Fast or compact lenses, the RF way

[fitzihardwurshd]

For example -- this photo was taken with a 35mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.4. I think it looks better than it would have at f/4 or f/5.6 because the slightly blurred background gives it a sense of three-dimensionality, softens the bare bulbs and draws the viewers eye to the man.

This photo is great, the background effects you describe ARE there ! The quality of the OOF details is impressing. But I doubt that it would really look less fine at f2 ?

Fitzi

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

And here is another photo possible only because of a high speed lens. This one is a 50mm f/1.4 at 1.4. It allowed me a wide field of view, enough to get the subject completely in focus, but to include a large area of background. But to have that background rendered softly and graphically rather than clearly. Again, it is all about preference and molding the photo to what you want. You can always stop down a fast lens, but you can never open up a slow lens past its widest stop.

Great photo again, but in this case I am pretty sure: At f2 it would not look less impressive, presumably at f2,8 either.

Fitzi

 

[John Robertson]

I have the f1.9 28mm Ultron, only because the smaller 28 Skopar was not available at the time. I would have bought the Skopar, for if no other reason that it takes the 39mm filter as do most of my other lenses. I hardly ever use my 1.5 Nokton for the same reason (52mm filter). My f2 50 is so much smaller and almost as fast.

I hate to say this but it was definitely true when I was selling cameras in a shop, many purchasers (99% male) just had to have the biggest lens on the camera they bought, I sure there was a psycological reason I'd rather not go into here!!!!😱

 

[rogue_designer]

You can always stop down a faster lens - I tend to be in low light an awful lot, and knowing that I can stop a 1.4 or 1.8 down to 2.8 and get some sharpness back, rather than shooting a 2.8 wide open is very nice.

I've found for most situations I find myself in 1.8 is a good compromise. Relatively Compact lenses (on the whole), and pretty good values out there - especially in the CV and Canon LTM lines.

 

[ampguy]

hmm

hmm

Don't know about 1.0 vs 1.5 but I know from recently shooting bar scenes that I could defintely use a stop or two beyond 2.0, that's with 1/30th (tripod not an option), and 800 film.

Joe,
that's been exactly my point: Isn't that "speed" from 1 or 1,5 stops plus of such a limited field of use that it isn't much more than an speed illusion ? Fine if I WANT that super narrow DOF, but what if do NOT want it, or if it is even contraproductive ?

I mean the price of DOF you pay with faster lenses is very different from the price of a bit more grain or, within the limits valid for moving objects , from a slower shutter time.

I've been out quite often with the 50 Nokton at night and it did not take much time to learn that the 1,5 stops plus are good for nothing, excepted you got any object in the foreground you can focus on, and if you accept to get all the rest OOF.

Otherwise you have to take a mono- or tripod as well as the owner of a slow lens has to take it. That is what I mean with limited field of use.

I'd say "speed" is simply the wrong word in this context. If at all the fast lenses are good for anything it is IMO for narrow DOF, but not for low light. Even in this case tho the much more compact f2 lens does that good enuff, who really needs the super narrow DOF of a f1,4 lens , not to speak of the f1,2 or f1,0 monsters ? Who uses f1,0 and for what to do what could not be done with a F2 lens ???

A fellow pro photog once told my 98% of all fast lenses would be bought because they look more impressive, and the more I look at my Nok I am afraid I stepped exactly into this kinda prestige trap ?

Best,
Fitzi

 

[c.poulton]

I think the extra stop or two on fast lenses are worthwhile - I don't use them all the time, but it's nice that their there.

One of the reasons I use rangefinders is the ability to shoot indoors with available light (& no tripod) so I tend to only get fast lenses - it gives me the flexibility.

Size is not an issue - in fact the smaller the lens the better for me.

 

[varjag]

Another ovelooked issue is that most lens perform better stopped down a bit. You'll normally have better quality with a 1.4 stopped down to 2.8 than with a 2.8 lens (which often means simpler Tessar design) wide open.

As of that "low light fuss", I quite often felt real need for an extra stop or two, YMMV. Yes, you can push film pretty far, but I prefer to not go over 6400 when unless there absolutely no other option. As to the bulk, even the 1.5/50 in my system (discarding uber-rare Zunow 50/1.1 the fastest avaliable) is fairly compact.

 

[varjag]

SutartR, good shot, nearly pin-up 🙂

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Another ovelooked issue is that most lens perform better stopped down a bit. You'll normally have better quality with a 1.4 stopped down to 2.8 than with a 2.8 lens (which often means simpler Tessar design) wide open.

