Fast and furious...but how fast?

[dreilly]

Okay, someone give me a way of thinking about this.

I do lots of available light photography. Never used a flash except the few times I forgot to turn my digicam's flash off. I often shoot indoors, often in limited light.

So, I like the idea of fast lenses. But, how fast? There's a discussion going on here about the Canon 50 1.2. The CL I'll have soon has the Rokkor 40/2 on it. Also classified as "fast".

But, how fast is fast? How much more limited am I with a 2 than, say a 1.2 (and I know I'll be faster because I don't have that oil-can on the front of my camera!)

Would it be worth it to add a 50mm 1.2, 1.4 or 1.5 to the equation, or would the additional speed be marginal? (Let's assume the I'm thinking that 50mm and 40mm are close enough in focal length not to worry about...I know they're not, but this is argument here.)

Lenses I was thinking about include: Summarit, Canon 50/1.5 or 1.4,.

 

[back alley]

i can tell you my thinking...

my plan was to have only one 50mm lens so i decided that having a 1.4 made sense for me.
but keep in mind that with my other lenses an f2 was the fastest so this 1.4 was gonna be the only lens that would be considered really fast. in essence this is my low light lens.

that being said, i really could have lived with the 50/1.8 and been happy too.
i have no problem using higher speed film instead of faster lenses.

the 40 rokkor on the cle is a great lens and if you're steady can be used easily in low light.

my drama series was all low light hand held and cle all the way.

joe

 

[pvdhaar]

There's no doubt that a 1.4 will let in twice as much light as a 2.0, and that it can be handheld a stop slower as a consequence. The real question however is whether it can be focussed accurately wide open on the rangefinder that you're using. The CL you refer to has a small rangefinder base, so its focus accuracy is limited especially close up.

 

[canonetc]

Film speed you normally use indoors is another factor to consider, as well as how slow can you shoot without any shake, and your desired depth of field (DOF). If you can get down to 1/15th of a second, and have 400 ASA film in a low-light situation, you will get something on the neg you can print (depending on available light of course). Even 125 ASA I've had success with. I think your upcoming f/2 lens will be fine considering 400 ASA and 1/15th shutter speed. Or push the 400 to 800 and process accordingly.

Chris

 

[pendevour]

I think that the fast lenses 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 etc were very useful about 20 years ago when film speeds were slower and fast film image quality was not so good. Those fast lenses were really needed. Today we have ultra fast films that can deliver good quality and consequently we don't really need such fast lenses. If you have an f1.8 or f2.0 and use fast film (iso 800 or faster) at around 1/30sec (just about my limit without shake) you should be able to record an image in pretty poor light. The fast lenses are great to give shallow DoF when used wide open.

 

[XAos]

With the GSN I can handhold indoors at night using tri-X in diafine (ISO 1000 due to the GSN's meter) I wouldn't say fast film speed renders fast lenses obsolete, I'd say it makes it possible. EV 5, ISO 1000, f/1.7. By my little handy dandy slide rule There's not even a full stop margin's left over before it keeps it open longer than 1/30th.

 

[rover]

Yeah, a good f2 lens can do the trick. I have faster, but don't carry them if I also am carrying my most recent 50 Summicron. I can hand hold to 1/15 with this lens, and at f2 it is better than my fast lenses at f5.6. I would put the 40/2 Rokker in the same class as my Summicron (I had one). I also don't mind the motion blur in a lot of my shots, that is a personal choice. It is not an easy question to answer. I would seriously question a 50/1.2 on the very short base length finders of the CL, CLE and Bessas.

 

[Kin Lau]

Can the CL focus a 1.4 or 1.2 accurately and reliably with such a short RF base? The Cameraquest page seems to indicate that it can't.

 

[rover]

My post in the other thread.

"OK, the 50/1.2 will mount on the Canon IV SB2, and it is usable, barely. The lens slightly protrudes into the RF window and you can see just the curve of the barrel in the RF patch in the viewfinder. It is there, but you can still focus the camera. You will just have to get used to seeing it there."

