Aren't we in the end all liers ?

italy74

italy74

Well-known
Local time
9:48 AM
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
804
Hi guys

how many times we read the classic question: " I have to choose between X and Y, X costs 3 times Y which have I to choose? "
Usually, the kind of answers are:

"Y" because a 1/3 - 1/2 stop faster doesn't justify such a cost. THEN if you have money / can afford this, well, of course this (X) might be a lifetime long lens.." But usually we TRY to give an answer with our MIND, which is rational to an EMOTIONAL question..

How many of us would follow ourselves advices? Be honest. How many of us would purchase the F/4 lens instead of the F/2.8 because of the lesser price and the best performance/price ratio? Who wouldn't like to have such superfast F/1 (nay, F/0.95 lens if we just could?) I often found myself to think about this.

Lately, I've been telling myself and others that compactness is preferable over the bulk.. but of course if someone could invent a F/2 lens with the F/4 size.. why shouldn't I take the plunge and get it?

Sorry guys, it's saturday and have nothing else to do that such silly mumble mumble like Scrooge in his money safe !!! :D :D :D
 
Last edited:
I am very, very, cheap, and I buy cheap. When I find something special that is also cheap, I pass that information along. For example, my recent thread about the $20 USD Soligor mirror lens that I used at a recent air show.

However, without fail, most will not buy something that is cheap, because they would rather spend buckets of money on stuff with a much more famous name.

Good for them. I spend cheap, I like cheap, and I advocate cheap. Others may do as they wish.
 
I personally would choose compact and price over speed. I find focusing those 1.4's and such a real struggle and I generally work pretty fast.

Big fan of scale focus so I guess "no, not a liar in this case".
 
I bought a 15/4.5 VC Heliar shortly after they hit the market. I have no desire to spend the money on the f/2.8 version., and I'm glad that I didn't risk divorce and buy an f/8 Hologon back in the early 1970's.

I did buy a 400/6.3 T-mount Tele-Astranar which listed for under $40 back then (roughly $125 in today's money) when a slightly slower 400/6.8 Leitz Telyt sold for over $400. According to Modern Photography magazine's test reports it was sharper than the Telyt. Over the years I've shot a lot of published pictures with that lens, including a record album front cover (about 12.5 inches square) and the 12.5 x 25 inch inside fold-out on another record album. That one wasn't super crisp, but it was as much from the Ektachrome's grain as anything. I used a big F&B Ceco bowed leg wood movie tripod for those.

I also got a lot of mileage out of a 12/8 Spiratone T-mount fish-eye, and a fish-eye conversion lens that I mostly used on my Hasselblad 500C. I got some great shots with a 24/2.8 and a 105/2.8 in Vivitar TX and T4 interchangeable mounts.

Vivitar and Spiratone (and a few others) used to put their names on some of the best glass of the day, and although the mounts didn't look Leitz or Zeiss quality they marketed some great lenses. Now we can enjoy great glass on our Leicas thanks to Voigtlander Cosina.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
I think (hope) our thought processes are a bit more complex than that.

I don't make those kinds of rules. And, i don't attribute 'value' in the same way. For me, many times, it's more 'binary.' I either want/like something or i don't, and it's not a matter of x being a better 'value' than y by a percentage of z. Take the f4 lens. I don't like slow lenses. I never seem to have enough light, and my hands are so steady that i can make acceptable exposures at slow speeds. So, a great f4 lens at $20 versus an f2 lens at $1000 still means i wouldn't consider the f4. And, that's not about wanting a more 'prestigious' marque/brand/piece of glass. It's just practicality.

I also don't 'collect' more than one lens at a given focal length, so while perhaps that $20 f4 lens is of value to someone who also has a faster one for given situations, i'm more of an 'all or nothing' person.

I also will spend more (much more) to get the kind of 'experience' i want out of a piece of equipment. I recently bought a Mir-24 35mm/f2 with Nikon mount. I've seen some really delicious pictures made by this lens. But, upon receipt, i found the lens to be a complete POS. I returned it, because even the images it might make aren't worth the crappy feeling of the lens in use. That's not true with all cheap gear. I have a Jupiter-3 that's not so wonderfully built, but i like it, and it's the one RF lens i've kept through all the other changes/swaps/sales.

I also, recently, bought a Nikon F6 instead of the F100. The F100 clearly does everything i would ever need. It's about $300. The F6 was about $1200. There isn't $900 worth of value in anything the F6 does over the F100. Except, the F6 is a sublime piece of gear. The viewfinder is bigger. It's quieter and smoother. And, simply sensually, it's just a nicer camera. Still, a $900 difference? I'm not using my head on that one. And, i'm fine with that. It's not a practical call, this time.