As of that "low light fuss", I quite often felt real need for an extra stop or two, YMMV. Yes, you can push film pretty far, but I prefer to not go over 6400 when unless there absolutely no other option. As to the bulk, even the 1.5/50 in my system (discarding uber-rare Zunow 50/1.1 the fastest avaliable) is fairly compact.

I would deny that "normally" the stopped down 1,4 is better at 2,8 than a 2,8 lens wide open. Not if both are built on the same level of quality.
And, If used for a 2,8 lens , the Tessar design does not say anything about the quality.
Not in principle at least.
Concerning the pushing issue I only compared the one stop faster film or or the one stop gained by push with a lens one stop faster.

 

[varjag]

I would deny that "normally" the stopped down 1,4 is better at 2,8 than a 2,8 lens wide open. Not if both are built on the same level of quality.
And, If used for a 2,8 lens , the Tessar design does not say anything about the quality.

2.8 is about as fast as Tessar can go. Sure, a modern Leica 50/2.8 is likely a lens of entierly satisfying quality, but to say that Tessar just as good as, say, Planar or Sonnar stopped down to 2.8 is not quite correct. MTF charts will show you that, though it might be not important for practical applications.

Concerning the pushing issue I only compared the one stop faster film or or the one stop gained by push with a lens one stop faster.

I had to shoot TMZ at EI 10000 with a 2.8 lens once. It worked out fine, but I was a bit concerned until I've seen the results. I could really appreciate something f/1.4 or so there, would still be a push but not that dramatic.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Don't know about 1.0 vs 1.5 but I know from recently shooting bar scenes that I could defintely use a stop or two beyond 2.0, that's with 1/30th (tripod not an option), and 800 film.

For the bar shots: At f1,4 and a distance of 2m you must be contended with a DOF of 13cm, at f1,0 with a DOF of 8cm. F2,8 grants at least 24cm tho.
Assumed we do not shoot statues but people, what can you do with 12cm or 8 cm (!!!) DOF ?? At moving objects ? I'd prefer ISO 1600 and f2,8.

And downtown at night, for cityscapes, what can you photograph with f 1,0 or f 1,4 and the above DOF. ? There isn't much , suited for such a lens.
That is what I meant with restricted field of use for an enormous technical effort and severe optical compromises.

An interesting way out could be a 2,8/75mm lens on a 4,5X6 camera, the DOF is still a bit better than a f2,0 lens on a 35mm body and the grain looks much, much less obtrousive then on 35mm film. Tri-X 400 similar to FP4 in a 35mm camera.and even 1600 has still an acceptable look. But the larger format has it's own compromises, which must be considered too.

Fitzi

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

I have the f1.9 28mm Ultron, only because the smaller 28 Skopar was not available at the time. I would have bought the Skopar, for if no other reason that it takes the 39mm filter as do most of my other lenses. I hardly ever use my 1.5 Nokton for the same reason (52mm filter). My f2 50 is so much smaller and almost as fast.

I hate to say this but it was definitely true when I was selling cameras in a shop, many purchasers (99% male) just had to have the biggest lens on the camera they bought, I sure there was a psycological reason I'd rather not go into here!!!!😱

John,

I have thought about that and it confirmes what my pro friend once told me.
He sold cameras too for a while and held courses for amateurs.
No matter if some boyz with their toyz need a big one (does not concern me anyway) or if others simply want to to feel prepared, knowing they have the speed whenever they might need it ( not knowing exactly when that could be) or whatever the reason could be to decide for such a fast 1,0 or 1,4 beast, it must be mostly ( not always tho, some specialists excepted) an irrational decision, more a nice to have thing.

I still got a photo book from the 60s, written by Alexander Spoerl, a honest, knowledgeable and humourous man. In this book he says fast lenses are specialized stuff and no amateur needs that. That was the sober and honest view of the 60s, when people had no money for buying all kinda gimmicks and a camera was extremely expensive bought to last for ever.
Later in the 80s when the technical evolution exploded, we laughed about such oldfashioned sourpuss opinions, today I feel he wasn't THAT wrong ?😉

Fitzi

 

[terrafirmanada]