I think the closeness of the RF window to the lens mount on the CL may be an issue in the same way.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Pendevour's argument is superficially attractive but you ALWAYS need more speed, even with ultra-fast (f/1.2, f/1) lenses and seriously fast film (Delta 3200 at 3200, 6400, 12,500). I chose to stop at f/1.4/f/1.5 in 35mm and 50mm for size, weight and price (I sold my 50/1.2 Nikkor) , but also for d-o-f and ease of focusing. If I could afford a 50/1 Noctilux I'd buy it -- I love that lens, which I borrowed for a year from a generous friend -- but I think I'd prefer the 75/2 (which I have) to the 75/1.4 (which I don't). And my pre-aspheric 35/1.4 is SO much smaller and lighter than the 35/1.2 Nokton (which I have also tried) that I can't justify the faster lens.

I've just been shooting a South Korean folklore troupe, after dark, outdoors, with the MP and 90/2 Summicron with Delta 3200 at 3200-6400. The d-o-f with anything faster would have been even more of a problem -- and I've used an 85/1.4 on a Contax SLR.

There is no such thing as a lens that is too fast; only lenses that cost too much, asre too big, or havbe too little d-o-f.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerqandfrances.com)

 

[kiev4a]

I've only owned one lens in the past 40 years faster than f1.8 (a 1.4) and didn't own it very long. The increase in weight and bulk seems to me to cancel out the light gathering advantages. It doesn't seem to me that you gain that much after getting below f2, particularly with the high speed films available today. And as someone else pointed out, with a fast lens, wide open, your dept of field is very small. The huge premium one pays for f1.2 seems to be more for the "look, mine is bigger" crowd -- like the guys who always have to have the fastest computer.

 

[back alley]

my computer starts with a crank!

but it IS big.

 

[wlewisiii]

Honestly, I've only owned a couple of 1.8 lenses and find that I still prefer my 2.0 or even 2.8 (or that "fast" 75/3.5 on the Iskra... 🙂 ) lenses for other reasons. DOF is one, the look from the lens is another... The only faster lens I'd like to get is the 50/1.5 Sonnar for my Kiev/Contax kit and that's more out of curiosity than anything.

Now I don't usually push the envelope much and when I do, I use faster emulsions to make up the difference, so my experiance may be an anomality here. Just wanted to get the POV into the thread though.

William

 

[mac_wt]

Rover wrote:

"I think the closeness of the RF window to the lens mount on the CL may be an issue in the same way."

I have used my Canon 50mm f:1.2 on my CL. It works OK, no issue with blocking the RF windows (offcourse the lens is visible in the viewfinder, but it doesn't make it unusable). That being said; I prefer the Leica 40mm f:2 as it is a lot lighter, easier to focus and I get 'better' results from it.

Wim

 

[jlw]

I think that the fast lenses 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 etc were very useful about 20 years ago when film speeds were slower and fast film image quality was not so good.

As the young lady in this picture might be saying, I'll give you four good reasons why wide-aperture lenses are still useful:

• Fast-film image quality may have improved, but it's still limited. Anything over about 1250 EI in black-and-white (and about EI 800 in color neg) still comes at the expense of reduced shadow detail; even an extra third of a stop of maximum aperture can make the difference between the details being there and not being there.
  
• When lights are low, wider lens apertures translate directly into more hand-holdable shutter speeds. Choosing an f/1.4 vs. an f/2 can mean the difference between an easily shootable 1/60 and a somewhat risky 1/30, or (worse yet) a risky 1/30 and a VERY risky 1/15. Sure, you can get off a sharp hand-held shot at 1/15 occasionally, but why not improve your odds?
  
• Even if you use a tripod to eliminate the problem of camera movement, there's still the problem of subject movement. No problem if you're shooting inanimate, motionless subject matter. But with people, animals, etc., the higher you can crank up the shutter speeds, the better.
  
