Do you prefer using fast film + tiny (but slow) lenses?

[justins7]

I have been hemming and hawing (sp?) over whether or not to shell out cash on faster Voigtlander lenses, like the 40 1.4 or the 28 1.9. It seems that the large size, especially of the latter lens, really would limit their actual use, especially as I head to Latin America for what promises to be a hot and sweaty trip.

I guess this is an obvious dilema, but:

What do you think about just using faster film with slower lenses? Aside from the issue of small aperture/depth of field, the small size of, say, the 28 3.5 seems to override the negative effects of grainy film like 400 speed. Do you find that it's better to use fast film and tiny lenses?

Any thoughts?

(I shoot color and scan it in, the old fashioned way.)

 

[rover]

I think that there is a benefit to having a fast lens in your kit, but I would not replace all of my lenses with faster ones. Right now I have 35, 40 and 50mm lenes all with a max aperture of f2.0. I am definately thinking of replacing the 40 with the new CV fast 40, but not the others. I have no problem using fast film when the situation calls for it, and after all I will only gain a 1 stop advantage (with a lot less DOF) with faster lenses. And, 400 speed films aren't that grainy, are they?

 

[RML]

My fastest lenses are a 50/2, a 40/2 and an 85/2. The rest are all slower. I shoot iso400 colour neg film. I find that there are quite some situations I'd love to have a faster lens or faster film, especially when shooting inside with limited lighting, or when shooting outside after sundown. As I always load iso400, and don't plan for a shoot in advance (I shoot all day long, every subject I find interesting) I would love to have a faster lens.

Just a couple of days ago I bought a 50/1.5 Jupiter. I hope this lens will give me good results and satisfy my need for a fast lens.

I also bought me an Eos 300D just yesterday, which will allow me to set iso800 upto iso3200 with the flick of the wrist. This easy of switching iso value could turn out to be a persuasive argument for some to go digital. Another benefit is that slower lenses are usually cheaper.

 

[sfaust]

I prefer to have a couple fast lenses in my most used focal lengths, but the rest can be slower. Typically, its the portrait, telephoto, and a moderate wide that I want fast for shooting at night, interiors with no flash, etc. I don't feel all the lenses need to be fast, but do feel having a couple does help out.

 

[justins7]

My Canon 50 1.4 is fastest. Awsome, but heavy. Longer still with filter. Always admired the early 35mm Summilux for its size but not its price.


I just know that whenever I go on trips, I don't whip out the camera as often when when the thing weighs four tons and is huge. But with a little lens it's all so sleek. But, of course, it'll be dark, I'll be drunk and unable to hold 1/4 second, let alone 1/30th.

I have been reading the reviews of the RD-1 and its speed-changing ability is really a plus. It's just WAY too expensive.

Are wider lenses easier to hand-hold or is that just an illusion?

 

[Nikon Bob]

I use negative film and my experience with SLRs has been that 400 asa film is quite good even for enlargements to 11X14 inches when viewd from a normal distance. Most of my SLR lenses are the F2.8 variety and I have gotten by nicely by using 800 fuji in museums/churches. I hate to carry a tripod and flash. With a rangefinder that can be handheld at slower shutter speeds than an SLR I expect to keep getting good results. I would not be in a rush to replace all my slow lenses with fast ones but one fast one in your most used focal length would be nice. If your most used focal length is a slightly wide one then a fast 35mm/40mm might be nice especially if it dosen't block the field of view too much. That way you can have the benefit of a fast lens AND the extra benefit of a faster film like Fuji 800 when the need arises. Hope this helps.

Bob

Just saw your post mentioning the older Summilux and can say that mine is very tiny but still intrudes a bit into the viewfinder. Can't say how it works as the weather here has been in the 20-30 below range. So far I am very happy with it for it's size.

 

[GeneW]

After using a Rollei TLR with f/3.5 lens for years as my main camera, I thought f/2 lenses *were* fast lenses LOL!

I tend to use 400/800 films most of the time and sometimes I carry a pocket tripod, which I can use as a chest pod for extra support at low shutter speeds. I like the smaller size and lighter weight of the somewhat slower lenses. But then again I have to -- can't afford the really fast glass ...

Gene

 

[doubs43]

The "fastest" lens I've ever owned is the Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 that came with my OM-1 that I bought in December, 1973, from a military BX in Korea. The body is long gone but I still have the lens and it's a beauty.

I also own two Jupiter-3 f/1.5 50mm leses; one for LTM and one for Kiev/Contax. There's a 50mm f/1.5 Summarit in "M" mount and finally a Helios-40; an 85mm f/1.5 BEAST in 39mm screw mount for SLR's. (Actually, I have two of the Helios lenses.) The Helios lenses fit my Russian Start SLR and will also go on my Pentax Spotmatic II with a 42mm adapter ring.

Having said all that, I rarely use anything faster than an F/2 and most of my film is ASA/ISO 200 and below. While I can "snap shoot" when necessary, I'm pretty deliberate and will use a tripod if necessary or time permits.

Walker

 

[jlw]

The fastest lens I own is a Canon 50/0.95, and the fastest film speed rating I routinely use is T-Max P3200 rated at 1250 and developed for 1600. And sometimes that combo isn't fast enough!

(For example, the attached photo might have been sort of sharp if I had been able to shoot faster than 1/8 sec., hand-held...)

