Fast wides in the digital age?

[Bille]

Is there still a point to fast wides in the digital age? Considering a) any wide lens is perfectly sharp stopped down, b) bokeh is poor at 28mm or less anyway, c) high ISO has become very usable with modern cameras.

What´s your opinion?

 

[Ted Striker]

Is there still a point to fast wides in the digital age? Considering a) any wide lens is perfectly sharp stopped down, b) bokeh is poor at 28mm or less anyway, c) high ISO has become very usable with modern cameras.

What´s your opinion?

You are incorrect. The bokeh on both the Canon 24mm f/1.4 and Nikon 24mm f/1.4 lenses is superb.

 

[Bille]

You are incorrect. The bokeh on both the Canon 24mm f/1.4 and Nikon 24mm f/1.4 lenses is superb.

Have to disagree. See https://kenrockwell.com/ryan/images/2010/2010-04/D3R_1366-600.jpg

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My M4-2 highest ISO is 3200, my M-E highest ISO is 2500.
Not all of us like you, we use cameras for many years, we are buying used old cameras and they say, many still use film.

 

[retinax]

I don't understand your point a). But I agree that with modern digital cameras, fast wides and essentially, all fast lenses, are now only about shallow DOF. Which can look good sometimes, but isn't the ultimate answer IMHO.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't understand your point a). But I agree that with modern digital cameras, fast wides and essentially, all fast lenses, are now only about shallow DOF. Which can look good sometimes, but isn't the ultimate answer IMHO.

With M43 your DOF isn't really shallow at f1.4.

 

[al1966]

With M43 your DOF isn't really shallow at f1.4.

I have to say it is one of the things I love about m43 is the greater apparent focus for a given aperture with regard to the angle of view. Personally I like using primes and sometimes the faster apertures are a bonus.

 

[Bille]

I don't understand your point a).

In other words: stopped down they all look the same.

 

[willie_901]

Illuminance, DOF and Lens Surface Area

Illuminance, DOF and Lens Surface Area

The utility for fast lenses has nothing to do with the medium.

A fast wide-angle lens is no more or less useful now than it was three decades ago.

Both digital and film media benefit from increasing illuminance. Both have similar DOF dependencies.

While the perceived image quality for images from digital media benefit from high signal-to-noise ratios, fast lenses are not a universal solution to working in low ambient light.

DOF

When you must stand in the same place, a wide-angle lens means more DOF compared to a lens with a narrower angle of view. But if you don't have to stand in the same place, a longer focal length can give the same DOF.

When you must stand in the same place and less DOF is desirable, lens speed is important.

Exposure

In low ambient light, using practical shutter times and, or apertures limits exposure.

The role of exposure is similar for both digital and analog media. More exposure means more illuminance. More illuminance means more information. More information reduces uncertainty.

In digital imaging the uncertainty comes from photon and electronic noise. With film it due to spatial uncertainty and increasing variations in emulsion optical density as film-dye granule size increases.

Larger lens glass surface areas increases the maximum possible light levels in both cases.

 

[stompyq]

I like my Sigma 24mm ART 1.4. Wish it was smaller. But subject isolation (when I want it) is excellent and it has only a few correctable faults

 

[retinax]

With M43 your DOF isn't really shallow at f1.4.

True, there's more of a point to be made for faster lenses for smaller sensors. They need the help in low light, the fast lenses smaller and maybe somewhat cheaper to make and shallow DOF is less of a concern (when it's not wanted).

At some point, for low light performance it becomes a toss, smaller sensor and faster lens or bigger sensor and slower lens. I suppose FF sensor has always been better for low light but we're now at a point where it's also cheaper, considering that used FF cameras a available at low prices now and they can be used with affordable old wide-angle lenses, whereas for small sensors, you're mostly stuck with buying expensive dedicated wide-angles for them.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . A fast wide-angle lens is no more or less useful now than it was three decades ago.. . . .

Not really. In the days when colour (in particular) meant shooting at low film speeds, a fast lens was a LOT more useful. Often essential, in fact. A 35 Summilux was my standard lens for decades. But then, I tend to take pictures rather than worrying about bokeh and artificially shallow DoF.

Out it this way: I had both 24 mm and 21 mm Summiluxes on loan for review. Yes, they were quite nice. But they weren't really as useful as the 35mm, simply because you can hand-hold the wider lenses for longer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ted Striker]

Have to disagree. See https://kenrockwell.com/ryan/images/2010/2010-04/D3R_1366-600.jpg

WOW! This sole image negates the greatness of the Nikon and Canon 24mm f/1.4 lenses? Are you serious?

WOW.

 

[vicrattlehead]

I don't use my Nikon 20mm f1.8 G for stills too much, but when we're shooting TV spots (my day job, with a Black Magic Ursa Mini 4.6k) having the ability to shoot wide open for max background blur in tight quarters (behind the lens) is really handy. This fast wide has saved the day a few times for me.

 

[newsgrunt]

...b) bokeh is poor at 28mm or less anyway, c) high ISO has become very usable with modern cameras.

What´s your opinion?

I'm loving the rendering of out of focus areas with my 24 Summilux. b/w, on film.

 

[BlackXList]

Absolutely.

On full frame, I can go up to 256,000 ISO and there are still places I shoot in where my 20mm 1.4 is just about getting enough light.

It's a ridiculous situation, but it's out there.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

True, there's more of a point to be made for faster lenses for smaller sensors. They need the help in low light, the fast lenses smaller and maybe somewhat cheaper to make and shallow DOF is less of a concern (when it's not wanted).

At some point, for low light performance it becomes a toss, smaller sensor and faster lens or bigger sensor and slower lens. I suppose FF sensor has always been better for low light but we're now at a point where it's also cheaper, considering that used FF cameras a available at low prices now and they can be used with affordable old wide-angle lenses, whereas for small sensors, you're mostly stuck with buying expensive dedicated wide-angles for them.

As for as I know M43 only recently got to somewhat usable ISO 12800. With this ISO, if it is low light and no interest of dragging shutter, then large apertures are still needed.

I'm not sure if I'll be impressed by most current croppers ISO12800, either.

Sony A7 III still hasn't got clean ISO 12800 as well.
25600 is bad already.
Only at 6400 it is more less OK.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7-iii-review/5

So, if we want clean image and/or fast shutter speed it is still large aperture under low light. This is what we have now. Darkest time of the year. Working fast wide allows to get clean images and still maintain enough DOF.

 

[Archlich]

Few people shoot for the bokeh quality. They shoot for the thin depth of field.

2 extra stops of light can be useful.

In most situations the lens is smaller than a full-fledged f/2.8 zoom.

That's it.

 

[raid]

I love using my 35mm 1.4 pre-asph summilux on my M9. Even wide open, this lens gives pastel colored images of the Gulf of Mexico and the white sand beaches at sunset time. It is a special match.

 

[jawarden]

Speed is good. If all else fails, speed is good.