• No matter how high your film speed, there will be times when you want to take pictures under conditions where it's a limiting case. The picture above of the young lady (actually reminding her fellow performers that they've only got four more rehearsals before opening night) was lit only by the little safety lights in the theater aisle and some spill off the stage behind them. I can't tell you what exposure I should have used because it was too dark to read the meter, and even with EI 1600 film and an f/0.95 lens it was a crapshoot: I just set my Canon 7s to the slowest shutter speed I thought I could hand-hold -- 1/15, I think -- and hoped for the best. This isn't a technically stellar picture, but I liked the moment and it tells the story. If I had been using an f/2 lens, I'd have been at 1/4 sec., and it would have been a miracle if I'd gotten anything legible.

I'm not saying everyone needs an ultra-speed lens... but if you often find yourself shooting your f/2 lens at f/2, that probably means you actually could use an f/1.4 occasionally, and if you're often shooting at f/1.4, I'll bet there are times you could use an f/1.2.

The points raised above about finder blockage and focusing accuracy are highly legitimate, though, so you have to strike a balance between what gives you the exposure you need and what works on your camera (not to mention what level of image quality you prefer, how much size and weight you can tolerate, and what you're willing or able to pay!)

 

[Kin Lau]

Nice shot jlw... is the focus just slightly behind the young lady, or is it a bit of motion blur?

 

[Bertram2]

. The increase in weight and bulk seems to me to cancel out the light gathering advantages. It doesn't seem to me that you gain that much after getting below f2, particularly with the high speed films available today. And as someone else pointed out, with a fast lens, wide open, your dept of field is very small. The huge premium one pays for f1.2 seems to be more for the "look, mine is bigger" crowd -- like the guys who always have to have the fastest computer.

You said it all, I have nothing to add than my personal experience: I own a 1.5/50 CV Nokton and a perfectly working 2/50 J8 and after half a year of using them both I 'd be happy if I had started with the J8 and left the Nokton on the dealer's shelf.
The only reason why I did not sell the Nokton is that I would lose about $350 ( I once bought it in Germany for about $600) and that I like it's footprint very much. To justify that I still keep it I take it instead of the J8 sometimes to very dark places tho I know I very seldom can really use the extra stop because of the shallow DOF.

A pro MUST do everything he can to improve his chances , no matter how much the improvement really is. He simply does everthing to avoid a missed shot.
But we are amateurs and can afford the smaller, lighter and cheaper and mostly sharper solution.

Nonetheless, tho we can afford the cheaper lenses, some amateurs prefer the big and heavy lenses because of various reasons . But as always the photos solely prove the photogs competence and I have seen much more nonsense shots done with fast or super fast lenses than nice shots who prove a knowledgeable use of such a very special tool.
I hope my choice of "nonsense shots" was diplomatic enuff and nobody feels offended ? :angel:
Regards,
Bertram

 

[jlw]

Nice shot jlw... is the focus just slightly behind the young lady, or is it a bit of motion blur?

Possibly a bit of both, plus the fact that it was a terrible scan... gotta rescan that neg one of these days now that I've got a better scanner.

 

[XAos]

Available darkness with affordable cameras is what got me interested in film after finally having a digital p&s I was reasonably happy with. It's also what got me down the path of rangefinders, mechanical cameras, learning about composition, developing (you can thank the lure of Ilford 3200 for that, even though it's not where I ended up). When I stop saying "gee I wish I could get that on film but its too dark to shoot it", I'll admit it might be fast enough. Until then, Roger said it well.

 

[Kin Lau]

Possibly a bit of both, plus the fact that it was a terrible scan... gotta rescan that neg one of these days now that I've got a better scanner.

It's a hard shot either way... f.95 isn't very much dof to work with and you did very well. I have the Canon 55/1.2 in the FL mount, which is a "for the fun of it" lense rather than any real need, and the lack of dof on that is quite something already.