Big

[Bill Pierce]

As of late some really remarkable high speed lenses have been introduced. There are some downsides. (1) Between the aperture, the focusing motor and designs dealing with sensor cover glass often the lenses are quite BIG. (2) Speaking of BIG, the prices are BIG. (3) But with today’s digital cameras you can have high ISO’s with little loss in quality, and those high ISO’s counter the need for high speed lenses.

I really enjoy working with slower lenses - and not just because they are cheaper. I like them because they are smaller. They certainly attract less attention when you are on the street, but they are, for me, more comfortable to use in any shoot and have little or no downside. I will confess, I do use some very high speed lenses for portraiture, but that’s because if everything outside of the eyes is out of focus, I have less retouching to do. When I look at equipment announcements on the internet, there is a plethora of large lenses with big prices, and for the first time in a long while I don’t feel a huge surge of equipment lust. Is this old age or common sense?

How do you feel about it?

 

[kshapero]

I like fast and small. They are still out there.

Here is my CV Nokton 50/1.5 using a 43mm lens filter.

 

[xayraa33]

With these new digital cameras and some like Fujifilm offer bigger than full frame and high iso with so little noise then the need for super fast lenses is not as needed as before.

The times of the early 1960s with a Canon 7 and the 50mm Dream lens of f 0.95 and grainy Tri-X pushed to 1600 ASA are long over.


You might want a super fast lens to show the world that you can afford one or are a real fanatic for super cool and weird bokeh and a very thin plane of things in focus.

Or buy the currently made low priced fly by night Chinese lenses that are super fast thinking you are getting the bargain deal of the century.

 

[charjohncarter]

I just received my Pentax Spotmatic from a CLA with Eric Hendrickson. I had it done because my Super Takumar 50mm F 1.4 is bright on the viewfinder. So bright that I don't want to use any other lens or camera (type SLR). When I removed the hood and the filter I couldn't believe how small that lens is.

Maybe in my case it is old age, but someplace in my soul I hope there is a small modicum of common sense.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I like fast and small. They are still out there.

Here is my CV Nokton 50/1.5 using a 43mm lens filter.

+1 for fast, small and affordable.

 

[jsrockit]

When I look at equipment announcements on the internet, there is a plethora of large lenses with big prices, and for the first time in a long while I don’t feel a huge surge of equipment lust. Is this old age or common sense?

How do you feel about it?

Well, this being RFF, we are bound to see a slew of posts touting M lenses that are fast and small....or talking about film lenses from the past. However, I think you are referring to these new fast autofocus / mirrorless behemoths that are on the market now. Even Leicas L mount lenses for FF are huge.

I'm not interested either. I prefer smaller and slower than fast and huge lenses like the Fujifilm F2 primes or the Sigma i Series primes. There is a time and place for fast, but most of the time... I don't need them. I thought the purpose of mirrorless was to reduce size, but that does not seem to be the case anymore.

 

[nikon_sam]

I'm hoping common sense...
I have a few big lenses and I'm pretty sure I've bought the last of the big ones...
The last lens I bought was the Nikkor 50mm 2.0 Ais, so not the fastest but one that lends more towards fun to use with interesting results...
I've seen the latest and greatest and I've seen their price tags...not interested in owning those...
If and when I buy again it will be used, off of ebay or a camera show deal, it will also be something unique with a look none of the others I currently own have...

 

[kbb]

Small is better than large, faster is better than slower...but small and slow (f/2.8 is usually acceptable) is fine with me. There's something very nice about the look of a good f/2.8 lens wide open.

 

[Dogman]

I think it's common sense. Something that's uncommon until you get old enough to recognize it.

I'm a 50mm addict. Or 50mm equivalent (+/-). Several Nikkors, a couple of Zeisses, a couple of Fujis and one or two other brands that are considered "modern"--i.e., lots of corrective elements. If I'm heading out the door with a normal lens, I almost always choose the 35mm ƒ/2 Fujinon for the XPro or the old 50mm ƒ/1.4 Nikkor AF-D. Mainly because they're small. And sharp. With fast, accurate AF. And small. Small, mainly.

And recently I've been trying out several Nikon variable aperture zooms, mostly in DX (APS-C) format. With my back problems and a recent nerve impingement in my shoulder, I'm not real excited about carrying around things that become painful. In practical terms, they're good enough for anything I shoot outside in daylight and it keeps me from taking a bag of extra lenses.

 

[CMur12]

My impression is that Canon and Nikon are introducing lenses for their new mirrorless full-frame cameras that show the high-end performance potential of mirrorless tech. I'm hoping that they will follow up with more compact, reasonably fast, lower-priced lenses.

Canon has already, in fact, introduced some high-performance, moderately priced RF lenses: 35mm f1.8 Macro IS STM, 50mm f1.8 STM, and 85mm f2.0 Macro IS STM. (I'm hoping for more such primes.) There are a couple of compact zooms, as well. I'm not following Nikon, so I don't know what they are offering.

- Murray

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"Common sense" IMO
small, light, cheap.....pick2

[/url]
Flickr

 

[markjwyatt]

I have been shooting with a nold (new-old) Nikkor P.C 105mm f2.5 in Contax mount on my Contax iia. That is BIG. For the camera at least it is disproportionate. I cannot always hand hold it at 1/100th second or certainly not less. I thought it would be a decent substitute for an 85mm f2 Sonnar, and it may still be, but it is a bit cumbersome at times. On the other hand I like the Sonnar like images, so I will continue to use it. More HP5plus and less FP4plus I guess. Or at least a tripod or maybe a monopod.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

CV and 7(T)artisans f1.2 and faster lenses ain't big, nor too expensive. Well, those are not AF.
One thing which is kind of new is latest FF EVF cameras with sensors more compatible with RF lenses and with much more focusing capabilities for RF lenses than RF cameras.

Canon made huge 50 1.2 RF, while not big 50 1.2 EF works just fine via adapter.
But with my RP I'm set on 50 1.8 RF.

 

[kshapero]

CV and 7(T)artisans f1.2 and faster lenses ain't big, nor too expensive. Well, those are not AF.
One thing which is kind of new is latest FF EVF cameras with sensors more compatible with RF lenses and with much more focusing capabilities for RF lenses than RF cameras.

Canon made huge 50 1.2 RF, while not big 50 1.2 EF works just fine via adapter.
But with my RP I'm set on 50 1.8 RF.

What's an RP?

 

[JeffS7444]

I think the market for premium-quality lenses of more moderate speed and size is really underrepresented, and awesome as Sony's new SEL50F12GM sounds, I think I'll be giving it a pass because of it's size and 778 gram weight. In any event, I feel like the ultra shallow DOF look is best done sparingly, and for most of what I do, f/5.6 is a good all 'round aperture.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

What's an RP?

It is Canon FF EVF compact, weather sealed camera which is under 1K$ USD new. Works fine with 35, 50 rangefinder lenses. Color shifts corners with Color Skopar 21 f4, but fine with cheap old F mount UWA lenses.

 

[Out to Lunch]

What are UWA lenses?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I feel like Google here. Ultra Wide Angle.

 

[gavinlg]

It's for this reason I stick with Fujifilm digital cameras. Reasonably sized lenses with good optical performance for reasonable prices. More specifically, the lens sizes match the camera size - the balance equation. The other reason is for the manual controls.

I must admit though, one of these days I do plan on switching to a digital M. That to me is the perfect form.

 

[Geo Toreno]

Fast lenses are heavy, usually more expensive, and often built better.

I choose pocketable, small, slow, and built better.