KM-25
Well-known
Really, says who?
I find my self fairly limited by my max usable of ISO 10,000 at 1.4 on my M10 and even ISO 20,000 at 1.4 in body stabilized on my Nikon Z6. There is some pretty amazing imagery to be made in that low of light with some wondurous color nuance to boot.
With the exception of my 105mm 1.4, fast glass is hardly about shallow DOF for me.
I’ll take all I can get thanks.
Brian Atherton
Well-known
Fast lenses, wides or not, have the added benefit of a brighter SLR viewfinder. Of course this isn’t the case with rangefinders and EVFs.
Even so, choice is good.
Even so, choice is good.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Try winter in the UK.
There hasn`t been any light for a few days now.
You need all the options you can get.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
KM-25
Well-known
I find the EVF of my Nikon Z6 to be like a night vision scope with a 1.4 lens, much brighter than a 2.8 lens.
willie_901
Veteran
Me too.
Nothing beats signal-to-noise ratio. In bright light we need every stop of dynamic range and in low light we need as much sensitivity as possible. For the former unavoidable photon noise dominates. Relative photon noise levels decrease as illuminance increases. For the latter camera noise sources (including banding) become significant.[1]
In photography surface area is a limiting factor for the signal. Both lens surface area and sensor area count. With purposeful exposure more surface area means more signal. Increasing surface area does not increase noise.
1. this article shows empirical plots of noise source contributions as a function of exposure for a Nikon D610 at ISO 100.
Dogman
Veteran
While it's true you can handhold at slower shutter speeds with wides, having a fast wide also allows faster shutter speeds that can prevent subject motion. Fast lenses are always nice to have. But they tend to get big and fat and heavy and a total pain to handle. I look at some of the super speed lenses with complete bewilderment as to why someone would want such unwieldy optics for standard daily use. Bokeh be damned, I wouldn't consider carrying such lenses.
Although it's not really that heavy, I tend to use my 23 f/1.4 Fuji lens less in favor of the 23 f/2. Both have excellent image quality but the f/2 model feels better in use and rides nicer in the bag than the f/1.4 model. I'm eagerly anticipating the release of the Fuji 16 f/2.8 next year. I've wanted a 24mm equivalent focal length for the longest but I was never willing to buy the 16mm f/1.4 Fuji due to it's size.
Although it's not really that heavy, I tend to use my 23 f/1.4 Fuji lens less in favor of the 23 f/2. Both have excellent image quality but the f/2 model feels better in use and rides nicer in the bag than the f/1.4 model. I'm eagerly anticipating the release of the Fuji 16 f/2.8 next year. I've wanted a 24mm equivalent focal length for the longest but I was never willing to buy the 16mm f/1.4 Fuji due to it's size.
Peter_S
Peter_S
Absolutely. Just shot an event (conference) for UNDP in a conference room with rather miserable light. The Ultron f/1.8 21mm came in very handy - anything less was just too slow. Close-up and cropped a little, the "bokeh" is nice and pleasant. Because of its speed and properties wide-open it is my favorite M-Mount lens.
Handheld speeds is one thin, people moving about another.
Handheld speeds is one thin, people moving about another.
narsuitus
Well-known
In the film age, I used the following fast wide-angle lenses:
35mm f/1.4 on Nikon and Leica 35mm cameras
24mm f/2 on Nikon 35mm camera
21mm f/1.4 on Leica 35mm camera
14mm f/2.8 on Nikon 35mm camera
In the digital age, I use the same fast wide-angle lenses on my Nikon and Leica digital cameras.
What would be the advantage in replacing my fast wide-angles with slower wide-angles?
Dogman
Veteran
Smaller size, lighter weight. That's about it.
giganova
Well-known
If one needs ISO 10,000 at f/1.4, maybe its time to shoot picture when there is light? 
Isn't the whole point of photography to paint with light, not to take pictures in the dark?
To me, fast aperture is great for shallow DOF. In that case you have to worry more about the lowest ISO setting of your digital camera, not the highest. I carry ND filters in my bag so I can take pictures at fast apertures and isolate the subject from the background even on sunny day.
Isn't the whole point of photography to paint with light, not to take pictures in the dark?To me, fast aperture is great for shallow DOF. In that case you have to worry more about the lowest ISO setting of your digital camera, not the highest. I carry ND filters in my bag so I can take pictures at fast apertures and isolate the subject from the background even on sunny day.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
I’d take an image at 1.4 ISO 1600 over a 2.8 ISO 6400 image any day. Maybe my 6d is too aged already, but there is IQ dropoff right around 1600-3200 IMHO for that particular sensor. I have really come to dislike digital noise, so the fast glass gives me ability for a cleaner image.
The argument that high ISO capability makes fast lenses unnecessary makes, IMO, a false alternative. One ability does not replace the other, and of course both may be utilized together as needed!
Here's one of the first shots I made with a new 24mm Summilux on an M240, wide open just to see what it would look like... bokeh not bad:
Here's one of the first shots I made with a new 24mm Summilux on an M240, wide open just to see what it would look like... bokeh not bad:
Dogman
Veteran
But image quality of high speed lenses usually improves considerably by closing down a stop or two from maximum while many slower lenses perform well wide open. It's a trade off in the end.
froyd
Veteran
I get your point, Billie. Some of my favorite lenses are 2-2.8 and even 3.5. However, I shoot with 1.4 and 1.8 glass because I'm a film user and I don't like pushed film, so I'm normally at ISO 400 and below.