I sometimes agree with you, about size versus bulk. But, then, other times, i look at the images, and think THAT's what's most important, and if people can drag around an 8x10 view camera with tripod, i should be able to make a tenth of that sacrifice and haul around my Hasselblad, or big SLR instead of a rangefinder. Also, i live in midtown Manhattan, so i see a ton of tourists, daily. 13 year old girls don't seem to mind carrying those big dSLRs with zooms all day, yet in this forum, members are constantly griping about the sizes/weights of their little primes.... Compact is great, but....
 
If you don't try some of the great "slow" lenses out there, like the Elmar-M 50/2.8, the Elmarit-M 90/2.8, the Summaron 35/2.8, or the 28/3.5 Color Skopar you are missing out. :)

Compact or not, they are quite unique.
 
I shoot slow films (K64-Astia 100). Fast lenses help me with slow films. In order to afford fast lenses I keep my kit to a minimum. Aside my two fast lenses, I have slower lenses that I find excel (90mm/2.8 Elmarit-M, 21mm/4.0 Skopar).

Others might solve this problem by simply getting faster films. But fast lenses and fast film is a sweet deal.
 
ferider said:
If you don't try some of the great "slow" lenses out there, like the Elmar-M 50/2.8, the Elmarit-M 90/2.8, the Summaron 35/2.8, or the 28/3.5 Color Skopar you are missing out. :)

Compact or not, they are quite unique.
Click to expand...

I sorta agree. Sorta. I wanted an Elmar 50, for example. But, choosing it OVER one of the other 50s i had at one time would have meant losing one of those experiences. How many 50s could i own? I know a lot of people have multiples of certain focal lengths. I could never justify that to myself. I felt like: if i like the lens i have, if i buy another one, whenever i'm using it, it means i'm not using the lens i originally chose. So, i would have been missing something either way. In the end, i never felt like the size advantage of a slower lens was that much of an advantage. It wasn't an Elmar to Noctilux comparison, though. But, after coming from SLRs and medium format, a 50mm Summilux is already a tiny lens. How much smaller do i need to go?

I did, though, once try a 45mm 2.8 Tessar pancake for a Contax SLR. Didn't like that experience at all. I felt limited by the 2.8 aperture, and further limited by the handling of the thing. Unfortunate, because i do like the imaging of the Tessar/Elmar formula.
 
I am in the process of building up -- or maybe I have already built up -- the film kit which will serve me for the rest of my years. Having all along lusted after fast lenses, I finally have what I want: a 35/1.7 and, soon, an 85/2. That I opted for a 50/2 Hexanon rather than a 50/1.5 Nokton was a matter of chance. Speed is relative. I am happy with these because for a long while all I had was a Rolleicord with a 75/3.5 lens.
 
Good question and a very practical thread. I have a lot of slow lenses. The only "fast" lenses I own are the run-of-the-mill 50mm 1.4 manual focus Canon, Zuiko's, Hexanons, etc.. Other than that I am more than happy with the el-cheapo 3.5's, 4.0's and 5.6's. Even love the slower m42 6.3's. I find it amusing to see digital photographers at an outdoor event lugging around their white Canon 70-200's, 300L's, 400L's, and even 600L's in mid afternoon light. I watch them and wonder what settings they are shooting at, that they would need to be holding and carrying these monster lenses.
I sometimes think that they have spent so much money on these big expensive lenses that they cannot afford to carry and use a smaller, inexpensive, slow lens in broad daylight.
 
I suppose I have to say - it depends. I have both the large fast lenses and the more compact slow lenses. I'm in an airport now after a long weekend getaway. I was never in a situation where I couldn't make a slow lens work for me. Oh, I took plenty of pics at night, but there was generally always some improvised rest available.

To answer your question, it just depends on what you are looking for. I love my fast lenses, but more for their image character that any "need" for the speed. Other photographers may have different needs to satisfy.
 
F2 lens with an F4 Size?

picture.php


Sonnar.
 
My 40 Nocton satisfies my need for speed. My other lenses can be, and are, slower.

Yes, we all have needs.
 
I recently bought F1.8 50 mm and F 1.8 85 mm Nikkor lenses for my D700. When ISO 1600 to 3200 photos ar aesthetically aceptable, the 2/3 stop improvement with the F1.4 versions is not cost effective. This is even more so for the 50/1.8 as the new version has curved aperture blades which significantly improves the OOF rendering.

The X100 at F 2.8, 1/60 to 1/100 and ISO 1600 works well for my low-light needs as well.

Since I hardly ever do landscape/cityscape work in low light, the DOF at 1.4 is a handicap.

Most of the time I prefer to use F 2.8 to F 4 as my minimum aperture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom