pictures?

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Exactly, we think that f1.4 is 'sexy' don't we?

Remember when there was an f1.8, and somebody else made an f1.7? No difference really.

I still think of ISO100 as normal, and ISO400 as being a bit racey.

Seriously, nowadays I'd be very happy with an f2 or so. Even f2.8 perhaps.

 

[Sparrow]

GAF500 pushed two stops, these youngsters know no’wt about grain

😀

 

[feenej]

I choose to push film when it's dark, but I have a f1.5 Nokton when I'm feeling like Tommy Oshima. (and a f1.4 Rokkor slr lens). This photo is from a Cosina 20mm f3.5 slr lens. I'd love to buy an f1.2 lens just for fun, but I don't really think it would improve my photography.

 

[back alley]

i like 2.8

 

[Lilserenity]

It has become a bit of a status symbol for some to own a big heavy fast lens. And that seems to be one of the big factors today in dropping money on a fast lens for some people.

In actual use I have never needed anything faster than f/2 and I shoot night shots and low light usually with Neopan 1600 (excellent stuff) or push Tri-X to 1250. I tend to do this at gigs (folk, rock, jazz and blues) and that's enough light for me. And as I don't live in a mansion (a 1 bedroom flat I thankyew 😉) it doesn't take many 10x8s to cover my walls. So for me it's just fine.

Outdoors, anything faster than ISO 400 becomes difficult I find with the M2, what with a max shutter speed of 1/1000th, you need to be shooting at around f/4-16 in good light at ISO 400 film in the M2 -- anything faster (ISO or aperture wise) becomes impossible to use, so for me ISO 100 is my normal on good conditions and ISO 400 my general purpose. Even this morning in bright light, I was shooting at f/8 1/500th so what is the point in a big heavy f/1.2? None for me.

Yes there's bokeh but tbh at f/2 on 50mm and certainly 90mm you're getting a very nice out of focus background anyway -- well to me I am. Heck even my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L at f/4 at any focal length is throwing the back out of focus when you're close in on a subject.

Finally anything where I am using shallow depth of field for artistic reasons anything wider than f/2 throws the out of focus area out of focus too much for me, I like to see what was behind/in front to a degree.

Of course this is all very personal and subjective (the above) as I have adjusted that perception to the way I currently work.

Vicky

 

[Ronald_H]

Nice question Roger.

As an experienced and demanding concert photographer I really feel I have something to say here.

No matter how high your ISO or how fast your lenses, there never is enough light. You can always find a situation where it is too dark. To those with a lot of experience usable 1600ISO might be heaven to what was possible a few decades ago, but a frontier is there to be pushed.

When my concert photography became serious I started using Fuji Superia 800 with my kit zoom. Not enough. Then I bought primes instead of zooms. Not enough.

Then I switched to digital (Nikon D70). That gave me usable (a relative term!) 1600ISO in color. Not enough.

I am not really into speed kings, the fastest I have is a 50mm f1.4 in Nikon F-mount. For my style of photography that f1.4 is already a compromise. To my tastes (spoiled by digital sharpness maybe), 1.4 is too soft. Besides there is also the issue of lack of depth of field. Isolating your subject and nice bokeh are all good and well, but if it becomes a limiting factor, I pass. I understand and accept many will disagree.

I am tempted by the Nikon D700, a.k.a a camera (as opposed to a lens) that pushes the frontier. Those new fast Leica wide angles are undoubtedly the best the industry can produce. But I would make more sense to me to have a camera with better hi-ISO performance (which has been proven possible!). Moving the frontier by means of an even faster lens is a great achievement, but the unavoidable disadvantages of a faster lens (size, optical compromises and most of all cost) are not worth it in my eyes.

But if you lust after that fast lens, go for it. Life is short 😀

 

[Al Kaplan]

You could buy Ilford HPS at ASA 800 and Agfa Isopan Record at ASA 1000. Hundred foot rolls of Kodak Royal-X Pan Recording easily gave you 3200 and that was followed by 2475 recording which had finer grain and came in 36 exposure cassettes. Then along came 2484 Recording with still finer grain. Three films by Agfa, Ilford, and Kodak for available darkness way back when Leitz was still selling screw mount bodies.

Maybe an f/1.4 ultra-wide is nice because it can give you a hint of out of focus areas in your shots? More likely it appeals to the typical male "Mine Is Bigger Than Yours" syndrome, which is another variety of "Mine Cost More Than Yours". Bragging rights, pure and simple! It's amazing what you can do with a steady hand, Tri-X, and the cheap little 15mm f/4.5 Heliar.

 

[Sparrow]

i like 2.8

yep back in the good-old-days bokeh was a fault you got by not stopping down enough

 

[swoop]

I have a soft spot for f2 and ISO 800.

I know that slower lenses do perfectly fine. But I refuse to buy slow glass because I know I'll need the speed eventually. I do about 80% of my photography after the sun goes down.

 

[urban_alchemist]

I have a Noctilux (now putting on my flame-retardent jacket) and regularly use it together with pushed film. Why? Because I like using film and at f1.0 and 1600ISO there are very few conditions I cannot shoot in hand-held and without flash...

MP, Noctilux, Fuji Pro800Z@1600

 

[cjm]

I don't own any "ultra" fast lenses but I do feel the need for one. Not just for the novelty of having a narrow DOF. Most of my recent photography has been in bars, clubs and restaurants. In some those situations, especially in bars, 1600iso film and a f1.8 lens (my current fastest) is not enough.

Here's one at f1.8, 1/8 sec, 1600iso.

I could definitely use a f1.2 or faster lens but I just can't afford it at the moment.

 

[hans voralberg]

I shoot Sensia/Velvia/Provia and Ektar, and I frequently get my ass into place with little light, hence I have to get my hands on lens that are as fast as possible

 

[Al Kaplan]

Chris, you could afford it if you didn't hang out in bars!

 

[Sparrow]

f2.8 Summaron, Fuji 400s and a bit of practice

PS thinking about it, it could be a shot from f2.5 Skopar

 

[cjm]

You could afford it if you didn't hang out in bars!

Ha, no kidding. $8+ drinks are ridiculous, but that's precisely why I rarely drink at bars. I'm just there to socialize and take pictures. Besides, for me, alcohol consumption is inversely proportional to the quality of my photos. 🙂

 

[benlees]

I rarely go bigger than 2.8- but I have a question. Is 1.4 lens more sharp at f2 and f2.8 than the respective f2 and f2.8 lens?

 

[Al Kaplan]

CJM, hand out lots of business cards, pick up an occasional paid shooting gig, and those $8 drinks become a business expense. Make sure that you save the reciepts and mark down how much you tipped the bartender. It's called "networking". That's a legitimate write off.

Benlees, the answer is "maybe". It would depend on the lenses. Usually stopping down a stop or two does improve sharpness but the faster lens still might not be as sharp at f/2 or 2.8 as the slower lens. You gotta try 'em.

 

[Spider67]

For me it was about the SLR focussing screen geting darker....or in case of teles when the upper half of the split screen went black (Did not know that that depended on the screen).
Later on it was about available light photography.
And now it's all about nostalgia and being able to afford some of the Nikkor f 1:2 lenses.
......Use of RF taught me that f 2,8 was very often enough and that it does not hurt to use smaller apertures from time to time.....

 

[benlees]

Al, I figure you are absolutely right- too many ''what ifs'' with regard to lens designs combined with whatever the needs of the photographer are.