Specifically, I love the Summaron, but 2.8 is borderline too slow at ISO400 with indoor available light, so for the time being I've moved on to faster lenses. When I'll make my move to digital, I'll happily pick the Summaron as my main 35 because at ISO 1600 I'll be able to shoot 1/60 2.8 indoor, which is all I need.
I like RFs for their tiny lenses, and fortunately there are some tiny rangefinder lenses even at fast speeds, but in general slower lenses are more compact.
Specifically, I love the Summaron, but 2.8 is borderline too slow at ISO400 with indoor available light, so for the time being I've moved on to faster lenses. When I'll make my move to digital, I'll happily pick the Summaron as my main 35 because at ISO 1600 I'll be able to shoot 1/60 2.8 indoor, which is all I need.
I like RFs for their tiny lenses, and fortunately there are some tiny rangefinder lenses even at fast speeds, but in general slower lenses are more compact.
willie_901
Veteran
Good point.
When an image is viewed it has system MTF50. Pixel density, optics, diffraction, raw file signal-to-noise ratio, rendered image noise filtering, JPEG compression, printer image processing algorithms, display screen characteristics and photo paper properties together determine the system MTF50.
So, both lens resolution and image signal-to-noise ratio partially determine the MTF50 for the final image. The worst case would be a lens design where wide-open resolution is intentionally compromised in order to minimize unavoidable sensor underexposure. The increase raw file SNR could be offset by a decrease in optical MTF50.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I use a 21mm lens a lot of the time on an APS-C format camera. It is easier to focus manually with an f/1.8 lens than with an f/4 lens when using a TTL focusing camera (EVF or SLR), particularly with a short focal length lens.
G
G
KM-25
Well-known
If one needs ISO 10,000 at f/1.4, maybe its time to shoot picture when there is light?
There is no such thing as completely dark and besides, one can see some amazing things in low light.
For example, how about two deer locking horns in my yard in the moonlight? I shot over 200 frames of this action two hours ago at 1/10th of a second at ISO 20,000 with a 50mm 1.8S on my Z6 and made it into a time-lapse movie, it's pretty incredible to watch in 4K.
I could have stopped the action better if this camera was producing this result as cleanly but at ISO 250,000.
I'll take all I can get....
Attachments
gavinlg
Veteran
Usually I am one of those who subscribes to the mantra that 'the dark should stay dark,' but wow. Gorgeous capture.
NickTrop
Veteran
When I read the title of this thread, I rolled my eyes thinking it was a request for recommendations for "fast wide primes". Uggh. Then I read the OP's comment above and said, "attaboy".
There was never a need for a fast "wide prime" in any era. But I guess the question is "what do you mean by wide and what do you mean by fast?". Camera companies 'll make "whatever" spec'd lens that will sell, like silly fisheye lenses (because that's not a cliched one trick pony). If enough suckahs want to pay thousands for a lens, and don't mind lugging a brick around they'll gladly oblige. And charge you for that privilege.
But a 24/2.8 isn't a bad lens to have if that's "fast enough" and "wide enough" because these days I've read people say that spec is neither (which provokes eye rolls...) Here's one. I have it. Good luck finding it. The venerable (and old) 24/2.8 Sigma Super Wide II. Got mine on eBay for $60 or so years ago on the big auction site. It's the rebadged Quantaray variant which is even cheaper and harder to procure. Photodo rates it higher (MTF) than the Nikon version. Autofocuses (if your camera has a focus motor -- think "D" not "G" series) and everything. It focuses closer than the Nikon too (Bills itself as a "macro lens". I don't know about that but it focuses pretty darn close...)
I picked up an ultrawide zoom a year or so ago when I was toying with the idea of doing some real estate work and also for landscapes. To me ("me") there's really only one sensible choice in this category -- the Tokina 17-35/f4 ATX. It's f4! It's slow! It "only" goes to 17mm, not 16 or 14! It's not "sharp in the corners" until f8! Well, yeah. It's also 1/3 the cost and 1/2 the weight of the other choices. You shoot these things at f8, f11 mounted on a tripod outdoors or with a speedlight indoors anyway. And the Tokina doesn't skimp on build quality. (They never do.) Don't use it much.
And who gets a WA lens for its "bokeh"? Who are these people? None of them have good "bokeh". I love reading reviews that criticize an optic of a 35mm or wider lens for its "nervous bokeh." I'll tell who must get "nervous" -- the optical engineers who design them when they read this crap. I'd be reaching for the cheap bourbon in a brown paper bag to quell my "nervousness" if I was them. They're wide angle lenses! You're not shooting headshots and portraits with these things, are you? I hope not. The whole point (just about) of them is for wide depth of focus, at least that's what I thought. Yes, I want to take lovely fun house mirror portraits with lovely watercolor-esque blurred out backgrounds. It's art! Make sure it has 25 rounded aperture blades -- perish the thought of angular bokeh balls. (First world problems, these angular bokeh balls...) And nothing slower than f1.2! I'm a "natural light"(tm) photographer (because I never learned how, when, why to use a speedlight...)