On a slightly different topic; I have the 40 cron, the 50 dr, and a summitar. I have found that I almost always use the 40, even though I do not have frames for it (I have an M2 and an M3). The 40 is a more versitile lense for me. I can squeeze the set-up into a pocket if I have to. The slightly reater DOF seems to pay off in point and shoot situations. And it seems as sharp to me (handheld) as the famed dr. On a tripod the dr clearly wins. The summitar is also compact, but every time I use it I have to fiddle with the barrel, and have missed many more shots than I have captured.
So, this situation has left me in a bit of a conundrum when thinking about my next lens (probably another 35, but possibly another 40). I have a j-12, which is quite good, but a pain in the ass to switch out, if I want to use a different focal length. If it were size alone the 35 cron would probably win out, but I am not completely sold on the summicron look- gasp. I prefer the Canon 2.8, or at least like it as much, and it has a real sexy build to boot. Of course I traded mine-duh!
I do spend alot of time inside shooting, and have thought it might be good to have a faster lense. The lux seems to be a good chioce. But I have also thought about the cv 1.7 or 50mm canon 1.4. With all of these I am concerned they might feel to bit, and never get used. On the other hand the 40 1.4 might be a good compromise, and still no framelines. I have read thousands of comments about all of these, and I think it is giong to come down to experience. The only one I have not had my hands on is the 1.7. It could give one a headache, until I remind myself that I really am taking snapshot most of the time anyway.

 

[furcafe]

Depending on the what StuartR's intention was, f/2 may have included too much background detail. Already, to my eyes, f/1.4 in this shot provides plenty of DoF as you can clearly see both the crabs in the basket & the man holding the crab.

Aside from the DoF issue, there is also the matter of being able to stop motion. If you're shooting a moving subject, say a person participating in an animated conversation, you often need @ least 1/60th sec. to stop that motion & only f/1.4 (or f/1) will get you there (depending on lighting & ISO, of course).

This photo is great, the background effects you describe ARE there ! The quality of the OOF details is impressing. But I doubt that it would really look less fine at f2 ?

Fitzi

 

[visiondr]

Great discussion.

I have gone the "small is beautiful" way. I think this is how I approach a lot of things in life (cars, women, salary... 😀 ). My preferred outfit is compact. So, I went for an MP and 50mm Elmar/2.8. That leaves my 50mm summicron in something of an goldilocks dilemma; too slow for low light work, too big (relatively) for a "pocket" camera. My next lens will likely be f/1.4 or 1.5 either 50mm or 35mm. I want the speed when I desire it, but need a camera I can literally carry everywhere as I can with the collapsable Elmar. Now that I have the Elmar, I have little use for the Summicron. I will have to go up for sale to help pay for the fast lens. Ultimately, want it both ways (don't we all).

Ron

 

[Andrew3511]

You can't argue with the 35mm Summilux for size - it's still tiny. The crab shot is wide open and though it's softish at the edges it is sharp where it matters. The delight for me getting this lens was being able to separate your subject from a distracting background just as I have always done in the past with the Olympus 50mm 1.4 and 85mm f2.0. I'm sorry, but if you are fussy about quality then films faster than 400ASA are out and I still much prefer the pictures I've taken with FP4+ to HP5 as the grain is a bit obtrusive on HP5. As for flash, well, I can't remember a single time when I have preferred a flash photo to one lit naturally. All is compromise, the Noctilux is too big and too expensive for me to consider but I have just got a 50mm chrome Summilux. Will report back on results.

 

[Andrew3511]

P.S. Geometrically you can work out that the OOF blur doubles between f2.8 and f1.4 as the pupil diameter determines the diameter of the circle of confusion in the image generated by the subject points. That's a lot and the effect of even a single stop change is very visible.

 

[BudGreen]

I'd say "speed" is simply the wrong word in this context. If at all the fast lenses are good for anything it is IMO for narrow DOF, but not for low light. Even in this case tho the much more compact f2 lens does that good enuff, who really needs the super narrow DOF of a f1,4 lens , not to speak of the f1,2 or f1,0 monsters ? Who uses f1,0 and for what to do what could not be done with a F2 lens ???

Here's one I took with a Noctilux handheld wide open with 400 speed film in very low light. Perhaps I could have gotten away with a 1.4, but at 2.0 the subject would have walked away by the time I dragged out the tripod. I could have used a faster film but that would have ruined the skin tones. I'm not arguing that the Noctilux is an optimal general purpose lens or that it's a good replacement for a compact medium-speed lens, but for me, fast lenses such as the Noctilux are fare from useless.

 

[StuartR]

Ok, here are two shots taken on an old Canon 50mm f/1.2L one was taken at f/1.2, and the other at f/2.5. They are both nice, but they ARE different. The 1.2 shot has an ethereal quality that is not present in the f/2.5 shot. Again, it's just a tool, and to imply that people who use it issues with their manhood is ridiculous. Of course, I am sure that there are people who buy the fastest biggest lenses to fulfill some void in their life, but the majority of people who use them either need or like the effect that they give. Is it that hard to understand? Different people have different preferences, it is as simple as that. Anyway, here are the two photos:
f/1.2

f/2.5

 

[Socke]

Stuart, you're right with different preferences 🙂

At first I couldn't see much difference and then I liked the stopped down picture better.