But I don't go to those extremes often, and for you it probably would be less so. In your situation, I think it would make sense to treat a high-speed lens as another type of special-purpose lens, same as you might consider a fisheye, ultrawide, super-tele, etc.

In other words, you might want to try to have one available, but only when/if you think you might have a specific need for it.

This would mean that you could standardize on small, light lenses that you would carry most of the time. The high-speed lens could stay rolled up in an old sock and live in a bottom compartment of your backpack or in-room luggage, only to be unpacked when there was a pretty good chance you'd need it.

Of course, size is less of an issue as long as you're talking shorter focal lengths. The new C-V 40/1.4 and 35/1.7 are both fast and reasonably small, for example...

[blurry pic below]

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I had the Canon 50mm F0.95 out at The School's Christmas Pageant today, loaded the Canon 7 with Kodacolor 400. At 1/125th I had to stop all the way down to F2!!! I thought for sure they would turn down the lights but NOOOOO!!!

Honestly, there is nothing like having an F1.4 or F1.2 lens around when the lights go down. I have the F2as loaded with Kodacolor 400 with the 55mm F1.2 lens for Christmas, the Canon 7 with an F1.4, and the M3 with the Summarit at F1.5.

 

[merciful]

I require fast lenses and very fast film.

 

[back alley]

it depends

it depends

what kind of shooting are you talking about, situation/light level wise?
i prefer slower lenses and faster films if needed.
but then i don't shoot in a lot of dark bars anymore.

my fastest lens is a 50/1.8 and that would do me well with delta 3200 shot at 1000/1600.
the slower lenses are small enough, often enough to allow for slower shutter speed shooting.

joe

 

[g0tr00t]

I like my lenses, like I like my women, fast and shallow.



I just got the 35 1.7 Ultron and blew threw a roll of 400. I also have the 50 2.5. Lets just say I LOVE THE 1.7! What difference....I am developing tomorrow so we shall see the results...

 

[Biber]

I prefer to use a faster lens. All my interchangeable lenses are between f/1.5 and f/2 (35/1.7, 35/2, 50/1.5, 50/1.8). If I shoot slow film that extra stop really helps when it's getting darker, and if I use faster film I usually need the extra speed anyway.

 

[furcafe]

Re: Do you prefer using fast film + tiny (but slow) lenses?

I think it depends on your style of photography. I shoot a lot indoors in dim "available darkness" conditions where fast film, i.e., where even ISO 1600/3200 is not enough, so fast glass is essential for me. I'd rather put up w/the greater mass of fast lenses than not being able to get a shot, as you can always stop down a fast lens but can't make a slow lens any faster! However, if you're into landscapes & such, your needs are probably much different . . .

I have been hemming and hawing (sp?) over whether or not to shell out cash on faster Voigtlander lenses, like the 40 1.4 or the 28 1.9. It seems that the large size, especially of the latter lens, really would limit their actual use, especially as I head to Latin America for what promises to be a hot and sweaty trip.

I guess this is an obvious dilema, but:

What do you think about just using faster film with slower lenses? Aside from the issue of small aperture/depth of field, the small size of, say, the 28 3.5 seems to override the negative effects of grainy film like 400 speed. Do you find that it's better to use fast film and tiny lenses?

Any thoughts?

(I shoot color and scan it in, the old fashioned way.)

 

[StuartR]

I prefer very fast lenses and moderate telephotos with slow film. I like being able to shoot with ISO 100 in most normal situations (including indoors), and I like very shallow depth of field. No noctilux or Canon 0.95, but I have some f/1.2s and f/1.4s.

 

[Stu :)]

After using a Rollei TLR with f/3.5 lens for years as my main camera, I thought f/2 lenses *were* fast lenses LOL!
Gene

I'm with Gene. Being use to Hasselblads and large format cameras, 2.8 is fast for me. Also when selecting an aperture, I'm always thinking about the hyper focal range first, not the relation to the shutter speed. A very bad habit/hang over from LF I guess.

Back in the day of 35mm SLRs for me, I found my Canon 50mm 1.4 a bit of a novelty at the best of times and often found my self trying to think of photos to shoot at 1.4 and giving up. My 50mm Nikkor for my Bessa R rarely goes south of f4.

Stu

 

[peter_n]

Lenses are optimized for peak performance at different apertures. I understand that the faster lenses are optimized for very wide apertures so if you constantly shoot wide-open it makes sense to get a faster lens.

OTOH slower lenses are easier (and cheaper) to make and of course smaller. You can always make up for an f2.8 lens with a faster film but if you need a miniscule DOF then a fast lens is the only solution. It depends on the kind of shooting you do.

 

[RML]

...
You can always make up for an f2.8 lens with a faster film...

I beg to differ. I've never felt the urge to change my film mid-roll just because I needed a faster film. I doubt anyone ever has. And loading my camera with iso800 or faster filmer all the time seems like tremendous overkill, a waste of money, and compromising image quality.

The only time most of us will actually be in a position to compensate a slower lens with a faster film is if we actually plan for a shoot, which is something, I reckon, most of us hardly ever consciously do.

 

[peter_n]

I beg to differ. I've never felt the urge to change my film mid-roll just because I needed a faster film.

Neither have I. I have comparatively slower lenses so I use comparatively faster film. From the beginning of the roll to the end.