Fast lenses

[Horatio]

Other than better performance in low light and OOF bokeh, what do they offer over slower versions?

 

[dexdog]

shallower depth of field wide open

 

[trix4ever]

They are often reassuringly expensive...

 

[Richard G]

Weight. The ZM C Sonnar 1.5 50 on my M5 I can hand hold slower than the M6 with the 25 color Skopar. The Summilux 50 in chrome was heavier. My M2 has the DR Summicron, a tank. And carrying cameras with these faster/heavier lenses they hang more balanced. A camera with an accessory finder tipped backwards because of a very light lens, digging under my ribs hanging over my shoulder, is annoying. I’ll admit the black 50 Summicron was a welcome drop in weight after my 50 Summilux was stolen. It’s not slow.

 

[Richard G]

Imperfections. Focus shift, chromatic aberration, distortion. Glow, even. I hate my 35 Summilux wide open. Some love that.

 

[peterm1]

Character..................otherwise known as flaws. Speaking for myself, if I buy a fast lens and it is technically near perfect and similar to slower lenses I am disappointed. I want my fast lenses to exhibit artistic flaws that make interesting photos. Example below. Nikkor pre Ai 55mm f1.2. I can't say it's sharp wide open (though stopped down it's pretty good). But I can say it's just as I like my portrait lenses.


Restaurant Scene by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some have bokeh as very different.
I'm not talking about primitive, WO approach.

 

[MNS]

Other than better performance in low light and OOF bokeh, what do they offer over slower versions?

Street cred! 😁

 

[Richard G]

They are often reassuringly expensive...

That reassurance can be found with other round-faced things.

a19180

See more Cartoons on The New Yorker

www.newyorker.com

 

[Horatio]

Bragging rights?

 

[steveyork]

The limited DOF opens up a lot of creative options. Of course that often comes with size, weight and optical compromises, but fast lenses are almost like having two lenses in one -- the character of wider open shots vs stopped down performance.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I've found the shallow dof to be most frustrating and as such I don't use mine much at all. That and the fact it weighs so much more than other lenses I own keeps it off my camera(s) and on the shelf in the cabinet next to my desk.

 

[Horatio]

I've found the shallow dof to be most frustrating and as such I don't use mine much at all. That and the fact it weighs so much more than other lenses I own keeps it off my camera(s) and on the shelf in the cabinet next to my desk.

I have a Nikkor AF-S D that weighs next to nothing. It's outstanding IMHO.

 

[38Deardorff]

For my use.... faster lenses gather dust. I just don't photograph in dimly lit places that much & modern films whether pushed 400 or normal 3200 are so good. (I was surprised what good results i got from my Mamiya 6 w/ the 50mm f4). I've owned both the Noctilux f1 and the Summilux M 75mm. Despite their characteristics wide open, they never stuck around very long. I had a 35mm Summilux for longer but in the end the Summicron 35 was my go-to. I've always had a hankering for a steel-rim Summilux, but not enough to drop the money for one.

 

[Godfrey]

I have a couple of fast lenses ... Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 and Voigtlander Heliar Classic 50mm f/1.5 ... and I like them both for the same reason: the fast maximum aperture gives a more options in DoF control and rendering qualities. Their rendering behaviors are pretty similar, from slightly soft-ish wide open to razor sharp when stopped down. With both, I tend to shoot with them from wide open to two stops down because that's the range where their rendering character shines brightest.

Stopped down past f/4 to f/5.6, well, they're little different from my slower, lighter, more compact lenses of similar focal length.

Of course, considering rangefinder and EVF cameras, it is often the case that you don't need a very fast lens otherwise. Back in the days of optical SLR cameras, a fast lens was often critical to quick and accurate focusing: the viewfinder was simply too dim with slower lenses to see focus transitions clearly enough for critical focus in other than ideal conditions.

G

 

[ddutchison2]

They are usually sharper at f2 than an f2 lens wide open.

 

[Richard G]

My photographic interests rarely now include the wide open look. I was into that around home years ago, exploring the limits for their own sake perhaps. My most used lenses have maximum aperture 2,8 to 5.6. The 35 Summilux is light and small and sits on the Monochrom, almost never used wide open. I’m more interested in all of the frame these days. If I ever want Bokeh, my favourite lens for that is the Elmar 50 3.5. And the ZM 50 C Sonnar is special. I had that on the M5 for a year 15 years ago, mostly at 5.6.

 

[Mcary]

Of the two 35mm lens that I have, I will usually choose to bring the 35mm Summilux ASPH v1 over the 3.5 cm Summaron, for subjects that I want to isolate or if I'm shooting B&W film especially with an orange filter. For any other situation I find that the Summaron more than meets my needs especially when shooting color film and also make a perfect lens to put in pocket when I have another lens such as 28mm f2 or 50mm f2 mounted on M2.

 

[Pioneer]

I adore my uncoated Elmar 50. After I discovered that lens I could probably have sold every lens I own. But I didn't.

I kept my little ltm Sonnar 50. I have to use that lens once in awhile to remind myself just how bad my eyesight really is. 😀

 

[ellisson]

For non-RF camera shooting, I rely more on short distance to the main subject and longer focal length for out of focus effects. I manage fine with f2.8, f4 and even f8 apertures for portraits and landscape work when I'm at FLs of 90mm or greater. And the faster glass gets much heavier at those FLs.